Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
ace, unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the facts...the following sez so, and so does the federal judge who has so far allowed the civil litigation against the telecomms to proceed, within the workable and functioning framework intended for litigation such as this.
I think you've been peruaded to "buy into" solving a problem that the telecoms allegedly face, but doesn't, in fact exist.
Why, if they have broken the law and violated our rights and protections, as their customers, and as residents of the US, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THESE COMPANIES' LITIGATION? Your priorities seem a bit misplaced.....
|
Host,
The Senate took a vote today on this issue it looks like the majority favor immunity for telecoms. It seems about 18 Democrats voted with Republicans on this issue.
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to shield from lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without court permission after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
After nearly two months of stops and starts, the Senate rejected by a vote of 31 to 67 a move to strip away a grant of retroactive legal immunity for the companies.
President Bush has promised to veto any new surveillance bill that does not protect the companies that helped the government in its warrantless wiretapping program, arguing that it is essential if the private sector is to give the government the help it needs.
About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws.
The Senate also rejected two amendments that sought to water down the immunity provision.
One, co-sponsored by Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, would have substituted the government for the telecoms in lawsuits, allowing the court cases to go forward but shifting the cost and burden of defending the program.
The other, pushed by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, would have given a secret court that oversees government surveillance inside the U.S. the power to dismiss lawsuits if it found that the companies acted in good faith and on the request of the president or attorney general.
Full telecom immunity must still be approved by the House; its version of the surveillance bill does not provide immunity.
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1202..._us_whats_news
Do you think these Senators are all wrong the same way you think I am?
And perhaps DC can explain how this vote is not a purely political posturing given the level of rhetoric from Democratic Party leadership on this issue and their continued desire to investigate what really happened. seems like today many in the Senate know enough to support immunity for the telecoms.