Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think they should give the phone companies immunity.

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:50 PM
Original message
I think they should give the phone companies immunity.
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
1. So give them immunity on a promise and then believe them and wait
for them to deliver?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Wouldn't be a "promise" it would be a law. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. " believe them and wait for them to deliever."
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sicksicksick_N_tired Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
2. That won't work. The executive will tape mouths asserting privilege and security.
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 08:57 PM by sicksicksick_N_tired
They will now have to choose country and rule of law or the executive.

NO IMMUNITY!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. No cooperation, no immunity. I think it would work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goddess40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
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".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:12 PM
Response to Original message
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.ph...

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.ph...

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 theres a real problem with political prosecutions on Bushs 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 thats true. Im 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 broughtthats now very well established. How widespread is this phenomenon? Thats 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. Nacchiothere 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 didnt 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 didnt exist. There was a major account in yesterdays Washington Post, and this morning in the New York Times. These accounts all stack up. Heres Scott Shanes summary for the Times:

The phone company Qwest Communications refused a proposal from the National Security Agency that the companys lawyers considered illegal in February 2001, ......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L. Coyote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.ph...

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!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 02:01 AM
Response to Reply #11
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wizard777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. If it will get drivers off the phone, off the sidewalk, and back on the road. Sure!
:headbang:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. February 2001 ! I guess 9/11 didn't change that, at least.
This is completely unreported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
15. you are suffering under the delusion that we have justice in america
this is not the case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #15
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #17
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #18
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
16. HELL NO! HELL NO!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
19. Not me.
Nuremberg comes to mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Aug 27th 2014, 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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