Bush: Bill must protect telecoms that helped surveillance

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Bush said today that he will not sign a new eavesdropping bill if it does not grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

A proposed bill unveiled by Democrats on Tuesday does not include such a provision. Bush, appearing on the South Lawn as that measure was taken up in two House committees, said the measure is unacceptable for that and other reasons.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5202617.html

This fucker only thinks about his corporate cronies.

:puke:

Bush is a total ASSCARROT!

If they didn't do anything wrong, why do they need protection from law suits?

Oh, :think: THEY DID DO bad things.

Gee, if they need protecting, does that mean the neocons and puppetmasters are gettin' nervous about actually losing power?

:woohoo:

One that needs to be asked over and over again.

OUR DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON IT

Isn't that what right wingers are always crowing when some poor schmuck gets 30 years for stealing a candy bar?

:grr:

story will end.

"no ex post facto laws" doesn't this poor excuse for a sack of shit understand? Such a law is grossly illegal on its face, but it's not like that's ever stopped him from trying.

Making a criminal act subsequently legal is quite legal and constitutional, sorry. It's a common misreading - it's a legal term, not plain English.

The bottom line is, the Constitution has a bias towards freedom. That's why retroactive immunity is not made unconstitutional, and that's why pardons are constitutional.

constitutional relevancy, it would be in the retroactive removal of a previously held right, of the person or group initiating the civil action. Kind of a grey area. This legislation should have been sought before the actions in question were initiated.

...retroactive immunity does not violate the constitution. It's the other way around, we can't grant retroactive guilt.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, a sweepingly bad piece of legislation the Republican congress passed before they adjourned, gives the Bush administration cover for violating torture laws and treaties (I think the retroactive grant goes back 10 years, to 1996). It's the same law that ends habeaus corpus rights for non-U.S. citizens (and possibly for U.S. citizens as well). Bush can decide electrodes on sensitive parts is not torture, declare you an enemy combatant, and turn on the juice for the rest of your life. You would have no recourse to the courts, and Bush's act would be perfectly legal. Strange world we live in...

On edit: These laws granting retroactive immunity: If later a Democratic congress with a spine decided to rescind the Military Commissions Act, I think we still couldn't prosecute the Bush adminitration for illegally torturing detainees because, now, that would amount to an ex poste facto violation of the Consitution (but we'd need a legal scholar to comment here to be sure).

He keeps saying, "There is no higher responsibility for the President and the Congress than to protect the American people."

We need to take the Decider to school on that.

His only responsibility is to protect the Constitution.

He must be nervous about the FISA mark-ups because otherwise he would have just worked on Congress behind the scenes.

<img src="">

somehow I missed that article the 1st time

why protect a bunch of turncoat rat fink bastards like them? fuck 'em!

What other proof does Congress need to prove the telcos conspired with BushCo to break the law, violate the rights of the general public, and invade privacy? The very fact that Shit-for-Brains made this public statement should be good enough to show there was a conspiracy.

Bush is basically making royal decrees when he does this- by threatening to veto, Congress is becoming unwilling to send him the bills he doesn't want. In this way, he is basically giving them his orders.


Tell me that isn't sick, and deserving of "all options on the table"

Isn't he trying to get a lot of malfeasance erased through "retroactive immunity?"

Particularly his malfeasance?

leave this country. Enough is enough.

Just reading * words makes me wanna puke.

""Keeping this authority is critical to keeping America safe," he said."

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

As long as the Dems don't cave in prematurely to give him his precious carte blanche, this will do quite nicely.

'Course, I would have preferred congress to have let the warrantless crap drop entirely, but I didn't imagine the lack of "retroactive immunity" would be a poison pill for Cheneybush.

Unfortunately, they have caved to this kind of "threat" from Bush multiple times. Can't you just see it? He'll veto the bill without this provision, and they will jump right up and pass one that has what he wants because they will be terrified that if we have another attack on American soil it will be blamed on them.

However, it hasn't happened yet, and a few diligent & upstanding senators could stall any such revisions indefinitely.

As long as Cheneybush won't sign it, he's undermining his own position on the urgency of warrantless wiretapping, and I trust that some of the congressional Dems have figured this out as well. By now they should know how to make Cheneybush pay in PR points, and pay dearly, for his petty willfulness at the expense of his own empty vows to protect the nation by shredding the constitution. It's almost too good an opportunity to pass up.

Almost.

I'll grant you this much: if anyone could blow such a chance, it'd be the 2007 Democratic majority weenies. But until they crack, I will hold forth some small hope that this debacle could be transformed into a bizarre victory.

I happened to run across this by accident whie searching a legislative database, and called attention to it at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1166236

My state passed a 2003 law protecting telecoms from suits; did yours?

Texas HB 2474 passed on 6/1/2003, becoming effective 9/1/2003. It loosened regulations for electronic surveillance, and took away recourse for customers who might want to sue the carrier. At the time, I thought that it was probably a sign that the Bush Administration was embarking on a massive domestic spying program under the Patriot Act, and that telecoms were nervous about getting sued.

No recourse for the one who is being monitored -- the bill states that:
(g) A computer trespasser or a user, aggrieved person, subscriber, or customer of a communications common carrier or electronic communications service does not have a cause of action against the carrier or service, its officers, employees, or agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance as required by: (1) legislative authority; or (2) a court order, warrant, subpoena, or certification under this article.

Any bets that these popped up in states (particularly GOP-controlled states) across the country at about the same time?

I happened to stumble across this one in May of 2003 -- before it had passed -- while searching the Texas legislature website. If there were any newspaper articles or public discussion about the bill, I missed it.

At least in the initial version of the bill, all it took was a peace officer to certify to a "communications common carrier" that the officer was acting lawfully and the "communications common carrier" was off the hook and protected from a lawsuit. The bill also specified that the communication carriers would be compensated for any expenses (naturally!Corporations are always entitled to compensation for any nuisances imposed by the Federal government, and individuals never are...)

he's simply not in the world we are but in some self-created world of his own, coddled and insulated by his handlers. should be funny when his term is up and he has to cope with the non-bushworld.

broken the law. They need to be investigated. They worked hand in hand with the bushes to illegally spy on American citizens. The bushes are pointing to where the crime is and the congress acts like they can't see it.