Republicans push for phone company immunity

Republican politicians in the U.S. House of Representatives failed last month to persuade Democratic leaders to back a spy law rewrite that would immunize telecommunications companies that cooperated with allegedly illegal government spying. Now they're trying to force the issue.

On Wednesday, a number of Republican leaders, including Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.) and Peter King (R-N.Y.), began circulating what's known as a "discharge" petition, which they characterized as a "rare step." If they obtain 218 signatures from their colleagues, they say the Democratic leadership will be forced to schedule a vote on a version of the bill passed by the U.S. Senate in February that would likely wipe out pending lawsuits against AT&T and other phone companies accused of illegal cooperation with the National Security Agency.

"More than 66 days have passed since House Democrats allowed a key piece of terrorist surveillance legislation to expire--not because they had concerns with the bill, but because they were seemingly more concerned that not enough trial lawyers would be able to file enough expensive and frivolous lawsuits against U.S. telecom firms," Republican whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said in a statement.

Blunt was referring to the House's decision to let a temporary expansion of the spy law known as the Protect America Act, which Congress passed hurriedly last summer, lapse. The House did, however, go on to narrowly approve a rewrite of electronic surveillance law last month that lacked controversial legal protections for telecommunications companies that cooperated with allegedly illegal government spying.

Since then, the proposed revamp of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) hasn't gone anywhere, and the political back-and-forth has died down somewhat. Meanwhile, President Bush has threatened repeatedly to veto any measure without so-called "retroactive immunity" for phone companies. In the past, Republicans have argued that if the House Democrats called up their preferred bill, it would easily pass.

A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) dismissed the Republicans' petition as a "purely political move" and urged members not to sign it.

"Discussions on FISA are ongoing, and we hope to reach a compromise before Memorial Day," she told CNET News.com.

At a wide-ranging House hearing on Wednesday, FBI Director Robert Mueller again urged passage of a bill that includes immunity for phone companies, arguing that "uncertainty" among the carriers "affects our ability to get info as fast and as quickly as we would want." He admitted, however, that he was not aware of any wiretap requests being denied because of Congress' inaction.

[CBSTV]

Where is the outrage?

Why stop with the telephone companies? Who else would like <br />retroactive immunity for their crimes? Put your name on the list.

[tremorfireheart]

aww man

I did a search on this subject this afternoon. One source said that the fisa ammendment had been defeated at least as far as the immunity clause is concerned. teach me for not finding at least a couple of different sources saying the same thing. I sincerely hope that we do not start putting companies above the law when we say that even the president is accountable for his actions.

[R. U. Sirius]

GOP: Gone Over the Precipice

Immunity? This is outrageous. Since when is it okay to break the law and then have congress pass a law saying "oh it's okay we know you didn't mean it."<br /><br />This country has totally lost its moral direction.

[RoboSkier]

You're right, but not entirely

While it is not ok to break the law then gain congressional immunity, the question is which law did the phone companies break? If they had failed to comply with the president's order then they could have been tried with something similar to obstruction of justice. Now that we know that the president was breaking the law doesn't mean the phone companies knew that. Lets face it, if a law says Mr. Bush can wiretap a phone and he comes up to you and says "Put a wiretap on that phone", you're going to do it because that seems like the law. Now these companies are being sewed because they followed the law, but that law turned out to be illegal so they broke the original law that the later law overturned so regardless of what they did, they broke the law.<br /><br />That's why Republicans are pushing for immunity, in fact at least one version of the bill (perhaps not the one currently being debated) simply shifted the case from the phone companies to the Government since the Government was the one who screwed them over in the first place!!!<br /><br />So anyway, the idea is that the phone companies thought they were following one law when in fact they were breaking another. This is clearly the governments fault and Congress needs to take care of it. If this was about an individual and not a company who was put in this kind of double-bind, everyone would be screaming for Congress to step in.

[smlinde]

what did you expect...

&gt; This country has totally lost its moral direction.<br /><br />what did you expect with the religious right running things. we need less religion in government and more decency and sense. <br /><br />the christians are frothing at the mouth because the muslims did what they are trying so hard to do... completely dominate all government and the lives of the people. <br /><br />of course, look at how well that's working... dictatorships, mass murder, secret police, spying on citizens, non-freedom of the press, etc., etc. hhmmmm.... looking at that list maybe they aren't so far from getting what they here in the US.

[ccwilliams7]

I couldn't agree more. I know there were a few (one?) telephone companies that did not comply with the government. Can someone tell me which one(s)? Sprint, maybe? Since we obviously can't trust the government to uphold the law, the only recourse we have left is to sign up with the company that didn't roll over.

[bluemist9999]

So following the laws is frivilous?

If the telcos did nothing illegal, they have nothing to fear. If they did something illegal, like the rest of us, they should be answerable for what they did.<br /><br />Since you can't throw an entire company into prison, civil suits are the next best thing.<br /><br />If it does significantly financially damage the telcos, maybe the next time the government asks them to break the law, they won't do it.<br /><br />If the government wants to make certain types of surveillance legal, the law should be changed, in full public view, with full public consequences for those who support it.<br /><br />The more we break or ignore our own laws, the less we can ask any other country, or even our own citizens, to follow the law.<br /><br />Put simply, a law is only as good as its enforcement.

[pctec100]

It's about the election

If the phone companies broke the law then the White House broke the law.<br /><br />No immunity for the telco's means they can be compelled to testify. <br /><br />Want an October surprise? How about impeachment hearings that ultimately go no where because Bush's time is about up but do serve as a political tool to try to demonstrate the malfeasance of the current administration and the Congress members who supported their actions.

[chash360]

Who is sueing?

Who is it that claims they have been damaged by the actions? What is their proof?<br /><br />They broke the law and should be held accountable, they had every right not to comply with an illegal order, even from the president.<br /><br />But seriously, who has been so damaged by this law breaking, that it actually threatens AT&#38;T's bottomline? Why haven't we heard that story?<br /><br />Is there a huge lawsuit that truly threatens AT&#38;T? or is it that when such lawsuit gets underway there will be evidence of something much worse discovered, that really has nothing to do with the telco's actions at all.<br /><br />I can not imagine a individual civil lawsuit that would actually merit damages enough that would even cause the telco's to blink an eye. And if there is, we have not heard that story, have we?<br /><br />If AT&#38;T gave my phone records to the gov, and they did nothing more than look over them for international communications, even though my rights have been violated, could I even argue in court that they caused me even $1000 dollars mental anguish?<br /><br />I suspect GW is trying to hide something quite sinister, because the telco's could easily have dirt on him too......there really is no reason for immunity, unless something really sinster has already happened that the telco's know about and should be held partially accountable for, or they are planning to do something in the future with that immunity that is equally sinister.<br /><br />Can't the president pardon a crime thereby eliminating any damages fined, so why do they need immunity? <br /><br />(perhaps to keep what ever the real reason is a secret, because only immunity will prevent it from going to court and being discovered....)

[HiF|yer]

Telecoms committed criminal acts

And they do not get a get-out-of-jail-free ticket. GoPPigs seem to think that if their crooked executive, Bush, directs illegal actions it is as good as if King George directed his troops to invade American offices and steal their private information. Bush is not a king, he is an unelected fraud who has brought suffering on this country. No laws were rewritten by Bush edict to allow the telcoms to steal our info and do it again and again. <br /><br />It's time these chickens came home to roost. Let's hope the Dems have the cahones to stop the Repigliken attacks on our privacy and bring those companies to justice. Let's hope lots and lots of good lawyers get them all by the balls and squeeze real hard!