Comments on: House Democrats refuse to delete pending spy lawsuits

New bill would not shield phone and Internet companies from lawsuits alleging illegal cooperation with the Feds. It's already under attack from the White House.

[fafafooey]

Lawyers give loads of $$$ to the Democrats

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=K01

2008: $72 million to Democrats vs $22 million to GOP - 77% vs 23%

That's why the DemocRats support the lawsuits.

[R. U. Sirius]

Okay troll

Welcome to the world wide web. This is a place that is far different from your Fox News channel.

Geez.

[michael_o]

Why should they care what Bush wants?

Bush and the Republi-cant's are done for; it'll probably be a decade or two before people are stupid enough to vote them into office again, if a new party doesn't emerge first to replace them. Ignore Bush; let him veto away. Just blow him off for another ten months or so then a real Justice department can move on past hookers and get busy investigating and indicting him.

[umbrae]

Kudos to the House!

Telcos should have nothing to fear if they followed the law, and if they didn't then they should be open to lawsuits. This is the only avenue consumers have to fight big business. Its not like we have enough choice to just go to another provider since the government has allowed Ma-Bell to recombine.

[vhac]

immunity for phone companies

I believe in giving immunity for phone companies. After all, the Bush administration is the most self-righteous ever in the history of the US. Everything they do is self-righteous. Come on now, the companies did what the administration feeds them. And the administration can't be wrong. You all could sue the administration but all they will tell you is that they have EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE and you can go *f yourself* (borrow from D*ck Cheney).
I would also advocate for spying on Americans without a warrant. Spy on every Americans is good. That is the only way to prevent extremists like Tim McVeigh, environmental terrorists, etc.
You want to feel safe? Give up all your privacy and let the adminsitration spy on you. So they can protect you better. Wait wait, wouldn't that become more like China? yes, maybe, but safe first right?

[Dr_Zinj]

Justice Dept needs to get seriously body checked.

Under the auspices of King George the Bush and tricky Dicky Cheney, the Justice Department has been given free rein to apply abusive legal pressure on the telecoms in order to get them to roll over and cough on demand.

The real targets of the lawsuit should be the heads of the Justice Department, the President and Vice. Oh yeah, a lawsuit against the President has to be in the form of impeachment proceedings if I remember correctly.

[edomejn]

George Bush cares more about phone companies than threats to Americans

George Bush has once again shown that his allegiance to corporate
america knows no bounds as he once again puts corporations
ahead of americans

[chash360]

What are they hiding?

They want to be able to spy on us without fear of recourse. Well the American people would like to do the same....I want to know what they are hiding. If I have to give up my privacy then so does the Administration and the rest of government and intelligence communities. If they are not doing anything wrong, then there should be no need for secrecy, thats the arguement they use on us, isn't it?

Also lets not forget that even if the laws were more constricting, collecting such information illegally will not stop, it only prevents its useage in court. I don't think the court's are on the hook to prevent things like 9/11. So there really is no reason for such sweeping powers.

We already know they had all the intelligence to act to prevent 9/11, and they did everything in their power to assure it happened without discovery of the truth...another Pearl Habor, only this time the public is not so blind.

If the telco's come forward with all of the records and evidence in their possesion pertaineing to the last 8 years of this administration's corruption, particularly the truth and lies about 9/11 and they come completely clean about it and there involvement, I would pardon them for complying, but never, never give them future immunnity for breaking the law and our basic human rights to privacy.

A pardon can be considered, but retroactive immunnity is absolutely out of the question. That action, that request alone, by this administration is, in my mind, grounds for impeachment by itself. No leader of any country claiming to be civilized, should ever consider such a thing, it is an abomination to the purpose of law itself. Not to mention the outright treason, with 9/11 and the war in iraq.

[masonx]

Don't miss this wonderful opportunity - do you have pen and paper in hand?

Start making a "I won't vote for them till Hell freezes over." list of for both the Republicans - and most especially for the Democrats that supports any kind of legal immunity for any org. and especially this Administration. If they support legal immunity they are clearly involved in the deceit and crimes that this legislation is trying to be hide from the voting public. "State secrets" my ass. This effort by the Bush Administration and those on its payroll is a last stand effort at panic CYA. If you haven't noticed - Bush's key henchmen have scattered to the wind - they see what's coming legally as soon as Bush is out of the White House and we don't have to drag a standing President through both prosecution for thievery, wrongful deaths and treason. We'll never get back the lives or the money they have squandered and stolen in the name of "national security" and "state secrets," but we can still fill the treason gallows with examples for future political leaders. As much as I hate this image - that should really please all those who can't get enough of "traditional" values.

[lampietheclown]

Telco's Give Loads Of Money To Republicans...

... and so does the defense industry.

So What?

I like to judge a law on what it does, rather than on how people who back it get paid. It seems much more straight forward.

A law that gives retroactive immunity to the telcoms sends a bad message about breaking the law. It also keeps the American public from finding out the truth when the smoke clears.

If the government told the telcoms that it was legal when it wasn't, we need to know.

If the government told the telcoms that it was illegal, but help us any way, and you won't get caught, we need to know.

I am sure that a judge, and / or a jury, will take all the facts and the situation at the time into consideration, if you are worried that the telcoms shouldn't be punished for helping catch terrorists.

Some of the questions that might never be answered if the telcoms get immunity?

Did the NSA program start before 9/11?

Is this the only domestic spy program the telcoms are helping with?

What other data mining is taking place?

Has the domestic spy program been used for other goals than terror defense?

Why do the Feds keep insisting that no checks and balances are needed?

Who else will be protected and given immunity by this bill? Who else is involved? ISP's? Google? AOL? Banks? Insurance companies? Microsoft?

What is it that they need immunity for? What exactly did they do?

Why is this immunity more important than American lives?

Do you think this last one is a bit over the top? I do too.

G.B. Jr. told us, and Congress, that if the FISA bill was allowed to expire, important tools to fight the terrorists would be weakened, and that would represent a major risk to the American people. Anyone who voted against the bill was, as he put it, "siding with the terrorists".

O.K.

So when the bill was drafted in the House without retroactive telcom immunity included, GB Jr. said quite clearly that he would veto the bill, even though the current law was set to expire.

The House Democrats offered to pass an extension for a few weeks so the problem of telcom immunity could be worked out, but GB Jr was having no part of it. He demanded retroactive telcom immunity or nothing!

The law expired.

This law, this powerful tool that was doing so much to keep the terrorists at bay and Americans safe, was not as important to GB Jr as protecting a couple of telcoms from the inquiring eye of the US court system.

You can take this one of two ways.

Either GB Jr exposed the American Public to a terrible risk of attack to protect the telcoms, and therefore sided with the terrorists, or he knows there isn't a risk, and figured that saving the telcoms was worth more than keeping the real (low) level of risk a secret.

Get the picture?

Lampie The Clown