Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment 250
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "With the telecoms all but assured of amnesty for their participation in illegal spying, there's now one last amendment in their way — the Bingaman amendment. Because President Bush is unwilling to sign FISA reform without immunity, and because Blue Dog Democrats fear for their reelection unless FISA reform as a whole passes, most compromise positions are already off the table. So the new amendment seeks to sidestep part of the problem by moving it to a later date. It would put the court cases and amnesty provision on hold until a report is completed detailing exactly what happened, allowing Congress to consider denying amnesty at that time. There's an EFF campaign to support both this and the Dodd-Feingold amendment, which would strip immunity altogether."
Hum interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
Blame the telecoms for government-forced demands? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
They should be prosecuted (along with Bush and crooks) to the fullest extent of the law.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Law,Transparency and Accountability out the win (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not to say the US couldn't use a lot more transparency and accountability, but I hardly think the UN should be dictating the gold standard to anybody.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
The government did only request they comply. Some companies refused.
But even if the government ordered them to, so what?
If a policeman ordered you to rob a bank, do you think you deserve amnesty? It's against the law no matter who tells you to do it.
Devil's side. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office. Nothing gets in the way of principle like rational self-interest.
I agree. However, if someone knows that they'll have only one term, what's to prevent them from having a 'slash and burn mentality'?
Politician thinking: ''Hey, I'm here for only one term. What not vote for FISA bill because I'm for it and I believe that 'if you don't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.' And besides, regarding the folks who wrote in against this, fuck'em! What are they going to do? Not vote for me next time?!? Hahahahahah!''
Politicians: Damn them! Damn them all to hell!
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they should be brought to justice.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted, that would need to be handled delicately, to say the least. But if someone were to come to me and say, "I need your help to rob a bank", I'd probably give the local police a heads-up. Why should it matter if they flashed a badge while making that request? (Except in that case I might give the FBI the heads-up instead.)
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
Re:On a side note (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why we need to limit Congress to one term in each office.
Oh please! What has term limits done for the presidency? You only need to look as far as Mexico to see what a worthless endeavor it would be. It does nothing about removing the party from power. You limit their terms with your vote. If you won't vote them out, then you're not seeing the real problem.
Recourse from whom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who should these victims be getting recourse from? The government officials who made the illegitimate requests? Or the companies that perhaps ought to have stood up for their customers, but were scared of retaliation by the government?
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
Then the telcos don't have anything to worry about when they plead their case in front of a court of law.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity. Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
No, the Government is not above the law. Please do not stop in the Bush droppings.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes, we get it. The people who actually commit the crime are the victims here, just like those poor, poor mafia members paid to break legs and toss people in the lake with concrete shoes. They're just trying to make a living, can't we all cut them a break?!
If it was demanded by the government
Qwest refused and nobody went to jail. There was no "demand," just the government giving companies money to perform illegal acts.
FISA isn't that important (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
This leads us to one of two possibilities:
1) Bush feels that protecting the telecoms are more important than protecting the country, since he is willing to let us go without a revised FISA bill unless we give the telecoms what thy want.
2) The FISA bill is not actually that important for national security, but is more or less a trojan horse for covering their collective asses.
I suppose both are possible, and not mutually exclusive, but faced with this choice I find it far to unsettling that Bush would literally put our whole country at risk (as he himself claims FISA is that important) for the sake of a few dozen CEOs.
=Smidge=
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Like I said, if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity.
I thought we discussed this the last ten times this came up? Complying with an illegal order is itself an illegal act. It doesn't matter if you are a soldier or operating a telecom. If your CO orders you to commit rape, and you do it, you are committing an illegal act. If your government orders to to execute an illegal wiretap, and you do it, you are committing an illegal act. See how that works?
The only way this is NOT true is if they actually pass a law that says you can be wiretapped without a warrant; THEN and ONLY THEN is it legal. It might be argued that some laws already passed give the government the right to tap any and all communications during an undeclared state of emergency or something; that is a valid legal defense if it turns out to be true. But NOTHING repeat NOTHING excuses complying with an illegal order. Well, except congressional action of course...
Of course the government is above the law, but companies should not be punished for government crimes.
WHAT?
WHAT?!>?! (emphasis, you know)
The government is most certainly not above the law. YOU ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Or more to the point, it is made up of individuals who can be hauled into court.
Above the law? What the hell is wrong with you?
Were you paid to say this, or are you just brainwashed?
I say this to people occasionally, but people like you really ARE the problem with America today. "The government did it, so it must be okay!" Are you REALLY that deluded?
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember that this isn't about rational or legal order of events. It is about getting shorty. You see, when the president classified everything about the NSA program that wasn't already classified, the attention went to the telecoms because existing law gave the telecoms immunity if they were presented with legal documents. They expected that the telecoms would violate a completely unrelated law about disclosing national security secretes and classified information. But as it turns out, they are more scared of the prison time and won't do it.
This is more or less the equivalent of "Give me the information or I kill your girlfriend" in thriller movies. They are attempting to punish a seemingly innocent associate in order to put pressure on the administration so the documents would get opened up and they can get dirt on him. Now that a card has been played giving the telecoms immunity which makes the effort so far pointless, there is an uproar over it caused by half truths and purposefully misleading information. Entrapment doesn't matter to these people, they already passed on their morals in pursuit for political expectations. It is more or less a culture of hate that has taken the wheel of the bus, driving to some unobtainable destination. Reality doesn't matter unless it can fit within their neo-political world view. Reason and rational thought is out the window on this.
Re:Hum interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
I firmly believe immunity for ANYONE is too much
Really? So you'd willingly testify in front of a Grand Jury without it? Is giving immunity to Al Capone's bean-counter (who only committed white-collar crimes) in exchange for his testimony to convict Capone of murder a bad idea? Immunity as a concept has been around in our legal system for quite some time and has nothing to do with retroactive immunity for the telecoms.
The idea that immunity makes whistleblowing more likely is a bunch of bullshit and always has been. You shouldnt need immunity if you did nothing wrong
I guess you've never heard of being scapegoated?
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Insightful)
If the company complies with the government to do something illegal wether the government is ordering it or just requesting it doesn't matter, they should still be punished to the full extent of the law.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true. Google "Nacchio" "Qwest" and "jail." The fact is that Quest's refusal made Nacchio a target for political prosecution at the ham-hands of Bush/Gonzoles' Do"J."
Perhaps not so loud... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
... but looking at the other votes in his career [aclu.org] compared to the alternative [aclu.org] would still be wise.
Yes, its the ACLU and everyone seems to hate them... just #include <spinfilter.h> when reading the links.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree and I think a lot of people feel the same way, if you do then mod parent up please.
I think most Americans have no idea about the level illegality that our government has risen to; not just this current administration, (though they are by far the most egregious) - this telecom immunity thing is bad enough - but if you consider that is going on in the light of day now, just imagine all of the things that the general public isn;t aware of - there are many things you can find out about if you are a good researcher or read books that have been thoroughly researched (Jim Marrs, Greg Palast are two authors I highly recommend as their credibility is excellent) - if you are interested in the Bush dynasty there are many books but anything by Webster Tarpley is great, you can get his unauthorized biography of George Bush senior fo free on the web (as it has been out of print or supressed for a while now) with this link: http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm [tarpley.net].
I am not sure if our republic is past the point of no return, but I fear that. I think people are putting a lot of hope into Obama, and I agree that he seems genuine, but the man is a politican and has taken votes or actions that would seem to be contrary to his stated message of change - like supporting telecom immunity. I fear that if he did get into office and really did try to make some real changes his life would be in danger; but what seems most likely s that he will get into office and be sort of like Clinton - not willing or able to live up to 10% of what he promised.
I thought that the people who really could have made some changes are people like Ron Paul and Mike Gravel - Richardson wasn't bad either - but until the issue with the media being a corporate/governmental mouthpiece is resolved, I am afraid that there may never be real change here.
Granting immunity for illegal, unconstitutional acts after the fact is not only wrong and unconsitutional, it sets a HORRIBLY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT - and this is one aspect people are not considering. IF this precedent is set - then government can basically make anything legal after the fact. If this sort of thing continues, eventually they won't even need to that to do what they like.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Insightful)
Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?
selectively, my friend; selectively.
I know that's not the answer you were looking for, but its an honest one. ;(
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course. Any action forced at gunpoint - or other threat of punishment from a force-wielding body - should be granted amnesty.
If people do not choose to do the right thing, then we will only have the wrong thing.
You have a responsibility to do the right thing. It comes with the rights. What are the rights? The rights to spend the big gobs of cash that you get for ordering around the minimum wage peons below you.
"He told me to do it" is not an excuse. By the way, if a cop tells you to do something illegal, that is entrapment, and it is itself an illegal act. However, it is not necessarily a defense. You need to have some basic sanity checks - hence, sanity. If a cop tells you to do something that is obviously illegal you should know that it is wrong. And in this particular example ("rob a bank") there is extra-special no excuse because you're in a bank and it's easy to throw the apparatus of the state at them.
Do you really believe the things you're saying, or are you just stirring up shit?
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
...if it was a request then I could understand not granting immunity. If it was demanded by the government, then it would be justifiable to grant them immunity.
"I was just following orders" is not a valid defense.
Of course the government is above the law...
I hope to god that was sarcasm.
Re:FISA isn't that important (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is unwilling to sign FISA without telecom immunity and has actually pocket-vetoed the same bill before because it lacked that immunity.
And yet Bush and most Republicans cry out that FISA is absolutely vital to protecting our country.
Yeah, that's Bush's basic stick-and-another-stick method of forcing Congressional capitulation.
First, make it a huge patriotism/national security/support our troops issue. Congressional Democrats have to pass the bill, or it will mean that they are unpatriotic/pro-terrorist/anti-troops, and oh noes there's an election cycle coming up!
Second, make the side-issue that Bush wants a requirement in order to avoid his veto. Democrats can't get past the veto, so in order to pass the bill that they must pass in order to not be pro-terrorist, they have to cave on the side-issue.
The sad part is that all they have to do to get around this farcical "This bill is vital to the country! But I'll veto it without this unnecessary addendum..." bullshit is simply stand up to it. All they have to do is say "Yes, this bill IS vital to the country, but we will not pass it with the addendum, and thus your veto is hurting the country!" All it would take is a little spine, and the shoe would be on the other foot. They could end the Iraq war any time they wanted simply by refusing to pass a funding bill that didn't include timetables for withdrawal. Let Bush veto it. No funding, no war, the troops come home, and the majority of Americans are happier.
The even sadder part is that the only thing lower that Bush's approval ratings are those of the newly elected Democrats, so you'd think they'd have realized that we want them to do this and are pissed with them for not doing it. They keep caving in before lame "Eat this turd sandwich or you're not a patriot!" trick, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the people who voted them in don't think that way. Stop eating turd sandwiches! It's disgusting, not patriotic!
Not that I'm in any way convinced that it is a universal lack of spine that's causing this behavior; I'm not sure they really don't like the taste and their reluctance isn't just an act. Cowardice is competing with greed, corruption, lack of scruples, and other common political vices as possible explanations that probably vary from seat to seat.
Thank God for people like Feingold, though, for demonstrating what a principled politician looks like.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case with the telecoms, the current law and the law at the time of the incidents gave the telecoms a complete defense against any civil or criminal prosecution resulting under any law if the government presented them with legal looking authorization.
If everything they did was legal at the time, then why such an intense need to make it retroactively legal now? Let them defend themselves in court.
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
But again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are ordered to do something illegal in the military, you are not held responsible.
BULLSHIT! The Nuremberg trials established that "I was only following orders" is not an excuse. If americans don't accept that, well, tough.
Re:Hum interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes immunity is simply recognition that any illegal actions the whistleblower took were under duress and so shouldn't be prosecuted. It's also a handy way to prevent well connected people who wish he had kept quiet from abusing the prosecutor's office to exact revenge.
Finally, it weakens the strategy of slowly leading people (such as the whistleblower) into a position where they are no longer able to blow the whistle due to peripheral involvement in serious crimes (or even just the perception of it).
For example, suppose I'm the crime boss and I need to recruit people who will keep quiet. I hire you for a seemingly legal job that you perform adequately for a year (for example, warehouse manager). What you didn't know is that for a year you've been putting your name on invoices for illegal goods and placing phone calls to hardened criminals. One day, you put it all together.
At that point, YOU know you didn't realize what was happening, but I'll make you acutely aware of how bad it might look to a prosecutor. That won't be too hard, it does look bad. I may even deliberately commit a crime in your presence (or have a subordinate do it) making sure there is plenty of evidence of your involvement (but little to show it was unwilling).
You might even go along for a bit, especially after the comment "that's a nice family you have there. I'd be a shame if anything happened to them".
Granting you immunity in exchange for testimony would be a huge load off your mind. If you know immunity for whistleblowers is customary, it encourages you to come forward rather than just disappear and hope never to hear about any of it again.
Most cases of whistleblowing involve white collar crime rather than Mafia style operations, but there are similar principles involved. When an Enron style crime happens, there's a lot of accountants involved who didn't have enough of the big picture to know immediately that a crime was taking place, but their name will appear uncomfortably frequently.
Re:Recourse from whom? (Score:2, Insightful)
Both, actually. The telcos should have to answer for what they did. If the answer is 'here are the documents showing the requests the executive branch made', then they can have a measure of amnesty, and we go after the executive branch, instead.
Of course, this would all be a lot easier if the legislative branch weren't so busy bowing and scrapping before the executive, themselves. With the new laws, the one ally the people had (i.e., an already split judicial branch) will be permanently barred from taking the administration to task for this; all we'll have left is a report from congress...
Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand (Score:3, Insightful)
The telecoms are private companies. The government has no right to "order" private citizens to do anything against their will without due process of law (read: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT).
The government didn't do this legally, the telecoms' legal departments knew damn well, and so did their corporate officers.
They willingly engaged in criminal conspiracy against the American populace, and the only way to make them think twice before sleeping with sugar-daddy government is to hit them where they'll notice it: their pocketbooks.
Republicans argue it will discourage cooperation with law enforcement, and that's the whole god damned point. They deal with OUR private information, and should give that up when the government pries it from their cold, dead fingers!