If the telecoms and the pretzeldent were acting legally..why do they need immunity?

[truebrit71]

KO posed that question tonight...

[liberalmuse]

1. AT&T and Verizon will never get my business.

I can't believe they were given immunity. There isn't any justice in America.

[Me.]

2. 'Zactly My Question

And if they were spying on us 6 mo. before 9/11 they either knew about the terrorists and didn't stop it, or they didn't know about the terrorism to come and their premise was a sham

[Frustratedlady]

3. Don't be logical....it messes up the process.

Have they let them off the hook? I'm beyond being shocked anymore.

[NoUsername]

4. Maybe some people didn't want to risk the possibility of a lawsuit.

In fact, Nancy Pelosi's most recent financial disclosure statement shows just how careful Paul Pelosi has been in his investment decisions. Because the federal statements require a politician to give only a range of value for investments, they show the Pelosis' net worth was $14.7 million to $55 million in 2005, ranking them ninth in the House and 17th in the entire Congress.

The bulk of the Pelosis' money comes from investments in stocks and real estate. Operating through Financial Leasing Services, his San Francisco investment firm, Paul Pelosi owns stock in companies including Microsoft, AT&T, Cisco Systems, Disney, Johnson & Johnson and a variety of tech stocks.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/01/MNG83NB37E1.DTL

Why take the chance of potentially losing money when you can just pass a law instead to ensure that your investment will remain safe?

As always, follow the money.

[NanceGreggs]

5. Exactamundo!

Whatever happened to: "If you've got nothing to hide, heh, heh, you've got nothing to fear."

[Bitwit1234]

6. This is exactly what they say to the public

If you are not doing anything illegal why not let the government monitor your phone calls. So why don't they practice what they preach.

[Rex]

7. For the secrets in Cheney's 'mansized' safe.

They made a deal when Foxnews decided to call the 2000 election for Bush. The rest is rehistory.

[Igel]

8. They weren't acting legally.

However, from what the dems in Congress have said, the telecom lawyers have said, and the * administration have said (all three on one side, mind you), they were acting in good faith and *thought* they were acting legally.

Then again, apparently there was a FISA judge in January '07 who also thought they were acting legally. It took a second FISA court meeting, presumably with more judges, to decide--after years of this--that it was illegal.

Now, ex post facto application of criminal law is clearly unconstitutional. Had Congress said in spring '07 that what the telecoms did in 2003 was illegal, there'd be no question. Even if there's a later penalty associated with what the telecoms did.

In this case, there's no provision for ruling out ex post facto application. By issuing a decision in spring '07, the court said the law had always clearly said what the court in 1/07 had said it didn't say. Such is the power of legal decisions and the reason for trying to be very cautious where the law isn't settled while taking to task any judge that unsettles the law. If the law's "desettled" and you don't like the consequences--in this case, revising official judgements for something like 5 years of history--the best you can do is ponder the court decision and rewrite the law so that the law said something like what the judge in 1/07 said it did, not what the judges in spring '07 said it had always said. Clear? If not, that's something at least.

However, there's another issue. What's the penalty for violating this law? Criminally, none that I'm aware of. After all, I think the normal response would be to disallow the evidence--"warrants" are usually involved in arrest and in evidenciary rules, not in intelligence matters (hence part of the problem). But in terms of civil penalty in a state court, probably quite a bit.

[alittlelark]

9. Why should we worry about wiretapping

IF WE'VE DONE NOTHING WRONG.


VERY slippery slope.



The fact that they are seeking immunity is damning.

But still, a very slippery slope.