Democrats refuse immunity for warrantless wiretappers

Glad to see the Dems stand up to Chimpy

If the House and Senate vote strictly along party lines (highly likely), there are not enough Dem votes to override the veto (and this assumes that the Senate would sign on to the House's version). I'd like to think that some of the moderate Republicans would see the House bill as reasonable (especially in an election year, with much of the electorate fed up with Chimpy's antics) and vote for it, but I'd like to think a lot of things.

Legislators ignorant of the US Constitution

Specifically, Article I, section 9 - the part saying

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

The US legislature is expressly forbidden to pass any law retroactively criminalizing or decriminalizing past behavior.

Period.

Not that anyone's looked at the old rag lately.

But they haven't broken the law...

Funny how Bush keeps saying that they haven't broken the law. Yet he still thinks they need immunity from prosecution for breaking the laws that they haven't broken. And he is willing to sacrifice troops in Iraq to get it. And the comms companies won't cooperate again if they have the chance of being sued. Except they have all signed up to cooperate for the next few years anyway. Of course, it is all the Dems fault for making him veto it...

Waterboard the lot of 'em

I say we waterboard the Bush administration and the telco Cxxs. I'm sure they would all 'fess up and save the cost of a bi-whatever commission. After all, Bush himself declared waterboarding as fun, useful, legal, and as Amurkin as apple pie.

Warrant? I don't need no stinkin' warrant!

- Ivan G. Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon

Lisa Simpson stated it best

Washington cess pool on the Potomac and it stank then and it stinks now.

Don't think truer words could be spoken.

Hahahahaha!!!

You monkeys gave him the power, you can damn well suffer.

I'm surprised some middle class, white, educated suburbanite hasn't popped the old man in in the head. At least Saddam stuck to terrorising only his own country.

Ex post facto

Klaus is right - I was referring to the original law (and the whole concept of retroactive immunity). Apologies if that wasn't sufficiently clear.

The only out I can see for the telcos (assuming they violated the law) is prosecution, conviction, and a presidential pardon.

Re: Hahahahaha!!!

"You monkeys gave him the power, you can damn well suffer."

In 2000 "None of the Above" was the best choice, same in 2004. Both years had a choice between bad and worse. Yes, third party candidates exist but too many mindless sheeple vote party only, leaving the rest to choose bad instead of worse.

How did this happen? The nut case extremists run the primaries in the US, so bad and worse is the typical choice.

"I'm surprised some middle class, white, educated suburbanite hasn't popped the old man in in the head. At least Saddam stuck to terrorising only his own country."

Iran 1980's, Kuait 1990.

AC because I am ashamed to admit I responded to a troll.

Constitution be damned

No use citing the Constitution, the rethuglicans are only interested in upholding one part of it, the Second Amendment. The rest of it is just a minor inconvenience, to be ignored when appropriate.

Original Senate Bill

For those interested...

Section 202 (a)(1)(A)(i). Note that the phrase "shall not lie or be maintained" means that even if the legal action was found in plaintiff's favor, it cannot be enforced. That pretty much sums up "getting away with it", doesn't it?

"http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110T0hDHS:e52087:"

(This may or may not work, if it does, get the version for "[S.2248.PCS]", which was what the Senate voted on and approved. If it does not work, go to "Text of Legislation" link on "http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.02248:")

<quote>

Sec 202. LIMITATIONS ON CIVIL ACTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) Limitations -

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a covered civil action shall not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the court that--

(A) the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

(i) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

(I) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

(II) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

(ii) described in a written request or directive from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

(I) authorized by the President; and

(II) determined to be lawful; or

(B) the electronic communication service provider did not provide the alleged assistance.

</quote>

The pirate icon is for me and me alone. I would not sully that Flag of Freedom(tm) by implying that the Bushies are being so.

Re: In his own weasel words

Translation:

"Some of the private companies controlled by Republican lackeys have been sued for billions of dollars for their complicity in violating the US Constitution and other Federal laws after we used 9/11 as our own Reichstag fire. Now, the question is, should these lawsuits be allowed to proceed, or should any company that put profits and political power ahead of American law be allowed to usurp the rights of the citizens? Should those who stepped forward to say we're going to help the Bush Administration overthrow the rule of law have to go to the courthouse to defend themselves, or should the Congress and the American people demand justice for the crimes they have committed?"

Skull and Crossbones for the poisoned dreams of Americans. I spent 23 years in the US Army, defending the Constitution. GW Bush and his cronies made me regret that choice.

So freakin' what

You are all right, of course. But then we can all be right and have our throats slit and our wives and daughters wearing the latest spring fashions in pastel burqa wear. Screw being right - I find being alive preferable to turning the clock back to the 7th century. Revel in your righteousness infidels. This war didn't start with Bush and wiretaps and won't end because you groveled at the alter of placation and correctness.