Legal Scholars: Immunity For Telecom Wiretapping Would Set Bad Precedent

Washington Post:

When previous Republican administrations were accused of illegality in the FBI and CIA spying abuses of the 1970s or the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, Democrats in Congress launched investigations or pushed for legislative reforms.

But last week, faced with admissions by several telecommunication companies that they assisted the Bush administration in warrantless spying on Americans, leaders of the Senate intelligence committee took a much different tack -- proposing legislation that would grant those companies retroactive immunity from prosecution or lawsuits.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[syllepsis]

06:27 PM on 10/22/2007

It is absurd that legal scholars have to be brought in to let us know that retroactive immunity is a bad idea.
Does everyone without a J.D. after their name now believe, "If the President orders it, it's legal?"

[JustifiablyParanoid]

05:34 PM on 10/22/2007

Hundreds of comments about a book character's sexual orientation, yet only 20 or so comments about a matter as crucial as this...

America has its priorities exactly where it wants them...

[realitytrumpsbull]

05:24 PM on 10/22/2007

Well, maybe the Right Answer is to wiretap the wiretappers...then we can have like, this whole
string going, of people spying on people who spy on other people who spy on still other people who spy on the people who were sent to
spy on the people who were spying on everybody
else. Then we can ALL earn 200k/yr checks frum th' gummit for basically doing nothing but wasting a lot of electricity? Jobs for Murkuh...

[MissingAmerica]

05:03 PM on 10/22/2007

This administration has changed far too much about the quality of America. We are setting a bad precedent simply by letting this administration, and its supporters, stay in politics. We can accomplish nothing because too many, mostly GOP, have forgotten what it means to be an American. We need to restore America, but must do that by the numbers which, sadly, are not there.

[Pdubya]

04:25 PM on 10/22/2007

when is the last time this administration set good precedent?

look to naomi wolf's entry in huffpo and get this bill passed! write your representatives...call them!

HR 3835 The American Freedom Agenda Act

blue dog dem atheist for Ron Paul

www.ronpaul2008.com

[Misanthrope2]

06:57 PM on 10/22/2007

Ron Paul's economics are 18th century. He is a religious wacko who wants to impose his religious beliefs on everybody else. He also would end national protection of the environment, food, and workplace. And send women back to the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.

[ghostsofamerica]

03:53 PM on 10/22/2007

Thanks for putting this comment on here, folks. This is exactly what others have been writing about and speaking about, especially Bruce Fein. Here is the video with Moyers and others.


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/071407B.shtml

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040407J.shtml

[loki]

03:32 PM on 10/22/2007

Bad Precedent is what this administration and congress is based on. Whats the big shock that they would do this, or anything else like it?

[ErnestineBass]

03:43 PM on 10/22/2007

YAH THINK?!?!?!

[Where is Jesus?]

03:00 PM on 10/22/2007

It is a stupid argument that it's the administration's responsibility to explain to these companies beforehand that what it is asking them to do is is legal or not. That's like saying if the administration asks someone to go rob a bank so they can use the money to fight terrorism, then the actual robber should get immunity from prosecution! Wrong is wrong and the companies knew they were breaking the law. How hard is it?

If they let them walk on this, then there will be no rule of law anymore. It will be "hey, the president asked me to do it. How could I turn him down? It's the president! No. He is no different than a mob boss in this case and his lackeys, the companies, are as guilty of a crime as they would be if they had just decided to do this on their own. Hey, there's a good way to frame the question! Congress should just ask the question: Would these companies be guilty if they had just thought this up on their own and did it, and then offered the data to Bush as a helpful gesture for his war on terror? Does that sound like a stupid question? What would be the answer here? Everyone knows what the answer would be: GUILTY!

NOW CAN WE MOVE FORWARD?

[speakingtruth2power]

02:09 PM on 10/22/2007

Legal scholars should be worried about their
jobs becoming obsolete vestiges of the past.
As soon as the US makes it's transformation
to the Norte American Union, we'll no longer
need lawyers or judges or our Constitution!!

[Olerist]

02:05 PM on 10/22/2007

Few balked at immunity for pharmica against tainted and poisoned vaccines

[LeftLeaner]

03:41 PM on 10/22/2007

Few balked because few knew.

With the MSM (Corporate-owned) being the main source of information (infotainment) for the general public, this information was not heavily publicized if at all.

For those seeking the truth, we found it, but most Americans are happy to know as little as possible.

It was Frist, if I recall correctly, who slipped in an immunity line in the middle of the night into a bill to protect the pharmaceuticals.

As those of us on the HuffPost know, unfortunately, the American public is in the clouds as far as knowing what's going on.

That's why our politicians CAN get away with whatever they want.

As Reagan said, and I paraphrase, Trust with accountability.

[hannitizer]

02:01 PM on 10/22/2007

Please tell us why you need legal scholars to point this out. Anyone with a pulse should know that this is wrong!

[freespeach]

01:54 PM on 10/22/2007

What a shock. Celebrity fluff all over page one and as usual a negative story on the Democrats (that just couldn't be ignored) gets the short shift on page 2.

huffpo is shameless in it's biased coverage to protect the corporate Democrats who are screwing the American people.

[gappytoofcondi]

03:37 PM on 10/22/2007

Good, freespeech. Why not go to townhall or rush's website and stay away from this site? We all know it is because you can't. "Corporate Democrats" are the main problem with this country right now? Sure you don't want to mention the GOP control from 2000 and where that has left us?

Take your Joey Goebels propaganda and sitck it where the sun doesn't shine.

[freespeach]

04:42 PM on 10/22/2007

gappycondi

I want Bush impeached
I want Bush imprisoned.

That fascist Republicans are killing our nation is not news. It is not a topic even worth of debate.
All of us here know that, why restate the obvious every time?

But what many do not know is that the DLC wing of the Democratic party is equally as bad as the repuke fascists.
And what the DLC vermin who comment here all the time want to do is to dumb down the debate into:

Repubs are bad, Democrats are good, Democrats will save us all in 2008.
This is a big lie that not everyone knows.
Your response gappycodi is very interesting.
Do you care about the FISA bill sellout?
Do you support impeachment?

Are you a "business as usual" corporate Democrat pretending to be progressive?
I think you are.

I support Dennis Kucinich. I will continue to support him until the DLC has bounced him out of the race. At that point I will give all my support to the Green party of which I am already a member.

For anyone who wants to understand how corporate whores have killed the once great Democratic party, check these out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-mike-gravel/why-nbc-and-the-dnc-want-_b_69397.html

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml

For DLC shills like gappycondi to label true progressives as Republicans shows how dirty they fight, shows what liars they are. It also shows desperation and fear.

You pricks have successfully killed impeachment, and you are well on your way to forcing Hitlery on us, but you can not tell us who to vote for. Green Green Green.

[Grunty1]

01:45 PM on 10/22/2007

Of course immunity sets a precedent, that is the entire idea! Neo-cons are against the rule of law, period, and would prefer not to be punished for any illegal deeds they perform along the way.

[Kansas Evans]

10:31 PM on 10/22/2007

Good point. I hadn't even thought about that.

[HouseOfRoberts]

01:45 PM on 10/22/2007

I will support immunity for the telecoms: in a plea-bargain when they agree to testify against the Bushies!

[Kansas Evans]

10:32 PM on 10/22/2007

I like that idea!

[ajax2]

01:29 PM on 10/22/2007

Feinstein and Rockefeller are obviously trying to cover their own earlier complicity with this amnesty.