Bush pushes for telco immunity.
Bush pushes for telco immunity.
In brief remarks this morning on the House’s proposed FISA legislation, President Bush indicated his opposition to the RESTORE Act. The New York Times reported: “The Bush administration, urged by the telecommunication industry, is pushing hard for Congress to include immunity for past actions in any package to protect them from a series of civil suits.” This morning, Bush delivered. He said any legislative fix “must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks.” Watch it:
The Restore Act does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies that cooperated with the administration’s warrantless surveillance. As Reason magazine’s Julian Sanchez has noted, “[I]f they’re immune from liability after the fact, then they have no motivation to do anything but comply [with the administration's demands].”
UPDATE: More from Broadband Reports.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Bush looks especially pouty and a-skeered. With the GOP Senate already splitting with the White House on CHIP, and with telcoms preparing docs that spill the beans on Bush’s illegal monitoring of US phone and internet traffic, no wonder.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pmGee, if Congress grant the telcos immunity for past actions, does that create a precedent that will make it impossible to throw GDumbya and Darth Cheney in jail?
I sure hope not!
October 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pmIf the Democrats bend to the Administration on this I will never vote for them again in my life.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pmWhat’s the matter GW666? Will it show that you were spying on political opponents, critics, news casters, protesters, liberals, dems, puppies, kittens and bunnies? And that these companies knew that it was illegal? I do so hope that you get what is coming to you GW666 and the companies that helped your illegal activities.
Buck Fush
October 10th, 2007 at 1:09 pmLet him veto the bill…go ahead. Sink the repukies even further into the swamp.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:11 pmIf Bush is pushing so hard for the immunity from prosecution, you have to know that these telcom companies have done something VERY illegal. If they haven’t done anything illegal, why push for retroactive immunity?
Hopefully Congress will hold firm on this. They have already caved on too many points, caving on this too will make them look like the spineless fools they really are.
I say let Bush veto the bill or the Republicans filibuster it. Then it will expire in 4 months and we will then be able to go after these people for breaking the law.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:12 pmhmmm, is he pushing for telco immunity? or is he really pushing for the blanket tin-pot third-world dictator immunity for him and all his cronies (er, “admdinistration officials) for all post-9/11 spying and other illegal activities that was in the original bill?
(my bet is he’s pushing for the latter)…
October 10th, 2007 at 1:13 pmLet’s review: if you’re in the military and you carry out illegal orders to torture and degrade Iraqi prisoners at Abu Garabe prison, you end up in prison. Check.
If you’re a large corporation and you carry out illegal orders to help the government illegally eavesdrop on Americans, you get immunity. Check.
That’s what happens when corporations have more political power than citizens.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:16 pmMore hiding. More obstruction. More immunity. You know — if the Bush administration has nothing to hide, why in the world do they always act so guilty?
I would welcome a few lawsuits. Because I’m sure all telecommunications companies involved were greatly coerced by the Darth Cheney machine, any competent lawyer will get them exonerated. But their defense will depend upon them getting the truth out. And that’s what Americans need to hear.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pmRetroactive immunity is just another way of granting pardon.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pmSo where are the trolls on this one? I thought they’d rush right over here to fight for the right to spy on Americans without a warrant.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pmCan someone with a legal background answer this for me? I was under the impression that if you break a law, regardless of the law being ammended after the fact, you are still guilty of breaking said law. Is there precedence for immunity being granted after the fact?
October 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pmNobody likes the telecoms.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pmGeorgie should be askeered of this train bearing down on his stalled jalopy…
“So where are the trolls on this one? I thought they’d rush right over here to fight for the right to spy on Americans without a warrant.”
They’re probably too busy cancelling their subscriptions to online kiddie porn sites to have noticed the story breaking …
October 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pmIf the telco execs wanted to step up to the bar to prove just how brave they were and committed to the defense of the nation, then they should be willing to accept jail time for having broken the law. That’s part of courage – the willingness to accept the negative aspects of the job. Let them he-man up for a real change.
Screw these gutless wonders who want the salary and the power and the position while being absolved of their incompetence and inhumanity. If they broke the law, they go to jail. Period. Same for Bush.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pm“Only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks.”
What utter BULLSH!T!! Bush thinks the American public comprises idiots of his caliber. News flash, Shrub: most of us can communicate effectively in our native tongue. We’re savvy enough to see the latest fraud you attempt to perpetrate here.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWelcome to 1984….
October 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pmComment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper — October 10, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
October 10th, 2007 at 1:23 pm————————–
Good point.
I just got a speeding ticket. I should also get immunity.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:25 pmThe real question to Bush about this should be:
Why should the Telcos NEED immunity, if they have DONE NOTHING WRONG?
If they have broken the law, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less is thumbing the nose at Rule of Law and the Constitution. ( which seems to be the new sport of the Republicans )
October 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pmWe’re savvy enough to see the latest fraud you attempt to perpetrate here.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pmComment by Red Pill — October 10, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
———————————-
Sadly, probably half of all Americans still buy into the fear that the Repukes spew.
Anyone aware of how the “pundits” feel about this?
October 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pmLet’s see what the telecoms have to say in court about what this criminal cabal told them they had to do…
October 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pmWhat utter BULLSH!T!! Bush thinks the American public comprises idiots of his caliber.
Comment by Red Pill — October 10, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Yeah – that segment is only 32% of the American public, if that.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:27 pmHey W, didn’t you ever learn, “Never let them see you sweat.” Well it looks like you’re sweating pretty good over this one.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pmYes, I’d like immunity for everything that I’ve ever done, will do, or even contemplating doing.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pmThanks Congress.
Bush must of course protect his corporate benefactors…
October 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pmWhat happens if Congress doesn’t pass this revised FISA bill? Won’t the bill passed in August expire 6 months from August (February 2008). What will happen?
October 10th, 2007 at 1:29 pmPelosi and Reid should go to the mat on this one, like they are doing on SCHIP. Make Senate Republicans climb into bed with telcos and for-profit health insurers, two interest groups that are very unpopular with Americans.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pmIf the telecoms get sued in civil court by individuals for invasion of privacy and lose, why don’t they just send the bill to the Bush family? After all, it was Bush who put them up to it. Poppy Bush has been paying for his son’s f*#k ups his entire life.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pmI’m sure that 32% also believes that if you make a face, it will stick that way. That anybody could hear that tortured language and interpret it as anything other than duplicitous is beyond me…thankfully, I might add…
October 10th, 2007 at 1:30 pmWhat happens if Congress doesn’t pass this revised FISA bill? Won’t the bill passed in August expire 6 months from August (February 2008). What will happen?
Comment by Coffins Draped with a Flag — October 10, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
The Constitution will go back into effect, at least until Congress passes the next boneheaded anti-rights legislation.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:32 pmIt is simply amazing that this guy not only thinks he’s above the law but he seems to be right. He and his cronies can walk all over the constitution like they own it and absolutely nothing happens to him.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:33 pmCan someone PLEASE give this guy a blowj-b so we can impeach him!
I am glad that I am an American
and that I am free
but I wish I were a little doggie
and W. was a tree. (:-D)
October 10th, 2007 at 1:34 pmIf the telco companies didn’t do anything wrong, why would they need immunity?
Isn’t that what the right wing of this country keeps telling us regarding the wire-tapping in the first place?
October 10th, 2007 at 1:36 pmFine. Give him the version he wants, with a piece of legislation tacked on that brings the troops home in 30 days.
Repeat this method for *everything* until the loser is out of office.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:37 pmBush again sides with big business. This just another one of countless times he has done this. Just protecting he buddies and screw everyone else. The man really donesn’t work for us. He works for his biggest campaign contributers. AT&T contributed $212,000 to his campaign in 2004.
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00008072&cycle=2004
October 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pmShouldn’t Bush be more worried about THIS (from the AP today):
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — The Saudi Arabian government will temporarily release 55 prisoners recently transferred from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and will give each of them about $2,600 to celebrate the upcoming Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, a newspaper reported Saturday.
Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz granted the temporary releases from detention centers in Saudi Arabia so the prisoners could spend time with their families during the holiday in mid-October, the Okaz newspaper reported.
They will return to police custody after the holiday and will be referred to Saudi courts at end of this month for upcoming trials, the paper said.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:52 pmFour letter word…
I like it.
October 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pmEh. Everyone knows that the Constitution is just a god-damned piece of paper.
Pass the matches.
/sarc off
October 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pmThis security protection, would that include allowing Osama bin Lauden to escape from Tora Bora and warning Al Qeada that we are watching their websites? And by the way, where is Osama bin Lauden?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:01 pmGovernment = Corporations = Media
There is no difference anymore. They are ALL above oversight and legal recourse.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:03 pmWhat happens if Congress doesn’t pass this revised FISA bill? Won’t the bill passed in August expire 6 months from August (February 2008). What will happen?
Comment by Coffins Draped with a Flag — October 10, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
The Constitution will go back into effect, at least until Congress passes the next boneheaded anti-rights legislation.
Comment by toasterhead
Phew…. thanks. That makes me feel better, for a while anyway.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThe way it normally works, prosecutors offer immunity to lower functionaries in exchange for testimony to help prosecute higher-ups.
Congress should not give the telecoms immunity unless and until they cooperate fully with investigations into the domestic wiretapping. I don’t think the multi-millionaire CEOs of these companies will be willing to go to jail to cover up for this president (they give him money to do their bidding, not the other way around).
Hopefully the Democrats will be smart enough not to give away immunity for nothing. But I wouldn’t count on it.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:12 pmLet’s review: if you’re in the military and you carry out illegal orders to torture and degrade Iraqi prisoners at Abu Garabe prison, you end up in prison. Check.
If you’re a large corporation and you carry out illegal orders to help the government illegally eavesdrop on Americans, you get immunity. Check.
That’s what happens when corporations have more political power than citizens.
Comment by Ret. Col. Jack Ripper
I think this is the most true succinct description of the broken democracy that we live in that I’ve read here.
This is the road that the Republicans would drive us down.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:14 pmGovernment = Corporations = Media
There is no difference anymore. They are ALL above oversight and legal recourse.
Comment by lefty
I agree. Voters sadly have very little power these days.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:16 pmCongress could/should break the RESTORE bill into small components, giving each a clever progressive name, and pass each one to send to Bush. The Democrats could justify this by stating they recognize that the President is Constitutionally prohibited from having a line-item veto but they want Bush to have his say on all the details. Further, one of the bills must specifically PROHIBIT immunity to the telecommunication companies. Make Bush have to sweat each vote and explain himself. Make the telecoms sweat and request an immunity-information exchange.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:24 pmHey, I though the Hayekian Loonatives were against the government getting involved in economic and business interests?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:29 pmThere is no difference anymore. They are ALL above oversight and legal recourse.
Comment by lefty
The thing that gets me is that they say government infringes on the freemarket and the first thing they do is look towards it for bailouts and corporate welfare and to the lobbysists for regualtion in their favor.
What a bunch of hypocrites!! They say the first amendment doesn’t apply to them because they are a private business, and well, if that is so, then they should not be able to raise money for campaigns, as they are not humans, but a corporation.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pmIf the repubs are for personal responsibility, why are they pushing all these laws that release folks from responsibility for their actions ?
October 10th, 2007 at 2:46 pmOf course, there is always the possibility of the bill titled:
Give Telcos immunity by ending the war in Iraq and Insuring all Americans
October 10th, 2007 at 2:50 pmWhat happens if Congress doesn’t pass this revised FISA bill? Won’t the bill passed in August expire 6 months from August (February 2008). What will happen?
Comment by Coffins Draped with a Flag — October 10, 2007 @ 1:29 pm
The Constitution will go back into effect, at least until Congress passes the next boneheaded anti-rights legislation.
Comment by toasterhead
Phew…. thanks. That makes me feel better, for a while anyway.
Comment by Coffins Draped with a Flag — October 10, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Toasterhead and Coffins – I wouldn’t “feel better” if I were you. The original FISA (which has actually been revised at least once since 9/11) is hardly what I would call a Constitutional measure. Unless you think secret courts and a radically modified and weakened Fourth Amendment is Constitutional.
October 10th, 2007 at 3:55 pmAnyone aware of how the “pundits†feel about this?
Comment by Tweedster
Pundits dont have feelings, they desire only ratings.
October 10th, 2007 at 4:00 pmHmmmm…the trolls are quite absent from this thread, too. Maybe they’ve worn out their talking points…?
October 10th, 2007 at 6:44 pm>Is there precedence for immunity being granted after the fact?
As much as I hate to say it, I beleive theres nothing in the constitution prohibiting making some illegal act retroactively legal. There is a prohibition against bills of attainder, but bills of attainder are, to my understanding, essentially things which makes someone a criminal for doing something which was legal when done, not vice versa.
So if congress were to give in and grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms, I suspect there is little that could be done in it.
although…
an interesting argument could be made that that the retroactive law deprived you of right to sue for past wrongdoing, and this effectively caused you to be deprived of property, this property being lawsuit in question. However, I am not at all sure what the caselaw is on whether a legal claim is considered “property” or not.
So the short answer, from someone whose just a law student, is that if congress gives these guys retroactive immunity, it will, at best, be a severly uphill battle from there..
October 11th, 2007 at 9:25 am