Seeking legal opinion: If the telephone companies do not get the retroactive immunity they want

[hisownpetard]

and were apparently guaranteed by Bushler, and if they subsequently get sued by citizens
whose privacy they invaded illegally, could they then turn around and sue Bush? Or the
government? And on what grounds would it be?

[monktonman]

1. Why do they need it anyway?

If the phone companies aren't doing anything illegal,
why do they need this protection?
Besides, how the hell am I going to sue a telecom
from my cage in Guantanamo?

[bryant69]

4. You're getting a cage? Wardens pet!

I'm pretty sure I'll end up in the pit.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TwilightGardener]

6. They DID do something possibly illegal--I'm not sure the wiretapping

they did will hold up in the future as legal. But the real beneficiaries of immunity is ChimpCo--if his program is found illegal through court cases against telecoms, then...he pushed illegal policies on them, and they will point the finger at him. Opens a big ugly can of worms against the adnministration, I think.

[hisownpetard]

9. Trouble for this administration? The thought of it makes me all warm and fuzzy. n/t

[havocmom]

2. And, if they didn't do anything wrong, why do they worry?

The fact that the DO worry is a good sign. Means the corporations aren't so sure America won't be restored and rule of law re-established in accordance with the Constitution.

[hisownpetard]

8. Judging from how adamant Bush is on getting retroactive immunity for them, it's obvious

to me that they violated the right to privacy of American citizens. I'm sure they were
strong-armed into it by Bush and his minions.

If that is so, then they deserve to be sued for everything they're worth.

I'm fervently hoping that they would have the right to turn around and sue Bush
for misrepresentation or for forcing them to do something illegal.

But it seems to me that, once again, BushCo. will get around this by using the terra excuse.

[hisownpetard]

10. Wouldn't that be refreshing? P.S. Go, Sox!!!!

[Ganja Ninja]

3. Probably not.

But to hell with them anyway. If they were an accomplice to one of Bush's long list of crimes they deserve to get sued. It will serve as an example in the future.

[hisownpetard]

11. Bush's tag line to Verizon: DO YOU FEAR ME NOW? nt

[Ganja Ninja]

15. LOL! Exactly. n/t

[hisownpetard]

16. Thanks! n/t

[backscatter712]

5. My amateur opinion, no.

Congress and the President have immunity to those sorts of lawsuits.

[hisownpetard]

13. That's what I feared. nt

[onenote]

7. no

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

12. The term is "Sovereign Immunity" The government cannot be sued unless it consents to be sued.

[hisownpetard]

14. Thank you for that info. And, of course, I have no doubt that Bush would consent to be sued

if it were for the good of the country. Just like he's going to resign,
for the same reason.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

17. The Constitution says no ex post facto laws shall be passed.

"Ex post facto" is Latin for retroactive laws.

But paraphrasing Nietzsche, 'What is the Constitution to Sons of God?'

The original quote is "What are laws to Sons of God?".

[hisownpetard]

18. Wow! So then, how can they even consider passing what Bush is requesting?

[MiniMe]

19. Nobody knows who is being wire tapped and who isn't.

So how can you prove your case?

[hisownpetard]

20. Subpoena power? n/t

[MiniMe]

21. Yeah, we see how well the subpeonas are working now

*co just ignores them

[hisownpetard]

24. And whatever happened to Condoleezzzzzzza's? Someone's sleeping on the job.

[BadgerLaw2010]

22. Short answer: Nope. Three layers of problems.

Even if the government and Bush didn't have immunity to suit, I don't see a valid claim here. What did the government actually *do* to the telecom companies that caused them injury?

Finally, you run into the issue of trying to sue someone over illegal activity that you were a party to. The courts, bluntly, don't recognize claims resulting from unlawful agreements unless there is some other incident that would be a tort or a contract claim (for example) that wasn't a result of the illegal agreement. I cannot sue you over me joining you in a conspiracy to smuggle drugs.

I could sue you over breach of contract in a real estate purchase agreement that we entered into that had nothing to do with the drug smuggling.

[hisownpetard]

23. Thanks for the explanation. nt