It's OK for corporations to assist the government in illegal activities

That IS the message that the Congress will send to corporate America if they grant immunity to the telecoms who aided and abetted bushco in warrantless wiretapping. It's a message that grants corporations immunity from operating outside the law, as long as it's in the name of all hallowed National Security.

Feinstein has already sold us down the river. She'll vote against the Leahy bill. Who knows what Schumer will do?

Immunity sets the worst possible example for Corporate America. It's not just about a handful of telecoms. It's about the precedent granting immunity sets.

:sarcasm:

> Feinstein has already sold us down the river. She'll vote
> against the Leahy bill. Who knows what Schumer will do?

But remember: Always vote for the "D" because Democrats
are better than Republicans. Except when they aren't,
like Feinstein, Schumer, and Lieberman (who was a
"Democrat" right until the moment it became "incon-
venient" so he became "independent").

Tesha

should be the message, and if the candidate is truly unsupportable- the way I see Feinstein and Lieberman, among others, don't vote for them in the general. BUT, if you live in NE or MS, you have a much more difficult quandary.

As an AT&T customer, I have no doubt that my personal rights were compromised - but I also take the subway with the risk that I'll be asked to submit to a bag search. I could object, but all around me I see people who need the reassurance of a police state.

I can't ask people to ignore human nature, so I accept that others need to rage against the indignity of the violation. But we can hold hearings, pass legislation ... the issue at hand is whether civil suits, with their power of discovery, serve the public as well as private interests.

Knowing what we already know, I think not. The details wouldn't help me and only compromise security efforts.

That said, I want every responsible executive hauled before a joint committee and forced to resign.

precedent it sets. Senator Leahy, who surely knows more about what does and doesn't compromise security efforts, adamently disagree with YOU.

this before. The Church hearings gave us a generation of reasonable balance.

The civil courts weren't meant for this kind of tort. Yes, we've been damaged, but we've been through this before and survived. You don't have to shout ... again, we will see a compromise worked out.

kind of tort"? Got anything at all to back that up. I think it's just plain sad that anyone posting here would be pro immunity for the telecoms illegal activities.

about the '68 hearings? I listened carefully and saw decades of conformance. 9/11 knocked the senses out of the public, which has spent a decade listening to calls for "tort reform". How many of us know what the heck a tort is - or why we have civil as well as criminal courts?


If you don't understand my position, then ask and I will offer more. But there's nothing sad about restoring our liberties in these agitated times.

between civil and criminal court.

The government is refusing on national security grounds to help the telcos defend themselves. No judge is going to allow such a farce to take up the court's time and cases will be dismissed.

This issue belongs in Congress. What bothers me is that you're setting up our leaders as defectors - selling us out for campaign contributions. And when Leahy eventually compromises ... and he will ... will you turn on him?

That's the sad part about all this. You know better, but still indulge your hurt feelings.

both to their customers and to the larger public. And I doubt very much that Leahy will compromise. It's far more likely that he'll vote against any legislation that provides immunity. But go ahead, feel free to keep enabling. It seems to be something you are very attached to. You clearly don't believe in any sort of accountablity, as you've railed against it, on multiple occasions.

because you lack merit in your argument.

you really are a piece of work, aren't you? I hardly misquoted anything. I've read many of your posts here, Fredda. You really do fall into the appeasement camp. You've defended dems protecting bushco. Now you're defending the sell out branch of the democratic party on this issue. No surprise.

"Adults are in charge and making choices. Yes, they are protecting *, but there are hazards we do not have to face."

court system is meant to compensate victims. I know something about crimes for which compensation is not possible.

The real issue is liberty - and defending it against the natural inclination to seek security. Your behavior lacks any excuse.

.. that would let me agree to these egregious violations of the constitution. If the Scaredy Cats who run and live in our country will grant this one provision, then I will trust them.

That provision is simple. The wiretaps are for the collection of FOREIGN TERRORIST information ONLY. If the NSA hears about a murder, it is moot, it cannot be pursued. A drug deal, same thing. ANY CRIME OF ANY SORT that is not "TERRORISM" is off limits.

Now, you know and I know they will not agree to this. Because TERRORISM is merely a pretext.

Yes, information is sifted w/o a warrant, but the government can't present evidence w/o chain of custody. It may be used in military tribunals and the public would support that.

"...but the government can't present evidence w/o chain of custody.."

We are talking about this current administration, right? The one that uses signing statements to circumvent laws passed by the Congress.

Who do you think will stop it from happening, besides the few federal judges who still have respect for the rule of law and don't feel that they have to be loyal to the WH!

Not sure how the CIA feels about this, however it's the same practice.

These other arguments have nothing to to with anything when you consider that the spying program was well underway the moment * was sworn in.

The Telecoms compliance PRIOR to 9/11 should be the real issue here and there is no call for immunity on that count. If the spying they were doing prior to 9/11 didn't stop the attack, why should any of us believe that it would be effective at this late date?

"But then there will come a day when I call upon you to perform a specific favor for my family. On that day, I will expect you to remember this day in great detail. Capisca?"

Mr. & Mrs. Blum have already made their bed.