You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #9: I think there is general confusion over the fact that this bill and the one it replaces [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-20-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. I think there is general confusion over the fact that this bill and the one it replaces
have an immunity provision for telecom companies - all they have to do is to demand that the White House certify it as a matter of National Security and then the telecoms cannot be sued.

The contentious issue is "retroactive immmunity" for companies that did not bother to comply with the certification requirements.

My understanding is that when the other telecom companies requested the appropriate certificate the White House refused and they then refused to comply with the request.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Huffington Post: Obama Backs Bill Giving Immunity To Telecoms Amerigo Vespucci  Jun-20-08 04:34 PM   #0 
  - Here we go  autorank   Jun-20-08 04:38 PM   #1 
  - What's your take on it? n/t  Catherina   Jun-20-08 04:40 PM   #3 
     - I'm rarely disappointed because my expectations are so low.  autorank   Jun-20-08 05:00 PM   #26 
        - ! I'm another one with very low expectations  Catherina   Jun-20-08 05:14 PM   #32 
  - But he doesn't "back" immunity  blogslut   Jun-20-08 04:38 PM   #2 
  - He is backing the bill  pnwmom   Jun-20-08 04:42 PM   #5 
  - You're right  blogslut   Jun-20-08 04:45 PM   #12 
  - "HOPING"!?!?!? Come on people "HOPING"!??!?!  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:46 PM   #14 
     - It's incredibly lame. I hope you called his office. He needs to hear from us  Catherina   Jun-20-08 04:56 PM   #24 
  - I think there is general confusion over the fact that this bill and the one it replaces  grantcart   Jun-20-08 04:43 PM   #9 
  - ...and the ones that "refused' their corp leaders were strung up on bogus tax charges and the compan  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:45 PM   #13 
  - THERE'S NO Public value for this bill, and very LITTLE probability that the "immunity" part can be..  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:44 PM   #10 
  - That's their headline...  Amerigo Vespucci   Jun-20-08 04:47 PM   #15 
  - How can HuffPo...? They read his statement carefully  autorank   Jun-20-08 05:08 PM   #29 
  - The overwhelming question is, who in government sought immunity for the phone companies, and why? nm  IntravenousDemilo   Jun-20-08 04:40 PM   #4 
  - I think the question is that the companies failed to follow the appropriate steps to qualify  grantcart   Jun-20-08 04:45 PM   #11 
     - Well, somebody on the GOP side is adamant that the telecoms should have "retroactive immunity",...  IntravenousDemilo   Jun-20-08 04:50 PM   #20 
     - It ain't just the GOP side, obviously.  RUMMYisFROSTED   Jun-20-08 05:02 PM   #27 
     - I think it is simply the prospect of billions of dollars in legal fees and penalties  grantcart   Jun-20-08 05:03 PM   #28 
        - Perhaps I suspect too much, but why would politicians be concerned about that...  IntravenousDemilo   Jun-20-08 05:08 PM   #30 
           - I think the Democrat leadership feel that it gives the Republicans a national security  grantcart   Jun-20-08 05:12 PM   #31 
     - Right, these companies have brigades of lawyers that know the law so the excuse of "Bush Said So"...  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:51 PM   #21 
  - Funny, what Randi just read on the Radio does not match this statement.  fasttense   Jun-20-08 04:42 PM   #6 
  - We know he's going to "back" it but we ALL know technically it's a VERY VERY long shot that the....  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:48 PM   #16 
  - Let's just screw Obama via all of his orifices......the media can  FrenchieCat   Jun-20-08 04:43 PM   #7 
  - Look, We're married to Obama and KNOW he's not perfect that doesn't mean that we don't hold him ..  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:50 PM   #18 
  - The honeymoon's hardly over and he's already proving to be a spouse abuser...  ToeBot   Jun-20-08 07:21 PM   #34 
  - Frenchie, if we don't make our voices heard, whose voice will Obama hear? n/t  Catherina   Jun-20-08 04:59 PM   #25 
  - "There is no spoon"  derby378   Jun-20-08 04:43 PM   #8 
  - I have not read the bill  rumpel   Jun-20-08 04:48 PM   #17 
  - Have you forgotten Bush's "signing statements," Barack?  rateyes   Jun-20-08 04:50 PM   #19 
  - I'm thinking some sausage is getting made, He has to give back a favor for Pelosi. Like Keith O said  uponit7771   Jun-20-08 04:52 PM   #22 
  - Next Friday Huffington post will be quoting Obama's bump numbers from Hillary joining Obama...  Imagevision   Jun-20-08 04:52 PM   #23 
  - I wrote to him  Zodiak Ironfist   Jun-20-08 07:11 PM   #33 
  - serious character issue for me here...  lala_rawraw   Jun-20-08 11:17 PM   #35 
     - Nuance is everything  Amerigo Vespucci   Jun-21-08 02:16 PM   #36 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC