House Denies Telecom Immunity → Immunity

Just remember, in Bush's mind "Immunity" trumps "Safety". If the safety of the American people was the number one priority as we are constantly being told, he would sign the bill and then push for a separate immunity bill. However, the telecom's immunity is much more important so "safety" be damned. I have no doubt that he would sign it if it was an immunity only bill with no references to FISA. Not that I really believe the new law will make us safer or protect our civil rights but it is interesting to see that the big telecom corporations take the top position over "We The People".

Childish reasoning. If self-styled freedom fighters were concerned about surveillance with less oversight, they'd renew the Patriot Act and fight immunity later.

Pot, kettle, black.

Mark

(a) We're talking about FISA, not the USA PATRIOT Act.

(b) There is no "fighting for immunity" later. Either they give it now as Bush is demanding, or don't and get their bill vetoed.

Bush is the one "putting Americans at risk" by threatening a veto of the legislation.

The Patriot Act amended FISA to eliminate/reduce the President's claimed need to evade FISA (i.e., expanded authority with oversight). By letting the Patriot Act expire it puts the President in the same position he was in prior to the Patriot Act (evading FISA).

Therefore, it's just as fair to suggest self-styled freedom fighters are inconsistent (letting greater oversight fall by the wayside) as it is to suggest the President is being inconsistent.I'll let you argue that point with the original poster who suggested President Bush was being inconsistent by holding up the Patriot Act for immunity.

Mark

Just want to point out to you that you are hopelessly confused. Your total confusion is apparent to everyone else on this board, just not to you. So STOP WRITING,...without thinking first. Get some sleep, and come back to falter and sputter again tomorrow.

your friendly self-styled freedom fighter

The difference Amigo is that the immunity bell, once rung, can't be unrung.

If the telecos are given immunity for their actions today, such immunity cannot be later stripped from them for whatever actions they take now. It would be a violation of due process of law - and probably ex post facto as well - to say to them today: "what you do you cannot be sued for"; but, then in, say 2010: "Sorry, we're taking that immunity away." Such stripping of immunity can only have prospective - i.e., future - effect. It could never be stripped for the things done in 2008 or 2009.

Immunity witheld today can still be doled out in the future (2010) and can be made retroactive to apply to actions taken in 2008 and 2009. Whatever the President doesn't get today, therefore, he could get tomorrow and be in exactly the same position as if he got immunity today.

Thus, his insistence that he get it today is a POLITICAL point, not a legal or, in fact, a security one.

The proposed immunity only covers actions between 9/11/2001 and 1/17/2007. It doesn't immunize against criminal prosecution.

»rpc.senate.gov/_files/L4 ··· 07ML.pdf

Personally, I'd like to see a special prosecutor appointed after President Bush leaves office, and charges against Bush, Gonzalez and telco executives if it rises to that level.

I just don't like the civil aspect of this. Most people who support civil suits admit that it's just because they can't accomplish more direct socio-political actions (changing the law, impeaching the president, criminal charges against co-conspirators, etc.).

Mark