Telecom Immunity

[OAKS]

A little poll to break the monotony of the day. I'd like to hear why people support it if they do.

[Jac Coyne]

Six years, five months, 13 days.

[OAKS]

Rudy is that you?

Kinda funny how the location of the targets of 9/11 voted overwhelmingly (~90% for 4 of the 5 boroughs and D.C.) for Kerry in '04.

[Jac Coyne]

I assume the voting in the five boroughs has something to do with Telecomm immunity. Please expand.

[OAKS]

It doesn't. I added it because "9/11" as an answer seems more like trolling than an actual answer as to why telecoms should have immunity for actual crimes they have committed. As well, the folks who have seen terrorism face to face seem to think the answer doesn't lie in restricting freedom and civil liberties.

These companies have *already* broken the law. I can only hope it's possible to punish the officials who ordered them to as well.

So you don't mind people listening to your phone calls with your loved ones? Kids? Business calls?

[Jac Coyne]

As well, the folks who have seen terrorism face to face seem to think the answer doesn't lie in restricting freedom and civil liberties.

The "folks who have seen terrorism face-to-face" are dead. All of them. They never got to fully enjoy your interpretation of freedom or civil liberties.

They didn't even get a chance to say goodbye.

Evidently, they didn't suffer from an "actual crime." Or perhaps they're just "trolls."

[StrykerFSU]

I have to admit that I haven't followed this issue closely but from my understanding of it, I have no problem with what the telecoms did. I appreciate protecting personal privacy as much as the next guy but I certainly think that the telecoms should be protected from prosecution. They assisted the Federal Government with surveillance of suspected terrorists following the deadliest terror attacks in our nation's history. Now we are going to go back and prosecute and/or sue them for helping the U.S. Government? What am I missing?

To say that "people" are listening to your calls with loved ones, etc. is a pretty gross misrepresentation. The surveillance conducted as part of this warrantless wiretapping program was of suspected terrorists, not Mr. and Mrs. Smith talking dirty to each other over on Elm Street.

Not surprisingly, the Democratic Party can't come to a consensus on the issue:

Most House Democrats and civil liberties groups strongly oppose immunity for the communications firms, but other Democrats - including Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee - back the GOP position.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/01/25/senate_oks_immunity_for_utilities_aiding_warrantless_wiretapping/

[OAKS]

The "folks who have seen terrorism face-to-face" are dead. All of them. They never got to fully enjoy your interpretation of freedom or civil liberties.

They didn't even get a chance to say goodbye.

Evidently, they didn't suffer from an "actual crime." Or perhaps they're just "trolls."

Huh, so all the people who made it out of the towers and the e-ring alive didn't see terrorism face to face? All the firefighters and policemen with respiratory problems who are alive didn't see if face to face? Those who lost loved ones or waited days to hear from safe ones didn't see it face to face? I see that you're turning to an emotional argument rather than a logic-based argument. What, we tragically lost 3,000 souls on that day? Why not turn your crusade to other areas, like traffic accidents, where we lose at least 10 times as many people in a year alone? It's just as tragic, perhaps more so because of the magnitude, but I guess it's less dramatic and doesn't get good ratings. We should allow the government to put cameras in our cars to spy on us, make sure we're not eating, texting, etc. It'll save many more lives. Would you be for that program?

No matter, I still don't see how giving telecoms a free pass for breaking the law is American at all. Who would have thought it would be the neo-cons shaping America's policy into looking more and more like Communist Russia regarding personal freedoms instead of the lefties. What happened to small, responsible government Republicans (and some of us moderates, me included) wanted? If you want to allow the government to spy on us, why not pass a law first? I wonder how many attacks on US soil domestic spying has actually prevented.

[Zeuslax]

I have to admit that I haven't followed this issue closely but from my understanding of it, I have no problem with what the telecoms did. I appreciate protecting personal privacy as much as the next guy but I certainly think that the telecoms should be protected from prosecution. They assisted the Federal Government with surveillance of suspected terrorists following the deadliest terror attacks in our nation's history. Now we are going to go back and prosecute and/or sue them for helping the U.S. Government? What am I missing?

Their egregious assistance with the gov't in this area is probably the biggest misuse and power grab by corporate America working with the gov't ever. This is in addition to the illegal assistance. Business leaders and companies have stepped up to the plate in the past to support this country, but never in a calculated, knowingly cooperative and explicitly illegal manner. This is a big, big deal!!

To say that "people" are listening to your calls with loved ones, etc. is a pretty gross misrepresentation. The surveillance conducted as part of this warrantless wiretapping program was of suspected terrorists, not Mr. and Mrs. Smith talking dirty to each other over on Elm Street.

This is unfortunately not the case. There have been hundreds of incidents and countless prosecutions of Americans for "typical" infractions and crimes. The patriot act has been used as a foot in the door for domestic and even local issues. The illegal practices employed have been applied to more non-terrorism cases than anything else and by a very large manner. The law has been pushed to its breaking point. Interpretations have been applied that can not even be challenged. The FBI has been salivating at this opportunity and immediately started utilizing domestic spying on Americans. The rules have been skirted by opening the door to other areas. Most were not even imagined by those law makers with good intentions, but the agencies have had this on the shelf for years. These practices are not "preventable justice" in action. Privacy rights have been violated (even with the "laws" being so encompassing) on Main St and Mr & Mrs Smith's conversations have been listened to.

To add to this the conversation, how have we divulged to such a low point in this country that we are debating whether it's even worth it to prosecute those that have broken a law such as these? We have digressed so far, been taken advantage of so much and have had so many atrocities committed against us that we question whether it's even worth enforcement? The most unbelievable reaction to experience is that we've come to expect blatant lies and violations.......well, as just another deliberate lie and violation. The sheer number have so callused us to the point that we're overwhelmed to a position of inaction.

I watched a forum this week with "Gold Star" republicans that are so disenfranchised with this gov't and administration that they are literally lost. They are so eager to get someone else in the white house that they don't even think it is worth it to prosecute for illegal activities or even push for impeachment. The time would be better spent stifling this administration to avoid more issues while they are in office. At the same time, we should try to repair damage immediately as that is more pressing. When the most ardent people in our two party system are speaking this way, we are in big trouble. "It wouldn't be worth it" with the timing this administration has left. The incompetence is just too vast and list of scandals created by this administration are just too long. What has happened to this country to allow us to get to the point? We've been so taken advantage of that we don't even want to make people accountable for their transgressions? It's like a victim that has been repeatedly violated so many times and in so many different ways that when they are finally aware of the crimes and damage they just want to forget and move on. They usually need someone to fight for them.