House votes 213-197 to reject retroactive telecom immunity

[techs]

http://www.news.com/8301-13578...4-38.html?tag=nefd.top

House votes 213-197 to reject retroactive telecom immunity

The U.S. House of Representatives on Friday narrowly approved an electronic surveillance expansion without immunization for any telecommunications companies that illegally opened their networks to intelligence agencies.

The 213-197 split, with most Democrats voting in favor of the bill (PDF) and most Republicans opposing it, hardly means that the political tussle over retroactive immunity is over. It now shifts to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, said he was "encouraged" to see the House vote.

But the primary obstacle remains President Bush, who has threatened a veto. The White House circulated a statement after the vote calling it a "a significant step backward in defending our country against terrorism" that was "not a serious effort to move the legislative process forward."



As far as I am concerned, telecoms that ILLEGALLY cooperated in the violation of my civil liberties, are TERRORIST organizations. I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Telecom execs who did this MUST GO TO JAIL. There is no greater crime than violating the Constitution in a systemic violation of our human rights.

 

[jpeyton]

:thumbsup: I hope this issue remains deadlocked until January when a Democratic White House won't veto it.

 

[nageov3t]

seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: loki8481
seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

If I rob a bank for a cop should another cop arrest me?

 

[Foxery]

You mean our government found its sense of reality for a day?

I thought Big Brother was always watching.

Score one for... citizens.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Nice effort, but even if it passes senate Bush already said he will veto it, and democrats won't have 2/3rd to override it.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nice effort, but even if it passes senate Bush already said he will veto it, and democrats won't have 2/3rd to override it.

They don't need to override anything. If they don't pass the bill then the teleco's don't get the immunity either.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Civil court, Telecoms would have to produce records of who got tapped. Isn't this all about the Bushites covering their a$$?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Nice effort, but even if it passes senate Bush already said he will veto it, and democrats won't have 2/3rd to override it.

More importantly, the Democrats said they won't concede on the issue of retroactive immunity and will just deadlock this issue until next January.

 

[Kadarin]

It's a step in the right direction.

 

[Harvey]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[Craig234]

The next time someone asks what the benefit of electing the democrats was - a question with a shorter than democrats would like, too - put this on the list. Great for them. Call yours and tell them so.

 

[imported_Baloo]

Originally posted by: loki8481
seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

That's not a fair analogy. Now if that cop would have told you to steal somebodies car, that would be a better analogy. As you can see, somebody other than you and the cop are victimized.


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
If you're evil and you know it, vote republican.
If you're evil and you know it, vote republican.
If you're evil this election, wanting more death and destruction,
if you're evil and you know it, vote republican.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: loki8481
seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

If I rob a bank for a cop should another cop arrest me?

At first thought this was a good response, but on second look I think more should be said on why the first analogy is terrible.

When a cop waves you through an intersection, *that's legal*. He has the power to do it, for the benefit of traffic and safety.

He DOES NOT have the right to stop and search your car without a warrant or other legal cover, for the public good. If he does so, he should be punished.

The Justice Department does not have the right to tell telcos they can ignore the law, and to even bribe/threaten/coerce them to do so, and the telcos are obligated to refuse.

If a police officer asked you to sneak into your neighbor's house every day when they're at work and look for illegal things, you are obligated to say 'no' and report him.

 

[1prophet]

All the government has to do is make an example of one and the rest will fall in place.

It?s been a long while, so let?s quickly review. USA Today reported over a year ago that the NSA had created a massive database with records of nearly every phone call made in the United States. Qwest did not cooperate with the program, but acknowledged that the NSA asked the company to turn over the records and pressured Qwest pretty hard.

The Rocky Mountain News picks up the story today, reporting that the NSA not only leaned on Qwest, but retaliated against the company for refusing the agency?s requests. (via Atrios)

The National Security Agency and other government agencies retaliated against Qwest because the Denver telco refused to go along with a phone spying program, documents released Wednesday suggest.

The documents indicate that likely would have been at the heart of former CEO Joe Nacchio?s so-called ?classified information? defense at his insider trading trial, had he been allowed to present it.

The secret contracts - worth hundreds of millions of dollars - made Nacchio optimistic about Qwest?s future, even as his staff was warning him the company might not make its numbers, Nacchio?s defense attorneys have maintained. But Nacchio didn?t present that argument at trial.

The previously-sealed documents appear to paint quite a story.


Nacchio planned to demonstrate at trial that he had a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, at NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Md., to discuss a $100 million project. According to the documents, another topic also was discussed at that meeting, one with which Nacchio refused to comply.

The topic itself is redacted each time it appears in the hundreds of pages of documents, but there is mention of Nacchio believing the request was both inappropriate and illegal, and repeatedly refusing to go along with it.

The NSA contract was awarded in July 2001 to companies other than Qwest.

USA Today reported in May 2006 that Qwest, unlike AT&T and Verizon, balked at helping the NSA track phone calling patterns that may have indicated terrorist organizational activities. Nacchio?s attorney, Herbert Stern, confirmed that Nacchio refused to turn over customer telephone records because he didn?t think the NSA program had legal standing.

In the documents, Nacchio also asserts Qwest was in line to build a $2 billion private government network called GovNet and do other government business, including a network between the U.S. and South America.

The documents maintain that Nacchio met with top government officials, including President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in 2000 and early 2001 to discuss how to protect the government?s communications network.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: loki8481
seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

telecoms have lawyers, myabe they should have gotten a second opinion

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: loki8481
seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

A more accurate analogy is if a cop gives you permission to cash a forged check and you do it, only to realize later that the D.A. is looking to prosecute you. Essentially the executive is speaking for the judicial, not the way checks and balances work and exactly why immunity should be denied.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: loki8481
seems kind of overboard.

they were told by the federal government, the body of government charged to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, that what they were doing was legal. if a cop waves me through a red traffic light, should another cop pull me over in the middle of the intersection?

If I rob a bank for a cop should another cop arrest me?

At first thought this was a good response, but on second look I think more should be said on why the first analogy is terrible.

When a cop waves you through an intersection, *that's legal*. He has the power to do it, for the benefit of traffic and safety.

He DOES NOT have the right to stop and search your car without a warrant or other legal cover, for the public good. If he does so, he should be punished.

The Justice Department does not have the right to tell telcos they can ignore the law, and to even bribe/threaten/coerce them to do so, and the telcos are obligated to refuse.

If a police officer asked you to sneak into your neighbor's house every day when they're at work and look for illegal things, you are obligated to say 'no' and report him.

:thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

This is a good start, and one of those moments when I'm proud to support the Democratic party, but I think if we REALLY want to make sure our freedoms stay intact, the telecom companies need to see that there are consequences to their disregard for the law. I know it will never happen with Bush in office, but what if the Obama Justice Department investigated and prosecuted the worst offender...say, AT&T. I mean, totally throw the book at them, put people in jail...just flat out END the company and sell off their assets.

It would never happen, and on some level I'm not sure it's a good idea...but I can't help but think it might help. The problem with even this step forward is that we're taking 20 steps back first. The government and the telecom companies broke the law and seriously violated our rights...and the best retaliation we've got is that we don't give them immunity for breaking the law? I guess they learned their lesson :roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is a good start, and one of those moments when I'm proud to support the Democratic party, but I think if we REALLY want to make sure our freedoms stay intact, the telecom companies need to see that there are consequences to their disregard for the law. I know it will never happen with Bush in office, but what if the Obama Justice Department investigated and prosecuted the worst offender...say, AT&T. I mean, totally throw the book at them, put people in jail...just flat out END the company and sell off their assets.

It would never happen, and on some level I'm not sure it's a good idea...but I can't help but think it might help. The problem with even this step forward is that we're taking 20 steps back first. The government and the telecom companies broke the law and seriously violated our rights...and the best retaliation we've got is that we don't give them immunity for breaking the law? I guess they learned their lesson :roll:

Well, we're putting them before a court. We are all pretty sure they sold us out to an illegal spying program, but they haven't been convicted of anything yet.

I'm very much for the house proposal, because if the telecoms honestly did operate within the law it would be horrible for them to be punished for trying to help out. I think that's pretty unlikely, but I'm all for giving them every opportunity to defend themselves before we blow them apart.

 

[Lemon law]

Where is the break out the whoopee whistles and declare total victory here? The telco's did not get immunity, but still an extension of a bad law was approved. So in that sense, neither side won.

And watch out for GWB&co., what they can't get in the front door will later quietly try to sneak in through any side or back door available. Nor will any telco CEO ever go to jail, the issue is can the companies these telco's head be sued for civil liabilities that could amount to billions of dollars? And such an issue would not be resolved until long after these CEO's have taken their golden parachutes and run, leaving the stockholders holding the bag.

Why punish the real culprit when we can punish the innocent? Why try to spy on terrorists who don't use the the communications means we monitor means we are only spying on our selves. Now that we understand these kinds of illogic, we are equipped to understand our President and congress.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Civil court, Telecoms would have to produce records of who got tapped. Isn't this all about the Bushites covering their a$$?

Since it's a "National Security" issue, the records would likely remain sealed. The Telcos can't declare it, but the President can.