Sickening: Feinstein backs legal immunity for telecom firms in wiretap cases

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Friday, November 9, 2007

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said Thursday that she favors legal immunity for telecommunications companies that allegedly shared millions of customers' telephone and e-mail messages and records with the government, a position that could lead to the dismissal of numerous lawsuits pending in San Francisco.

In a statement at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is considering legislation to extend the Bush administration's electronic surveillance program, Feinstein said the companies should not be "held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities."

She endorsed a recent statement by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va., chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that companies assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal "should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security."

Feinstein, D-Calif., plays a pivotal role on the Judiciary Committee, which has a 10-9 Democratic majority. If she joins committee Republicans in voting next Thursday to protect telecommunications companies from lawsuits for their roles in the surveillance program, the proposal - a top priority of President Bush - will become part of legislation that reaches the Senate floor.

<snip>


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/09/BA13T97BN.DTL

Que pasa, Di Fi?

HAVE YOU BECOME an anti-American REPUBLCION HOMELANDER?

LOL! (& true too!)

I hate being surprised, but yet again, I am surprised. and angry at myself for thinking that she had a smidgeon of character left.

again. Period. It's time the Democrats ran an actual Democrat for her seat.

She played the pivotal role on Mukasey

She will do the same on Telecom Immunity

Damn the Luck!

Who would have expected anything else?

:banghead:

.

I wouldn't be. And I doubt anyone has the leverage needed to twist her arm.

If the party actually didn't like this, the answer would
be simple: Remove her from this powerful committee where
she's doing so much damage and appoint her to the "birthday
recognition events" sub-sub-subcommitte where she'd be
rendered harmless.

The fact that she remains in her committee assignment should
tell you a lot about what the party actually stands for.

Tesha

a subject most people scoff at and know too little about.

studied for quite some time, primarily in such institutions as mental hospitals, prisons and corporations. I think it also holds true for institutions of gov't. there's a culture within institutions, and it's powerful, and largely negative when it comes to breaking the constraints of the culture.

Do we know any strong leaders?

Tesha

Neither Reid or Pelosi are even remotely equipped to do so.

And lets put Rockefeller in there too

I used to like her.

Is a political plan by the conservatives.

By limiting corporate liability, it essentially makes corporations unpunishable to any significant degree for any damages to society they cause, effectively gutting the EPA and such.

But it also cuts off a major line of liberal political funding. An awful lot of Democratic political and activist funding comes from successful trial lawyers to hunt down criminal corporations in the courtroom.

Her phrase "of the Senate Intelligence Committee, that companies assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal 'should not be dragged through the courts for their help with national security'" is conservative spin. She's right, but she's wrong.

They shouldn't be dragged through the courts for helping with national security, they should be dragged through the courts for violating federal law and customer privacy.

eating out of his hand. What did he promise you, Diane? More defense work for your husband's company?

edit to add: corrupt old bitch.

She's just too conservative to truly represent California.

Lucky I didn't say something really harsh...

from California political groups who plan on working towards her replacement. And I will help them in every way I can.

She needs to go. We deserve better representation than what she is giving us. :mad:

I'd sure like to help.

report all suspected Jews to Herr Himmler himself.

Klaus here will take you to the security office where you will be held until the authorities arrive and determine your ancestry.

Our corporation proudly does its duty in service to the Reich!

(Think about it, Senator)

:grr:

Will you hold the people who ordered them to do it responsible? I'm thinking the answer will be 'no'.

Our congress is like that movie 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers'. They're like pod people I just don't recognize.

On issue after issue, time after time, she caves in and votes with the 'Pugs. Whatever happened to holding to certain Democratic party standards. Oh, yeah, corporate money.

I always get Kay Bailey Hutcheson (R, Texas) and Diane Feinstein (?,Ca) confused.
Hard to tell them apart.


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HA!!!
Trick Question.
They are BOTH Conservative Corporate Whores!!!

What is her buddy Schumer doing? Is he going to help fuck this one up too?:puke:

It is the administration that should be held responsible, not the companies who were "assured by top administration officials that the surveillance program was legal "

The legislation needs to be drawn in such a way that granting immunity to the companies does not grant immunity to the administration for their wrong acts.

As I understand it the problem with the legislation is that the way it is written, by granting immunity to these companies, it, de-facto makes the acts legal and THAT needs to be addressed before immunity should be granted.

They should be at least trying to hold the administration accountable! The only reason the companies are being sued in the first place is that the government is NOT being held accountable!

:bounce:

That is my big issue with this, as I understand it, is she says something this kinda right, but ISN'T doing anything about it.

they refused to comply. The other companies surely knew it too, but acquiesced in the face of lucrative government contracts to help them spy. That's bullshit, and it sets a dangerous precedent: that corporations can knowingly get away with being "good Germans" for the government, AGAINST their own customers, and yet are above the law.

In fact, I would say, I know they didn't KNOW, because there is no such thing in the world of law. No lawyer will ever give you a definitive answer on ANYTHING and most likely, the lawyers told them that it is best for them to just follow the advise being given to them by the lawmakers aka, the government.

SOMEONE should be held responsible, but it shouldn't be the pawn.

know the laws. Don't excuse these corporations--they're complicit in the wrongdoing.

Having a "big legal department" doesn't mean you KNOW the laws. NO ONE knows the laws, because they are constantly changing. Even black and white law isn't black and white. In this case there were basically two conflicting laws... The Patriot Act vs pre-existing FISA law and the authority of the NSA/Department of Homeland security. The best you are going to get out of any lawyer on this subject is a definite maybe.

Remember something a law can DIRECTLY violate the constitution and still be CONSTITUTIONAL if there is a compelling interest. (e.g. the government can forbid you to yell fire in a crowded theater or encourage the murder of another citizen and/or official even though it is a restriction on speech). Don't think that lawyers didn't consider this when analyzing this, so to suggest that anyone KNEW the answer (which is still unknown) is very very wrong.

I will give you a recent example that happened directly to me.

My new company shot a commercial. The commercial was shot on the streets of New York and contained shots of some famous places (Yankee Stadium, Radio City Music Hall, etc..). I used to be a lawyer and I found very clear black letter law stating that architecture viewable from the street is, de facto, part of the public domain. So we have the right, by law, to show these buildings in an advertisement so long as the image used was shot from a public place (on the street).

One of my partners had a panic moment and insist we consult with outside counsel for confirmation, despite the fact I could pull out the actual law and point to it. So we spent nearly 5K-10K on lawyer fees to get an opinion letter drafted on whether we needed to get permission and/or a license from these building owners(I don't remember the final legal costs, b/c we had 2 different matters and the total bill was over 20K, so I don't know what portion was this)... when we got that opinion letter back, it gave us a very definitive MAYBE with the suggestion that we SHOULD do it, despite the fact that the black letter law states otherwise.

In the end, the money was wasted and the opinion letter went into the proverbial garbage and I refused to ask permission or offer .01 to anyone for using an image the law specifically states I have the right to use.


Now, example aside, let's look at the practical application here if you DON'T grant immunity.

Frankly, I think there is a 70% or better chance they get off scott free. All they will really have to present is proof that this was their understanding of the law as it existed at the time and they were doing their best to comply. I have no doubt at all they have the paper trial from their legal department to back that up. Any costs they incur will be passed onto the consumer because they still have a basic monopoly over the services they offer.

So, the practical result of not granting immunity? They get off, the case goes way and costs go up for consumers.

Now, reframe the grant of immunity, granting it to the corporations, but making sure the administration is still on the hook? NOW prices won't go up, you may even have some HELP from these companies in going after the responsible parties AND we will get the dang law straightened out.


THAT is why I think Feinstein, as much as I don't like her for 1,000,000 different reasons, happens to be right on this particular issue.

complicity in the PRE-9/11 scheme to eavesdrop would eliminate all possibilty of any evidence against BushCo from ever seeing the light of day--court cases will be thrown out. No judge will EVER rule on the legality of the wiretapping, no one will ever get to the bottom of just what they were doing BEFORE Sept. 11, 2001--because Qwest's CEO has already testified in court that he was approached by intelligence officials from the administration about the program in February 2001--less than a month after Chimpy took office. We'll never know now what the hell that was all about, because no civil suits mean the story is officially buried, forever. Immunity against telecoms means immunity for BushCo. It's that simple.

Immunity can be grated to the telecoms without throwing out the suits, IF the law is drafted in such a way as to absolve them of liability without dissmissing the underlying illegal act by the adiminstration.


At the end of the day, if you don't grant immunity, all that will happen is they will get off AND prices will be higher for consumers. If you don't want to read the reasoning and try to understand it, I can't help you with that.

spying on Americans when you've drafted a law granting them immunity? The suit's over, then. Once they get immunity, the suits are gone, period. And no, they shouldn't get immunity. They participated in illegal acts, and had cause to know it.

The civil suit was brought against the WRONG PARTY. You can dismiss the party without dismissing the lawsuit, allowing the plaintiff's plenty of time to add the CORRECT PARTY, the administration officials who ordered the companies to comply with the law as they presented it.

You do realize they are going to win the case, right? All they need to show is that their "big legal departments" suggested they comply with the orders of the administration and law as it was being presented to them and they will get off. All costs associated with the lawsuits will be passed onto the consumers, so the end result is the lawsuits will get dismissed and the consumers will pay for it.

HOWEVER, if you grant them immunity, specifically allowing for the cases to remain filed with proper parties added, you will have gained an ALLY in the fight against the real culprits.

Don't let your lust to attack a corporation blind you to who is really to blame here... The administration and their manipulation of the people, the companies and the rules of government!

THEY were the ones violating the law, and ignorance of laws, or of how they conflict, is NOT going to get them off the hook. Again, they had CAUSE and proper notice of the laws on the books--that is their JOB to know--when I was an RN, if I deviated from standard practice and caused injury to a patient, I have no recourse in a suit by claiming ignorance of the current Nurse Practice standards set by the state--they send you a COPY of the standards and statutes with your RN license. Please, stop trying to defend these companies--they saw the dollar signs and jumped, probably with the assurance that the laws would be rewritten to guarantee they'll never be held liable--and now we're doing just that, in Congress.

Conflicting laws DOES get you off 100% of the time, so long as you are able to show that you gave them consideration, which they will be able to do. Ignorance of the laws is not an excuse, but that isn't what is going on here.


If you follow the orders of a police offer and committ a crime, you will not be held liable for that crime so long as you can show that it was reasonable to follow the orders of the police officer. The cop may be held liable, as they will be held to a much higher standard; however, the individua and/or company will be completely off the hook.


THAT is what is going on here. The government (who makes the laws) came to these companies and demanded they do something that THE GOVERNMENT presented to them as 100% legal and within the law.

You need to see past your desire to "bring down the corporations" at any cost.

wiretap post 9/11 were, to my knowledge, not in place in early 2001. The government couldn't have presented the telecoms with laws to persuade them of the wiretapping legality if Congress never wrote them. They wouldn't need immunity now, if such laws existed--immunity is BECAUSE they acted against the laws at that time. Also, I find fault with your cop analogy: the executive branch isn't a "police officer"--they can't make up laws on a whim and present them to telecoms. They can't order telecoms to spy on us without laws passed by Congress that allow them to do so. There was a pure financial incentive dangled here--no laws. Both the telecoms and BushCo are guilty.

However, they can act as an authority figure which removes the potential liability from the end user, be it individual or corporation.

Whether the executive branch can or cannot make up laws is completely irrelevant... the fact is that they act with color of authority, just like a police officer does, whether they are right or wrong.

The only question left to answer is whether there is a reasonable belief and after millions of dollars wasted on both ends of this case, I can nearly guarantee you that there will be 0 liability found on behalf of the telecom companies and the consumers will end up paying that money back to them, in triplicate in fees. They will find that the telecom companies had a reasonable belief (a very very VERY low threshold) that they were required to obey the government. Since the constitution DOESN'T apply to the relationship between the telecom comanies and the consumers, the lawsuit will stop there and nothing will get resolved.

The only people you are going to "stick it to" here are the customers of these companies, who are going to pay the price for something for which the company should absolutely, POSITIVELY NOT be held liable.

However a PROPER grant of immunity, will allow the case to go foward against the PROPER party (the administration) where a 4th amendment claim CAN be raised, since the administration IS bound by the constitution, unlike the telecom companies.

not surprised at all.

This is just par for the corporatist Dem's course.

please vote her out!!!!

Isn't the grant of Immunity offered so that people will testify? The offer is made to garner testimony. If it is granted before testimony what would the incentive be to testify?

Busholini & the Fascist Regime along with NSA/ FBI have been spying without Warrents. Congress damn well knows that. There will no zero accountability.

Just planting seeds...

Or we could deploy this kitty to pay her a social call:

Wasn't that AT&T secret room in San Francisco?

I wonder what they talked about on that airplane ride...

What in the hell is wrong with her??? She has deviated from Democratic principles from time to time in the past, but this is ridiculous. She's turning into another Lieberman. God damn! This is so frustrating.