Understanding Your Phone Bill: Telecom Immunity Charge
by John Paczkowski
Posted on June 25, 2008 at 5:08 AM PT
Sen. Chris Dodd’s threats of a filibuster forced the Senate to reconsider the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act once before. Sadly, they didn’t get it rewritten, which is why the Connecticut Democrat is now threatening to filibuster it again.
Yesterday Dodd, along with Sen. Russ Feingold (D., Wis.) said they plan to take steps to block FISA as long as it grants retroactive immunity to telecoms complicit in the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. “No one seriously wants to financially cripple our telecommunications industry,” Dodd said in remarks before the Senate last night. “The point is to bring checks and balances back to domestic spying. Setting that precedent would hardly require a crippling judgment. It’s much more troubling, though, that our director of National Intelligence even bothers to speak to ‘liability protection for private-sector entities.’ This isn’t the Secretary of Commerce we’re talking about, but the head of our nation’s intelligence efforts. For that matter, how does that even begin to be relevant to letting this case go forward? Since when did we throw entire suits out because the defendant stood to lose too much? It astounds me that some can speak in the same breath about national security and bottom lines. Approve immunity, and Congress will state clearly: The richer you are, the more successful you are, the more lawless you are entitled to be. A suit against you is a danger to the Republic! And so, at the rock-bottom of its justifications, the telecoms’ advocates are essentially arguing that immunity can be bought.”
And, according to MAPlight’s analysis of PAC campaign contributions from Verizon (VZ), AT&T (T) and Sprint (S), it can.
To prevail, Dodd’s filibuster must be supported by 41 of the 100 senators. If its opponents can muster 60 votes–a distinct possibility given the number of Democrat’s who’ve compromised with the Republican White House on this issue–it will fail. And the 40 or so lawsuits over civil-liberties violations arising from the Bush administration’s controversial domestic wiretap program will be dismissed.
Comments
It astounds me that Senator Dodd can speak in the same breath about national security and punishing companies who have assisted in foreign surveillance efforts.
Posted by Matt Lohr at June 25th, 2008 at 10:09 amIt amazes me that propagandists are still busy trying to scam people into believing that AMERICAN telecom companies were used to spy on citizens in FOREIGN countries.
If they wanted to spy on foreign citizens then why didn’t they get the help of telecoms from those countries?
Common sense, much, you propagandists?
Posted by Geoffrey A at June 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am“Let me make clear, at the outset of this debate, that this is not about domestic surveillance itself. We all recognize the importance of domestic surveillance – in an age of unprecedented threats.
This is about illegal, unwarranted, unchecked domestic surveillance. …
I am here today to say that I will not and cannot support this legislation. It goes against everything I have stood for – everything this body ought to stand for… This is about far more than a few telecoms – it is about contempt for the law, large and small.”
- Senator Chris Dodd
I think that pretty much says it all, eh?
Posted by Ed Chavez at June 26th, 2008 at 9:56 pm