Comments (28)

Honest John wrote on November 16, 2007 10:21 AM:

There they go again. A lovely compromise. Sue the gov't not the telecomms. So now the taxpayers pay for the telecomm's illegal actions. And basket warrants are still in, legalizing spying on US citizens? No thanks!

Gaines wrote on November 16, 2007 10:29 AM:

No, John, it's worse than that. They'll substitute the federal government as defendant, THEN claim that to allow the cases to proceed would compromise national security and get them dismissed. Nice bait and switch. Surprised Ackerman missed this. Maybe there is something in the proposed compromise that addresses the point. Either way, it should be addressed.

Jehosophat wrote on November 16, 2007 10:35 AM:

They'll cave on all the important provisions, then pass this "compromise" naming the federal government as defendant, and once again the administration will trot out the "state secrets" defense. That will get fought out in court until it no longer matters, and we'll all continue being spied upon while Bush and Co. make sure they'll never see criminal charges.

If not the Democrats, then who will save the Constitution?

Molly Ivins wrote on November 16, 2007 10:44 AM:

Save the Constitution! Raise Hell!

dm wrote on November 16, 2007 10:45 AM:

That compromise is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Assume telecoms violated their legal obligations to customers by disclosing the private data of citizens. Now, instead of the telecoms paying damages, the citizens will be allowed to sue the government, which will fund a legal defense and pay damages with (drumroll) tax money collected from the citizens and allocated for the benefit of the citizens. Does it make sense that a private party should be able to violate the law and the only remedy available is for citizens sue in a manner contrary to their own financial and civic interests?

Specter to taxpayers: "Congratulations. The telecoms harmed you, and now, as a remedy, you can sue and, in the process, inflict more harm on yourselves."

Anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 10:45 AM:

Sue yourself?

p_lukasiak wrote on November 16, 2007 10:48 AM:

well, the Times article makes one thing clear.... Whitehouse, Specter, and DiFi are motivated not by national security concerns, but solely insuring that telecom profit margins are not threatened.

The Specter 'compromise' is a joke, because it completely eliminates the one thing that would make the telecoms obey the law -- big court settlements when they do violate the law. Corportations are set up so that the only allowable actions by executives are those that contribute in some way to the bottom line -- acting against the company's interest is breach of fiduciary responsibility, and it is only the threat of shareholder lawsuits against executives who violate the law in a way that hurts the bottom line that will keep those executives in line.

via wrote on November 16, 2007 10:51 AM:

Time to call Harry Reid!!

jm wrote on November 16, 2007 10:53 AM:

The only compromise should be "I'll give you (the Bush admin) telecom immunity after you sign S-CHIP into law, sign all budget/appropriations bills approved by the Senate and House into law, bring the troops home from Iraq, cease the recess appointments, promise there will be no more vetos, and produce all documents etc. requested by various oversight committees."

Powkat wrote on November 16, 2007 10:54 AM:

The Dems need to start thinking like prosecutors: squeeze the telecoms to roll over on BushCo. If it's just the government, they will throw up 'national security' (and I do mean throw up) and shut everything down.

Once made accountable for their behavior the telecoms will be much less willing to sell our civil liberties down the river the next time.

Loren Korevec wrote on November 16, 2007 11:01 AM:

Didn't Nuremburg establish that culpability belongs to the perp?
No amnesty!

K. Smith wrote on November 16, 2007 11:18 AM:

Reid will side with immunity.

johnnydoughey wrote on November 16, 2007 11:22 AM:

"Molly Ivins wrote on November 16, 2007 10:44 AM:
Save the Constitution! Raise Hell!"

You can only save that which is still viable.

Post after post and news article after article has shown that we no longer use the constitution. It is only a historical comment these days... IMHO

Doofus wrote on November 16, 2007 11:32 AM:

My money's on another big cave-in. Reid, and the rest of the Dems leadership, are weak and feckless, and they've proven it time and time again.

jolly ranchero wrote on November 16, 2007 11:36 AM:

Once this brings the Feds into it, "state secrets" will be the most over-used word in court.

The Feds want this onus becuase they have a sure-fire method of getting the whole thing dismissed.

If Reid cannot see this, he's not fit for leadership.

Jeroen wrote on November 16, 2007 11:37 AM:

Gaines is right -- "state secrets" has become the new mantra in every case involving potentially illegal conduct by this administration. And the federalist society stacked federal courts are all too willing to extend this doctrine beyond recognition.

jeffgee wrote on November 16, 2007 11:39 AM:

Now Bush will put on a stern expression, make his ugly eyebrows uglier, and pre-blame the Democrats for the next terrorist attack.

Me_again wrote on November 16, 2007 11:47 AM:

Jeebus whatever happen to Republicans, the use to abhorred burdening the taxpayer with other people's criminal liability.

I’m surprised that conservative voters don’t find this proposal by Sen. Arlen Spector completely repulsive. Why should taxpayers have to pick-up the tab for the illegal actions of this administration? To bad conservative voters don’t know who they are anymore.

When it comes Bush and his veto pen, you know that Democrats don’t really care that Bush and Cheney did something illegal. Congressional Dems don’t care about how Bush broke his oath of office and Dems don’t care that even Ashcroft had told Bush that his wiretapping program was in fact “illegal” and to shut it DOWN.

It’s ONLY because the Dems didn’t like Bush’s last veto. Dems want their earmark money and now they got a tool, that should rightfully be used to impeach Bush, not to blackmail him.

The Dem Party will use this telecom immunity deal as a BLACKMAIL tool against Bush. It is all the Reid and Nancy Pelosi really care about, and Josh Marshall has got to know this too. It is the way it plays out time and again.

Dems don’t care about the rule of law anymore that Bush does, don’t care about how illegal Bush’s wiretapping was, don’t care about the US Constitution or that Bush is torturing whomever he wants, or that he lied about the reasons for war.

Josh Marshall and everyone working on this website MUST already KNOW THIS TOO.

The Washington Post doesn’t care, the New York Times doesn’t care.

But its is there for every American citizen to see, our US Congress is trading away our US Constitution for pork barrel money, personal favors and party control.

Honest John wrote on November 16, 2007 11:57 AM:

We're missing the major issue here. However our reps split the baby on telecomm immunity and make us pay for it, basket warrants are still in. Like whether waterboarding is torture with Mukasey which, as Sen. Bingaman so well articulated, distracted from the real issue of Mukasey's embrace of the unitary executive theory, debate over telecomm immunity has become a displacement activity distracting from the real issue of legalizing spying on US citizens.

disgusteddan wrote on November 16, 2007 12:03 PM:

a matter of "fairness,"

Fair would be prosecuting the participating Telecos and baning them from Gov't contracts. Contracts should go to Qwest as a reward for standing up to Bush and doing what they could to protect our rights.

randall wrote on November 16, 2007 12:19 PM:

Reid will cave in and give Dubya everything he wants. The man has no balls and will never exercise his constitutional perogative to slap the executive down. Democrats are not weak on national defense or national security... they are simply gut-less and ball-less. The shame I feel continues to grow with every cave-in of Reid & Pelosi. How sad. The most I can say is that America's best and brightest should get out of the country a.s.a.p. The country does not deserve us.

Zoyd Wheeler wrote on November 16, 2007 12:41 PM:

Collaborators, again, bla, bla, bla. We need some sort of supra-constitutional commission that could sort through all these attacks on the constitution, whether the Dems provide indemnification or not, and summarily prosecute them. This commission could have it's underpinnings in the special prosecutor laws, but make it more like a Nurenberg apparatus with as many prosecutions going simultaneously, with the accused in custody pending outcome. Yeah, like a rendition thing. We don't have Habeas Corpus anyway right?

theswan wrote on November 16, 2007 2:21 PM:

The sell out is at hand.

American law, corporatations gets to fall back on goverment protection in a suit, a citizen, who pays taxes gets blugeoned by it weight.

Olmec Head wrote on November 16, 2007 2:40 PM:

As if we don't already know who will "blink" first.

Molly Ivins wrote on November 16, 2007 5:06 PM:

johnnydoughey: Raise Hell!

George Orwell wrote on November 16, 2007 5:09 PM:

Told you so

Persona non grata wrote on November 16, 2007 5:52 PM:

Jehosophat typed:

"If not the Democrats, then who will save the Constitution?"

Screw the fold like a lawn chair Democrats.

Its our, the peoples, duty to enforce the constitution.

Get off your ass and start rattling some Capitol cages NOW.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 10:53 AM:

The real TRUTH behind the Republican DECEIT on the FISA debate and the VETO threat.

In effect, this is a law requiring Bush to report his own crimes :rofl:

Why are Bush and the Rs really in a tizzy? Why the veto threat, and why is team-player Mukasey taking the fall for the veto idea.
Because the House Version passed today "Requires an Audit of the President’s Surveillance Program and Other Warrantless Surveillance Programs"

Don't fall for all the DECEIT, distractions, and diversions.
Don't fall for the ploy that the veto idea is coming from Mukasey. Just more lies, and another new liar it seems already.
This law will be vetoed because BUSH is unwilling to CONFESS! It is just that simple. It is all about DECEIT!
Ironically, a veto will serve one purpose only, Obstruction of Justice.

=======
Summary Of The RESTORE Act of 2007 (Responsible Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective)
http://thinkprogress.org/restore-act-summary /

Bill Summary
Security and Liberty: The bill provides the Intelligence Community with effective tools to conduct surveillance of foreign targets outside the United States but restores Constitutional checks and balances that were not contained in the Protect America Act (PAA–the Administration’s FISA bill.)

The RESTORE ACT:
..... Requires an Audit of the President’s Surveillance Program and Other Warrantless Surveillance Programs. This audit mandates a report and documents related to these programs be provided to Congress in unclassified form with a classified annex.