Telecom Immunity is a Red Herring.

[garybeck]

The real problem with the new FISA law is that it gives the executive branch the ability to spy on americans without getting a warrant. This is a huge change to the law.

The legislation establishes a new procedure whereby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can sign off on "authorizations" of surveillance programs "targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The government is required to submit a "certification" to the FISA court describing the surveillance plan and the "minimization" procedures that will be used to avoid intercepting too many communications of American citizens. However, the government is not required to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur. The specific eavesdropping targets will be at the NSA's discretion and unreviewed by a judge. Moreover, the judge's review of the government's "certification" is much more limited than the scrutiny now given to FISA applications. The judge is permitted only to confirm that the certification "contains all the required elements," that the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to target foreigners, and that minimization procedures have been established.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars

I'm no fan of immunity to telecoms, but I think that pales in comparison to the new powers that the FISA bill grants to the executive branch, without review by a judge.

Why is everyone focusing so much on immunity? Why is everyone so mad at Obama for voting for the bill, just because it includes immunity?

Why is seemingly no one getting on Obama's case for voting for this bill because it strips judicial review out of the process? Why is he never asked about the fact that the bill ends judicial oversight? He implies the only thing wrong with the bill is immunity and the rest is good.

While everyone seems to be myopically focused on immunity to the telecoms, there seems to be little awareness or discussion about what this bill really does.

Immunity is not good but that's not the real problem with this bill. The ACLU seems to be the only ones who get it, as they say "“The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications." (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3387853)

Immunity is a red herring to get the discussion away from the fact that Congress (including the Dems) are giving the President the ability to spy on americans without a warrant.

[mmonk]

1. You've got it.

It's like a blanket warrant of data mining covering citizens of the United States and is more vague ( a clear violation of the 4th amendment due to its lack of specificity). It can be whatever they deem "national security" related. The door is further widened for abuse.

[garybeck]

2. so why is everyone, even Keith Olbermann and liberal blogs all focused on

telecom immunity?

compared to the other things in the bill, I don't give a rat's ass about telecom immunity. how about the fact that they can decide on their own who they can spy on without a warrant?

[ColbertWatcher]

4. Yet another reason why the GOP cannot continue in Washington one more year. n/t

[mmonk]

10. Because that's the headfake, though a serious one.

[EOTE]

14. Because they're both extremely important.

Immunity isn't a red herring. It may not be as important as the expanded powers that this new FISA bill creates, but it's still pretty damn important as it provides the notion that corporations can violate or destroy our civil liberties and they'll get away scott free because the government will bail them out.

[garybeck]

27. then why is immunity the first, and sometimes only, thing they talk about?

And why does Obama get away with saying immunity is the one thing in the bill he doesn't like but the rest of it is important? This is total BS!

[robinlynne]

8. That has been going on since 2001. There are 41 lawsuits which were moving up in

the courts,and had a good chance of winning which would have shown the real and ugly truth. Enough to put a bunch of people in jail and impeach and more. They all jsut got flushed down the toilet. One of them would rpove that the spying started in February 2001, 7 months before d-day. That is what we lost. the chance for truth.
The rest can be fixed. the rest has been happening all along. The investigation just got killed.

[AntiFascist]

12. Great explanation...

also it sets a dangerous precedent for the legislative branch overriding the rule of law, when most of said legislature doesn't even understand what abuses have occured. By allowing these cases to be persued, the legislature, and hopefully the people as well, would have an idea of the abuses that have occured in the past and would then be motivated to enact further legislation to prevent such abuses. As it stands now, all is swept back under the rug, and the legislature is once again left only to deal with vague concepts of potential abuse, without really knowing (or admitting) what has been going on.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

20. This is probably the most distressing post I've ever read.

In essence, the only means left to people to redress their grievances has been destroyed?

:shrug: HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Isn't that unconstitutional? Or, have the power-mongers found a way AROUND the 'supreme law of the land'?

Depressing. This nation has become depressing.

Politics was always suppose to be about compromise,...but NOT SACRIFICE OF OUR LAWS.

*sigh*

Sad.

[mmonk]

21. That could very well be true.

I wonder how the ACLU suit will play out. That will be key. But yes, I'm sure that was part of the strategy behind this.

[tkmorris]

3. I couldn't agree more

"While everyone seems to be myopically focused on immunity to the telecoms, there seems to be little awareness or discussion about what this bill really does."

That is the problem, right there in a nutshell. I have declined to post on at least 20 threads today alone because it was clear that hardly anyone in the thread actually understood what the bill says. We really need to get people to understand what this bill actually does.

[garybeck]

6. "We really need to get people to understand what this bill actually does."

then give this thread a kick and rec! :)

[robinlynne]

22. The BILL can be revoked. The immunity cannot!!!!!!!!!!

[Wizard777]

30. Not true. The immunity is conditional. They must rat out Bush to a Judge to get the immunity.

If they do not meet all of the conditions. They do not get the immunity. If they later recant their testimony to try to protect Bush. The immunity can be revoked. Prosecutors revoke immunity all the time.

[robinlynne]

32. Immunity given by Congress, the Senate and the president?

This is not a normal state of affairs.

[Wizard777]

36. This could be an impropriety that could have it overturned by SCOTUS.

To the best of my knowledge only congressional committees can grant immunity and they can only grant it in exchange for testimony in the course of an investigation. I'm unaware of anything that gives the whole of Congress the ability to grant immunity. If anyone knows of anything that does. I would like to see it.

[robinlynne]

43. then what did they just do yesterday?

[robinlynne]

5. because the rest can be changed next year. the immunity can not.

[garybeck]

9. Changed next year???? Wow, that's a big assumption.

Are you assuming that Obama wins and the dems get over 60 seats in the Senate? Those are some pretty big assumptions.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to pass a bad bill just because you think it can be changed later. Sounds like a formula for disaster to me.

[robinlynne]

23. just explaining why the immunity is more important than the bill itself.

[robinlynne]

24. The lawsuits would have shown that:

The spying started 7 months before 9/11.
How it was done.
To whom it was done.
that US calls were routed overseas in order to call them inetrnational calls to tape them.
God knows what else.
The lawsuits were the KEY to getting justice and changing the whole thing.

The lawsuits would expose info which would change everything!

[Wizard777]

44. Why can't this come from Criminal Investigations?

Does anyone think the second the criminal phase was over. OJ Simpson said Oh discovery for a civil suit. That's different here's the knife. That's basically what your insinuating. That they would turn over damaging evidence because of discovery in a civil suit. Nobody in their right mind would do that. That's why you do a criminal investigation. So you can kick the fuckin' door in and take EVERYTHING. They are not going to hand you their ass on a silver platter simply because some lawyer says discovery. Another way they could keep their secrets is to say, Heres the full amount you have asked for now go away. Your honor there is no need for a trial. Here is the full amount they are asking for. Then they go back to the office and send a bill to NSA.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

7. Cool! Let's SPY all over the corporacrats and their repuglican base!!!!

I'm sure we could get LOTS-N-LOTS of juicy stuff off those barbaric effers!!!

YUM!!!!

CAN NOT WAIT until those effers are EXPOSED!!!! :woohoo:

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. We're really alone, you know.

Nobody is representing us, nobody is going to help us, and nothing is going to change.

We, at least, need to find our own left-wing publishers that will publish all the atrocities that we are uncovering, that no one will print in their paper and that the public will never hear about. At least we'll leave a record for the next generation, so they can understand that we are being run by a shadow government and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

[fascisthunter]

13. We really Need to Network and Create a Solid Left Movement

more so now than ever. We will be needing each other....

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. Perhaps we should start with a movement that works with protecting

the basic civil rights core. Freedom of Speech, Assembly, etc.

We need to protect the basic American core rights, or we don't deserve to call ourselves Americans.

[fascisthunter]

17. Well... we do have the ACLU

I already plan on it....

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Problem with the ACLU,

is that one minute they're on your side, the next they're on the other guy's side. As long as they will make sure our donations go to where we want them applied, I'm okay with them.

[EFerrari]

16. Immunity is not a red herring because it is immunity for Bush.

But, I agree with you about the rest.

[Wizard777]

29. Can you show me the language in the bill that grants Bush immunity?

You're thinking of this as a pardon and Congress does not have that power. They can grant immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony. That is what they are doing. The telecoms must go to court and testify to a judge that the illegal wire tapping was authorized by the White House AKA George Bush. If they do not rat out Bush. They do not get immunity.

[EFerrari]

31. No: in closing down civil suits, you close down civil discovery

and have to depend on an unwilling government for a prosecution that will never happen.

[Wizard777]

35. This bill does nothing to imped criminal prosecutions of anyone from Telecom to Bush.

This is only civil immunity. We can't take their money. But we can put their asses in jail. I would rather have them in jail than have their money.

[EFerrari]

37. That's precisely my point. You shut down civil suits

and you shut down discovery that could yield material for criminal prosecution.

That leaves you in the position of relying on the government to police itself.

[Wizard777]

38. Criminal cases rely upon Investigations. Not discovery.

The only benefit in a civil trial is a lower burden of proof. But all you get out of that is money.

[EFerrari]

39. And investigations seek information. A valuable venue

for generating information has been shut down.

[Wizard777]

41. This is what you are failing to understand. They must turn states witness against Bush.

They have to go into court and say, Yes we did the illegal wiretap and it was authorized by the White House. This is the equivalent of a hitman going into court to say, Yes I killed him and I was hired by the widow. End game! You have a principle actor identifying the big boss as more than a conspirator. They are identifying him as the source of the crime.

[EFerrari]

42. I'm not failing to understand anything.

Money isn't the only reason to shut down civil suits. The more urgent reason is that civil suits aren't brought by political appointees and so they cannot be controlled by political parties. They dig up embarrassing information and in this climate, no one wants that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Exactly. The Telecoms should pay, but the real loss is the 4th Amendment.

[chill_wind]

25. A coverup of committed felonies. The coverup is the big, big problem.

"What we learned in December, 2005 that George Bush and the telecoms were doing -- listening in on the private conversations of American citizens without warrants -- is a felony under clear U.S. law, punishable by up to 5 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine for each offense. Anyone can go read the section of FISA -- right here -- that says that as clearly as can be:

(...)
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/09/fisa/index.html

[garybeck]

26. So how does giving immunity to the telecoms protect the government officials?

who were seeking this information illegally?

I'm much more concerned about the government than the telecoms. I'm not trying to defend them but remember they were told to give up the information, it's not like they came to the government and said, "hey do you want all this information? here it is just in case."

the real criminals are the government officials and I'm not a lawyer but I don't see them being protected in this legislation.

[seafan]

28. Pardoning the criminal acts is accomplished by George W. Bush's pardon pen.

Thom Hartmann explained this very clearly today:


The reason why Kit Bond and the Republicans were so hell-bent on getting civil suit immunity for the telecoms was that Bush *cannot* pardon civil violations of law. So they had to push it through the Congress very quickly.

The Republicans knew that Bush would then take care of the criminal violations, with generous use of his pardon pen as he walks out of the White House on January 20.



So, all the excitement about.... 'whoa, the telecoms aren't immune from criminal charges!' is useless now, because Bush will pre-emptively pardon anyone and everyone remotely connected to criminal violations of our civil rights. And, we can bet that these pardons have already been drafted and finalized, and are sitting in a locked drawer.


Just as the investigations/pardons of the Reagan/Bush I era were shut down by Bill Clinton, we have once again, been robbed of our ability to find the truth.


This is the most depressing aspect of all of this. We are now repeating our doomed history.


One of the most pressing hopes that I have is to live long enough to see justice work over every last one of these organized criminals with her mighty steel hand.

[EFerrari]

34. By shutting down civil suits. n/t

[dogindia]

33. I have come to believe that the repugs get by with all their nasty stuff because they believe they

they believe they can. The dems are like pussy cats. Roll over and let us pet your tummy while we screw the poor folk. Here lets offer fraudulent Gramm mortgages to everyone. Get rich. Then tank the economy.

Remind me why they are not all in jail.

A nation of whiners
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[ForrestGump]

40. Red herring?

More like a black hole.







:hide: