Telecom Amnesty Opponents Back New Amendment

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."

I wish we could learn something useful from

France. The government there is afraid of its people. There was a recent slashdot story that illustrated how real lobbying in france is done by public, not corporations: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/03/2156204&from=rss [slashdot.org]

Pre-emptive Godwin

So I was browsing Wikipedia and came across the following definition for "fascism":

Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Hm. Committed nationalist militants working in collaboration with "traditional elites", such as large telcos.

Discuss.

On a side note

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.

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.

Re:On a side note

Can't we just make it so if their popularity goes below a certain amount that an ejection seat in congress launches them somewhere out over the Atlantic?

Re:On a side note

Can't we just make it so if their popularity goes below a certain amount that an ejection seat in congress launches them somewhere out over the Atlantic?

Well as soon as that happened, in the very next poll everyone would express disapproval of their representatives, not because they actually disapproved but simply to see the spectacle of a few hundred politicians launched out of the capitol into the ocean.

The next batch of politicians that are elected would, too, find themselves immediately disapproved of and launched into the ocean.

Soon, due to the power vacuum, it would be necessary to hold elections every day, as on the start of the next day they'd all be launched into the ocean. Crowds would form around the Capitol Building and it would be D.C.'s top tourist attraction.

Pretty quickly the Capitol Building would become known as the Politician Suicide Booth, and the country would soon be rid of all politicians crazy enough to actually seek election, and the seats would remain empty.

So yeah, this is pretty much the perfect idea. We can call it the Linzeal Solution if you want.

Re:On a side note

I advocate mid-term votes on each of your congresscritters, with ballots such as that below (for each):

I think congressperson X:

1. Should be given a 20% raise.
2. Is doing fine as is.
3. Should be given a 20% pay cut.
4. Should be given a 20% pay cut and disallowed from running for re-election.
5. Should be taken out back and shot.

Get the people really involved!

Cowards, or do they really believe

The standard narrative for Dem caving is that they fear for their electability or whatever. It's also possible that they just believe what they vote for. [openleft.com]

If Immunity Passes

Then the government can tell the telecoms to destroy all documents relating to this. The telecoms can tell any future investigators that those records were destroyed, please refer to the current administration. Who have probably since moved to Dubai.

FISA isn't that important

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:FISA isn't that important

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.

Obamamania not so loud now, huh?

I think this amnesty bill has done more to show Barack Obama's TRUE colors than any other vote in his career.
.
"A Vote for Change" my ass.

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

The government isn't above the law. Just because you did something illegal at the request of our government doesn't make it ok.

They should be prosecuted (along with Bush and crooks) to the fullest extent of the law.

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

In fact, if "the government" -- or to put it more accurately, one or more government employees -- asks you to break the law, it's arguably your civic duty to report that government employee.

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:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

Just because you did something illegal at the request of our government doesn't make it ok.

Actually, in this case it does. The law has always stated that the telecoms and their agents had a complete defense [cornell.edu] in any civil or criminal actions resulting from any law if the government or a law enforcement agency/officer presented the telecoms with documentation claiming their acts were legal. The FISA AG authorizations would have provided that independent of the AG's willingness to follow through on any other aspect of the law to keep it legal or not.

Of course, if the government didn't present the authority to do such taps to the telecoms, then they aren't covered. However, the current claim is that they would be but Bush classified the documents they need to prove the effect of the law which means they would be committing a felony if they defended their actions with the defenses provided by law. This has never really been about making the telecoms pay either. It has always been about gathering evidence on the administration which sort of seems like picking on the retarded neighbor kid in order to force his parents out of the house so someone else can rob them. Or at least that's how I see it.

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

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

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.

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

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."

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

That demand didn't stop Qwest from telling them to go fuck themselves [nytimes.com]. Being a pansy is hardly an excuse for breaking the law on a massive scale.

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

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

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

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.

Re:Blame the telecoms for government-forced demand

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.

What is the UN?

The UN is nothing but the sum of its members.
And the US have been largely responsible for castrating it. Look at the use of veto in the UNSC in the past 30 years. Even USSR did not fuck it up that much.

Re:Hum interesting

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:Hum interesting

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.