Immunity For Telcos

[phoenixx]

Bush administration proposes retroactive immunity for phone companies

[erik_kosberg]

Abuse of the Classification System

Neither the House Intelligence Committee nor the House Judiciary Committee has been shown the documents. [White House spokesman Tony] Fratto noted that a bill pending in the House contained no provision for immunity from lawsuits and suggested that unless that changed, the House committees would not see the documents. "If the committees say they have no interest in legislating on the issue of liability protection, we have no reason to accommodate them," he said.

In other words, there is no longer any real or even pretextual justification for denying the documents to the House--except that the Administration wishes to preserve their secrecy for use as leverage to secure immunity from wrongdoing.

Think about that for a second: The Administration is willing to let telecom officials and technicians in on these state secrets -- as well as members of Congress who are open to the possibility of cutting a deal with the Administration -- but refuses to allow even the House Intelligence committee to know what the nation's operational "law" of surveillance has been for the past six years. And the only reason for such "selective" classification is to secure political advantage in a negotiation over possible immunizing legislation.

[erik_kosberg]

AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up

"The president has not presented this truthfully," said Klein, a 62-year old retiree. "He said it was about a few people making calls to the Mideast. But I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything."

What Klein unearthed -- you can read it here -- points to a nearly unbounded surveillance program. Its very location in San Francisco suggests that the program was "massively domestic" in its focus, he said. "If they really meant what they say about only wanting international stuff, you wouldn't want it in San Francisco or Atlanta. You'd want to be closer to the border where the lines come in from the ocean so you pick up international calls. You only do it in San Francisco if you want domestic stuff. The location of this stuff contradicts their story."

[MrsNormanMaine[$]]

Why do I suspect that some of the first people they spied upon were Democratic congress people and party leaders?

MNM

[erik_kosberg]

The outcome is still in doubt but there's now a deal on how to go forward with voting.

[erik_kosberg]

Senate Votes to Give Retroactive Immunity for Telecoms

What a bunch of spineless cowards.

[realtraveller]

Did you really want to pay more for phone, cell and internet service? When corporations are sued or taxed, they raise their rates to cover the cost. There are enough taxes on my cell phone bills already, thank you.

[erik_kosberg]

realtraveller said

Did you really want to pay more for phone, cell and internet service? When corporations are sued or taxed, they raise their rates to cover the cost. There are enough taxes on my cell phone bills already, thank you.

Lamest argument ever?

[erik_kosberg]

Next up, the House of Representatives I've got a bad feeling about this. Will Pelosi be as ineffective/spineless as Reid was? How does an unpopular lame duck like Bush keep getting to undermine the rule of law and why do these cowards keep bending over to kiss his butt?

[realtraveller]

erik_kosberg said

Lamest argument ever?

So lame that you didn't answer it substantively.

[erik_kosberg]

Who cares if crimes were committed? Don't let courts get a chance to rule on it. Don't let it affect my bottom line.

If that's a valid argument, we might as well open prison gates. Those places are expensive and the cost for them comes in part out of my pocket.

[drmomentum[$]]

I'm outraged that these people were given retroactive immunity. Illegal means illegal!

Wait - we're talking about immigration, right?

[erik_kosberg]

The Brady Bunch, A Christmas Story, or The Andy Griffith Show? Which is it?

[brian_igo]

realtraveller said

Did you really want to pay more for phone, cell and internet service? When corporations are sued or taxed, they raise their rates to cover the cost. There are enough taxes on my cell phone bills already, thank you.

Wait, so they should be immune from the law because you phone bill will go up? As a customer (or a shareholder) shouldn't you be pissed at them for putting themselves in this position?

This liability exposure isn't something a trial lawyer pulled out of his ass and sold to a sympathetic jury. US code specifies civil penalties of up to $10,000 per occurrence.

Can someone tell me exactly when the Republican party and the conservative movement were hijacked by corporatists?

[rmthunter]

An update:

From The Gavel, Speaker Pelosi's blog.

The House has just passed the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3773, to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes, by a vote of 213-197-1. The revised House legislation to amend FISA grants new authorities for conducting electronic surveillance against foreign targets while preserving the requirement that the government obtain an individualized FISA court order, based on probable cause, when targeting Americans at home or abroad. The House bill also strongly enhances oversight of the Administration’s surveillance activities. Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.

From NYT

What Mr. Bush wants is to be able to listen to your international telephone calls and read your international e-mail whenever he wants, without a court being able to prevent it or judge the legality of his actions. . . .

Finally, Mr. Bush said it was vital to national security to give amnesty to any company that turned over data on Americans without a court order. The purpose of this amnesty is not to protect national secrets — that could be done during a trial — but to make sure that the full damage to Americans’ civil liberties is never revealed. Mr. Bush also objects to a provision that would create a committee to examine his warrantless spying program. . . .

The president will continue to claim the country is in grave danger over this issue, but it is not. The real danger is for Mr. Bush. A good law — like the House bill — would allow Americans to finally see the breathtaking extent of his lawless behavior.

Of course, NYT is one of those who has downplayed the lawless behavior, but better late than never.
One of my own posts, with this little gem gleaned from BooMan Tribune:

According to sources familiar with the events, Qwest's CEO at the time, Joe Nacchio, was deeply troubled by the NSA's assertion that Qwest didn't need a court order — or approval under FISA — to proceed. Adding to the tension, Qwest was unclear about who, exactly, would have access to its customers' information and how that information might be used.

Financial implications were also a concern, the sources said. Carriers that illegally divulge calling information can be subjected to heavy fines. The NSA was asking Qwest to turn over millions of records. The fines, in the aggregate, could have been substantial.

The NSA told Qwest that other government agencies, including the FBI, CIA and DEA, also might have access to the database, the sources said. As a matter of practice, the NSA regularly shares its information — known as "product" in intelligence circles — with other intelligence groups. Even so, Qwest's lawyers were troubled by the expansiveness of the NSA request, the sources said.

The NSA, which needed Qwest's participation to completely cover the country, pushed back hard.

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Please note that Qwest ultimately refused to go along and, strangely enough, Nacchio was investigated and indicted for insider trading. The company also lost out on a couple of government contracts. How odd.

brian_igo said

Can someone tell me exactly when the Republican party and the conservative movement were hijacked by corporatists?

Uh, Brian -- no one had to hijack anything -- for most of the last century the Republicans have been the party of business. What did you think that meant?

[rmthunter]

More on Qwest and illegal wiretaps (from Hullabaloo):

Joseph Nacchio was the CEO of Qwest Communications, and seven months before 9-11 (let me repeat, BEFORE 9-11), he and his company were asked to assist the US government in providing access to their communications networks without a warrant. Of all the telecoms, Nacchio and Qwest were the only ones to refuse. The government consequently pulled a bunch of their top-secret contracts and generally made it impossible for Qwest to do business. The stock dropped precipitously, and later federal prosecutors arrested Nacchio for insider trading, for having sold a significant amount of his holdings before the stock tanked. He claimed that he was actually trying to raise capital to exercise options and buy more stock, as he expected the government contracts to be renewed. This all went to trial and Nacchio was convicted last year.

But today, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, and ordered a new trial with a new judge, as the old one excluded evidence from an expert witness that would have validated Nacchio's claims. In a new trial, even more information about the Bush Administration's efforts to immediately conduct massive spying on American citizens upon the moment they entered office will come to light. The goal was total information awareness, an enormous drift net of data that could be used to any of a thousand pernicious ends. Among the evidence that could be provided are those secret contracts and communications on why they were cancelled, and when.

Telecom immunity is, as we've noted repeatedly, not about protecting the service providers. It's about protecting Bush and his accomplices, and it always has been. Can anyone sit there with a straight face and actually maintain that Bush is concerned about anyone's welfare but his own?