Conyers: Classified Docs Show Telecoms Don't Need Immunity

Wired:

House Judiciary Committee Democrats say they analyzed the telecom spying documents they've sought for more than a year and have come to the conclusion the phone and internet companies don't deserve retroactive amnesty for charges they spied illegally on Americans.

Instead, they say, the telecoms should be freed from the confines of the so-called "state secrets privilege" and be able to show their documents to the federal judge overseeing the 38 or so cases pending against companies such as Sprint, AT&T and Verizon.

Read the whole story: Wired

Comments

[Sundialsvc4]

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that every scrap of information that is sent or received across a public telecommunications system is being recorded somewhere. Why? Because it's comparatively easy to do, and it's a great market for disk drives. Take a $50 drive, put it in a green case, and sell it to Uncle Sugar for $2,500 a pop. Send half to your friendly neighborhood Congressmen and pocket the difference. Sweet...

The actual questions that Congress should be debating are the fundamental ones of how to actually achieve "national security" (that is to say, this particular very-limited interpretation of this term). So you've got an underground-bunker full of disks with conversations and e-mails and(!) dastardly HuffPo postings(!!) on them ... so what? How are you going to turn that into, "tell the commander today what the enemy IS going to do tomorrow?"

Otherwise, you're just pandering to war-crimes and profiteers and completely ignoring the people who you are supposed to represent. It might behoove you to remember that there are more than 320 million of "we the people," and much less than a mere thousand of you.

[Shaddup]

For the thousandth time--and everybody in congress should repeat this phrase ad infinitum--IF THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, THEN WHY DO THEY NEED IMMUNITY!

[forpeace]

*

We as American are the ones who need Immunity against This criminal Administration.

*

[zizyphus]

We are being asked to give up our constitutional right to privacy. I believe that the NSA has been collecting every type of transmitted communication for decades, and this is just bringing the fact to light again.

So, if I talk to my godson who works for a NGO in Kososvo, I can be sure that every word is being analyzed. Now I feel so much safer. Right.

Everyone knows that Bush has been abusing this for his own political purposes. Our Congress people are more concerned with their own political fortunes than with the Constitution.

[winoohno]

Thank GOD Conyers has some brass and is standing up for justice and liberty!!!

[speakingtruth2power]

The Telecoms don't need retroactive immunity but BushCo does

because a trial may disclose that the spying started before 9-11!!

[vippy]

What is wrong with Bush - get a darn warrant and be done with it. Why do it legal if there is an
illegal way seems to be the motto for this president. Enough is enough, can't wait until he is
out of office.

[wiseapple]

Conyers needs to get Rockefeller on board here. It's time to hold the administraion to account before we end up with some kind of police state.

[serialcoma]

They may not NEED immunity, that should be determined in a court of law, but they certainly don't DESERVE immunity, particularly retroactive immunity for crimes they and bushco claim weren't committed. But bushco will do all it can in order to protect itself and it's criminal endeavors.­.. this was never about the telecoms.. it has always been about bush and his handlers avoiding prison.

republicans are a threat to the United States.

[tililek]

Will the Democrats vote on reality, or fear? Fear looms large in their votes of the past year which is why they are held in such 'high' esteem, isn't that the case?

[Lemeritus]

Can't help drawing your attention to the cast difference between the HuffPo headline: "Classified Docs Show Telecoms Don't Need Immunity" and the original Wired headline: "Classified Docs Show Telecoms Don't DESERVE Immunity". Headlines matter -- HPost plays a little fast with them.

[Lemeritus]

Can't help but draw your attention to the vast difference between the HuffPo headline: "Classified Docs Show Telecoms Don't Need Immunity" and the headline from the original Wired article: "Classified Docs Show Telecoms Don't DESERVE Immunity".

[dutchess2]

Right On!

Bush acts like getting a judge to sign an order giving him permission to tap our phones and read our e-mail is just too much work...

Then don't do it.

Democrats have passed the bill, If the POTUS won't sign it, then let it lie and let the legislation die.

Bush clearly doesn't need it if he can veto it just to save the telcoms from suit.