Telecoms provide immunity proposals to lawmakers

[marmar]

from ThinkProgress:



Telecoms provide immunity proposals to lawmakers.»

Politico reports that telecom companies have “presented congressional Democrats with a set of proposals on how to provide immunity to the businesses that participated in a controversial government electronic surveillance program.” House leaders have not yet accepted the companies’ proposals, and many lawmakers are still insisting that the telecoms be held responsible for participating in the administration’s wiretapping program.


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/08/telecoms-provide-immunity-proposals-to-lawmakers/

[liberal N proud]

1. Trying to save their asses

Unless there is full disclosure on who is responsible and ordered wiretapping, Congress should turn this down.
I want the one who ordered it from the regime and not some scapegoat.

[Selatius]

2. You give me immunity, you get a fat contribution for your re-election campaign.

Quid pro quo. Of course, it's all under the table.

[BadgerKid]

3. "The government told me to" is not a valid excuse

for violating civil rights.

[Supersedeas]

4. this is how lawbreakers cut deals in cigar smoke-filled rooms--sorry you don't have that

advantage

[FreepFryer]

5. As Rockefeller himself stated, they already ARE immune if shown to have acted 'in good faith'...

...which makes me wonder just why the telecoms are so concerned.

For my money, it is the Bush/Cheney administration, not the telecoms directly, that are the true forces pushing for immunity - in order to protect their Nixonian asses from prosecution after Bush and Cheney leave office. The spying began way before 9/11, as Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio testified. Bush and Cheney are vulnerable - indeed, almost completely exposed - in this scandal.

"Telecoms already have immunity under existing FISA law where they acted pursuant to written government certification or where they prove they acted in good faith (see 18 USC 2520 (d)). There is no reason that the federal courts presiding over these cases can't simply make that determination, as they do in countless other cases involving classified information.” – Senator David Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Greenwald, Glenn. “Unclaimed Territory.” Salon Magazine. January 24, 2008. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/24/rockefeller/index.html

[BadgerKid]

6. Seems like the game is to score a loophole,

in a newer law that would cover the non-FISA situations.

Basically Congress would have to be careful only to reapprove an already existing law :eyes:

Thanks for your link.

[Junkdrawer]

7. Remember the DC Madam? She published the list of her clients telephone numbers..

Investigators could only match one or two numbers (like Vitter). As for the rest, private listings and "no longer in service".

Guess who can lookup those old or private numbers.