I think they should give the phone companies immunity.

[Ravy]

Give the phone companies immunity, but only if they will cooperate fully with the investigation and prosecution of the people who requested the illegal taps and led them to believe it was legal and return all monies that they recieved for their illegal co-operation.

On the same note, drop the 11 billion overage on the omnibus appropriations bill. Keep the stuff in the bill, but cut 11 billion out of things that Bush wanted. Never be accused of raising the deficit for your pet projects. Stay within the administration requests, or come in lower, but cut THEIR projects. Let THEM argue that their projects are worth busting the budget projections.

[peacetalksforall]

1. So give them immunity on a promise and then believe them and wait

for them to deliver?

[Ravy]

3. Wouldn't be a "promise" it would be a law. nt

[Disturbed]

5. " believe them and wait for them to deliever."

:rofl:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

2. That won't work. The executive will tape mouths asserting privilege and security.

They will now have to choose country and rule of law or the executive.

NO IMMUNITY!!!

[Ravy]

4. No cooperation, no immunity. I think it would work.

[pinto]

6. Interesting take. "Turn" the telecoms. Too late though, and probably not effective.

Our best bet is to push the rank and file Senate to stand on the issue on no retroactive immunity. imho.

[Ravy]

9. More than simply an idea to "turn" the telecoms...

It is also a public record of the fact that what the administration did was illegal, and fully subject to prosecution.

I really don't see the reasons for going after phone companies unless we hope to "turn" them, anyway. Making them return the money would still make sure that they didn't gain from the act. That and the negative publicity towards them would still reward the telecoms that didn't cooperate with the administration.

Even if you got the bill through without retroactive immunity, do you not think the administration would grant it?

[goddess40]

7. Immunity

There is NO REASON to even bring up FISA. Let the piece of shit expire and revert back to the 1978 FISA law. The cowardly Dem's make me sick at times. I am getting very tired of hearing "we don't have the votes".

[L. Coyote]

8. They knew it was illegal! They benefitted by getting contracts. Co-conspiracy.

And Qwest was punished for refusing to play along!!

L. Coyote Oct-15-07 === Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2051298

The political odor of this legal case has never been proper.
The issue first arose on DU with the USA firings discussion.
* Justice Weighed Firing 1 in 4 - 26 Prosecutors Were Listed As Candidates
* http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2848874

Now, it's in mainstream press and serious legal blogs.

=====================
Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
BY Scott Horton - Oct 14, 2007
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001415

Last week, a career federal prosecutor friend told me, “Most of us have come to agree that there’s a real problem with political prosecutions on Bush’s watch, and that needs to be addressed, but you need to remind your readers that this is something truly exceptional and that the great mass of cases involve the normal functioning of the law enforcement system, with career professionals who are detached from political considerations.” For the record, I believe that’s true. I’m not sure how widespread the phenomenon of political prosecution is. I believe that it is no longer a question of “whether” such prosecutions have been brought—that’s now very well established. How widespread is this phenomenon? That’s an important question and the answers are unclear.

And this weekend more information has surfaced which would show the practice to be far more common that I first suspected. Last year, a Colorado lawyer told me that I should look at the insider trading litigation surrounding Qwest CEO Joseph P. Nacchio—there was strong evidence in that case of tawdry politics on the prosecution side. Of course, I knew that Nacchio was the only major telecom executive who refused to play ball with the administration on warrantless surveillance. But I did take a look at the case, and I didn’t see the evidence that was suggested.

But as of this morning, I have to admit that I misjudged the situation. It seems that the evidence was lacking because the trial judge suppressed it, not because it didn’t exist. There was a major account in yesterday’s Washington Post, and this morning in the New York Times. These accounts all stack up. Here’s Scott Shane’s summary for the Times:

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the company’s lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, ......

[Ravy]

10. But they would have to return that money...

and also their records concerning the act. They will not have profited, and in fact, with the additional adverse publicity would come out losers. Some would hate them for what they did, others would hate them for providing evidence against the administration.

[L. Coyote]

11. If they get immunity, they keep the money, and the lawsuits are all MOOT!

You have to do a little more reading on this issue. Check this too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2467017

The reason they seek immunity, and are lining pockets in Congress, is to avoid going bankrupt from being sued by we the People for violating our Constitutional rights. If they get immunity, it insults every one of use that were spied on, nearly everyone in the country!!!

[Ravy]

12. I see. You want everyone's cell carrier to go bankrupt.

How much do you plan to profit personally by that? Will you have to pay the remaining cell phone carrier all that money just to get service in the future?


Honestly, I just don't understand what people think sometimes.

I think we should focus on ending the criminality, having them make some restitution, put most of the administration behind bars, and move forward.

[Wizard777]

13. If it will get drivers off the phone, off the sidewalk, and back on the road. Sure!

:headbang:

[annabanana]

14. February 2001 ! I guess 9/11 didn't change that, at least.

This is completely unreported.

[spanone]

15. you are suffering under the delusion that we have justice in america

this is not the case.

[Ravy]

17. Obviously.

I just can't see what is to gain by bankrupting companies like that. That severely affects people's jobs and retirement benefits for people who had nothing to do with anything.

I don't work in that industry, nor have any stocks in any of it, but sometimes I think progressives are just as vindictive as anyone.

I certainly want the abuses to stop, to be able to criminally punish the people responsible, and to take away the illicit profit from the telecoms.

[spanone]

18. to expect an industry to obey the law is not vindictiveness...break the law, pay the price

these companies would not be bankrupt for one second.

[Ravy]

20. The rallying cry of the anti-immigration reform crowd... I hear ya.

We just need standard templates for talking points, where all we have to do is fill in a blank with different values if you are a Democrat or republican.

I am thinking more of the NEXT step, with the telecoms effectively having to protect the adminstration in an effort to protect themselves.

[lonestarnot]

16. HELL NO! HELL NO!

[mmonk]

19. Not me.

Nuremberg comes to mind.