Bush Again Demands Telecom Immunity

President Repeats Calls For Lawsuit Protection Over Wiretaps; Would Surveillance Suffer Without It?

(CBS/AP)  In his radio address today, President George W. Bush again called for retroactive legal immunity from class action lawsuits initiated against telecommunication companies that participated in the government's wiretapping program without court-ordered warrants.

It follows many other recent statements by the Bush Administration and its supporters in Congress who are trying to push through a legislative measure that removes a citizen's right to sue, as part of the law overseeing the government's surveillance of citizens and foreigners.

Critics have called Mr. Bush's tone and choice of words "fear-mongering," if not merely wrong, when he characterizes the importance of retroactive immunity for past lawbreaking in being able to protect America from future terrorist threats.

The immunity provision currently being fought over (and which will be back in the spotlight when House members return this week) is part of the update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (or FISA), a law first enacted in 1978 which sets the conditions under which the government can engage in surveillance of citizens and non-citizens.

Under FISA, intelligence agencies must obtain warrants from a special court when setting up a wiretap. There are procedures in place, such as a 3-day window in which to get approval after the fact if time is of the essence. There are also protections when communications involve American citizens inside or outside of the U.S.

After it was revealed in December 2005 that the Bush administration had set up a secret surveillance program outside of the FISA court, and had engaged the cooperation of some telecom companies in tapping into and copying all telephone and Internet communications of every American beginning in 2001, discussions started on how to move forward in bolstering the legal protections afforded by FISA.

In addition, several dozen citizen lawsuits were launched to seek discovery against the telecoms' role in the wiretaps, which were run outside of the protections of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment.

Congress is split on providing immunity to the telecoms from civil liability (which would shut down the court cases, thus preventing discovery about the spy program's parameters); House and Senate versions differ and must be debated and agreed to before sending a bill to the White House.

President Bush has made it known repeatedly that, while he demands an update to FISA in order to ensure national security, he also will not sign any law that does not grant protection from lawsuits to the telecoms.

Mr. Bush's veto threats, the war of words, and the Congressional Republicans' refusal to allow an extension of current law (which expired earlier this month) meant that Congress left for a recess without voting on the new surveillance bill.

Mr. Bush laid the blame for the lapse on the doorstep of Capitol Hill: "Congress' failure to pass this legislation was irresponsible," he said in his radio address today, implying that our nation will be "increasingly vulnerable to attack."

"House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits."

"They cannot have it both ways," leading Congressional Democrats responded. "If it is true that the expiration of the [surveillance law] has caused gaps in intelligence, then it was irresponsible for the president and Congressional Republicans to openly oppose an extension of the law."

But how do class action lawsuits factor into intelligence gathering today, or tomorrow?

The Refusal To Cooperate

Mr. Bush says that, if telecoms do not get liability protection for wiretapping conducted in the past, they will refuse to do so in the future. "Without protection from lawsuits, private companies will be increasingly unwilling to take the risk [emphasis added] of helping us with vital intelligence activities," he said. "In other words, the House's refusal to act is undermining our ability to get cooperation from private companies. And that undermines our efforts to protect us from terrorist attack."

In a letter to Congress Friday, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey claim the lack of a new law has cost the government some intelligence information over the past week because some private companies have delayed or refused compliance with requests to initiate wiretaps against people covered by orders issued under the expired law.

They said most companies are cooperating, but some have suggested they will stop if "the uncertainty [over immunity] persists."

McConnell has described the companies' stance as, "You can't protect me. Why should I help you?"

Such comments tend to color the White House's characterization of those companies' past warrantless wiretap efforts as patriotic ("They did the right thing").

Senior administration officials refused Friday to specify which companies, or how many, were not cooperating. They said the companies believe the law's expiration means no changes can be made in existing wiretaps, which can last for as long as a year.

FISA law compels phone companies to switch on a wiretap when presented with a warrant, although some claim a technicality in the currently expired law (the Protect America Act) does away with that.

While McConnell told the Associated Press, "There is no longer a way to compel the private sector to help us," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat, said that even when the law expires, existing wiretapping orders would continue to protect telecom companies.

It is also true that under the law telecoms would be safe from any lawsuits related to current or future wiretaps that invaded a citizen's privacy if they were engaged under a court-ordered warrant - it would be legal. The only wiretaps the telecoms could be liable for in civil cases would be illegal wiretaps - which the administration, under the law, couldn’t legally pursue anyway.

"Misguided Notion" Of Protecting American Rights

Concerns about constitutional breaches in citizens' rights have been downplayed by the administration, suggesting either that the information retrieved from warrantless wiretaps was valuable enough to warrant skirting the law, or that people in the Information Age should not expect the kinds of privacy protections our parents and grandparents expected.

In October, Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, said, "Those two generations younger than we are have a very different idea of what is essential privacy, what they would wish to protect about their lives and affairs. And so, it's not for us to inflict one-size-fits-all.

"I think all of us have to really take stock of what we already are willing to give up, in terms of anonymity."

White House supporters in Congress are pushing the envelope even further, going so far as to suggest that those who keep an immunity provision from being passed might be to blame should another attack occur.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Southern California Republican, told the Orange County Register, "Just think about shutting down the interceptions because of some misplaced notion about protecting American rights and we end up with families being murdered at Disneyland because some messages weren't intercepted."

But there is that pesky Fourth Amendment, which clearly states,

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Room 641A at an AT&T facility in San Francisco, through which phone calls, e-mail and Internet traffic were allegedly, indiscriminantly siphoned to be copied by the government, doesn’t quite fit.

It's All About Plaintiff's Lawyers

The president said, "The Senate bill would prevent plaintiffs' attorneys from suing companies believed to have helped defend America after the 9/11 attacks. More than 40 of these lawsuits have been filed, seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in damages from these companies."

While damages are being sought based upon violations of such laws as FISA, the Wiretap Act, the Communications Act, and the Stored Communications Act, the lawsuits (such as Hepting v. AT&T) also seek access to classified information about the spying program: Who authorized it, who enabled it, and how the information was used.

To those who intimate that the administration's surveillance was used for anything other than tracking suspected al Qaeda members (such as for political purposes), the value of this case goes beyond any financial remuneration.

[cbsblogger]

This is about protecting B-U-S-H not the telcos. He knows that a civil suit will lead to him and his breaking of current US laws. We are a country of laws, aren''t we?

[cyberus-2009]

Its been said before .. if they aren''t doing anything illegal they don''t need immunity.

[fredcs25]

The current law is effective and there exist no reason for a new one.The Bush adminitration is wrong on this one.

[irliberal]

Bush is trying to keep himself out of jail when he leaves office. That is all. If the telcos can be sued for the illegality of breaching privacy rights, then so can Bush. Simple. And it won''t work.

[neobrian-2009]

WATERBOARD SHRUB
THEN IMPEACH HIM!!! THE WORLDS BIGGEST CRIMINAL !

[kesac4650]

The bill is just what it says it is. We need to ensure that no one can bring our intelligence efforts to a halt by tyeing up our communications companies in civil harrassment law suits.
The same people who whined that our government didn''t protect us from 9/11, now wants to hamstring our efforts to provide that very protection.

[b-easy63]

Bet they will find wiretap and email confiscation by the WH that had more to do with potential political opponents than terrorist and will show a pattern. Why should Bush care if companies are sued for past crimes if the law to continue to do so protect them now? The fact is, they could not be sued for the same acts now--but they could be sued for past acts that are shown to have nothing to do with Terror, but more with gathering information perhaps to use to leverage, extort, blackmail or squeeze people in Congress with.

We know that Obama recently voted against granting that immunity and if he is elected, Congress will be able to blow the lid off of those acts--perhaps even to see why some members in Congress voted to kill any open court scrutiny--we might even find out why everyone has let the war Americans don''t want --go on and why Pelosi won''t impeach. Hilary refused to vote on the immunity bill, she was in town but did not go to Capitol Hill. So we don''t know how she''d vote--uphold the Constitution or join others in ignoring it to protect Bush---wonder why Hilary did not take a side? Maybe she also has some use for all the stuff Bush found out.

In the end, only one of the candidates who voted "no" to immunity, stands ready to stop the BS. It''s not McCAin and its not Clinton. Bush gets a lot of free passes from congress--the answer probably lies in what he has on many of them--and how he wields that intel.

[rowdytexan2]

Give it up Idiot Son...you are lying and everybody knows it! All you have to do to protect this country is get a warrant and spy on a proposed terrorist all you want to!

What you did was save every telephone conversation, every email, and every data transmission that went across those phone lines. That is SPYING on US citizens and is against the law! You didn''t have a warrant to do it, and no justification at all!

Your attempt to protect your illegal decision holds no water at all when you have in fact BROKEN THE LAW AND ARE A CRIMINAL!

[myidoncbs]

"...tapping into and copying all telephone and Internet communications of every American beginning in 2001."

George Orwell''s Big Brother, courtesy of Little King George, the Idiot.

[olebd]

This apes time would be better spent trying to get the price of gas to come down to reasonable levels which to me would be around $2 per gallon.

[b-easy63]

3 NATIONAL REFERENDUMS should be placed in the General Election along with deciding who will be the next President and the results should be deciding and binding:

1. Should telecommunication companies who broke the law and allowed illegal wiretapping between 2001 and 2006 be granted immunity for their acts? YES NO

2. Should the war crime immunity granted to Bush and cohorts for actions involving the war in Iraq be rescinded? YES NO

3. Should an investigation be launched and potentially post presidential and vice presidential impeachment pursued if necessary for Bush and Cheney? YES NO

We, the people should be able to really voice our will on these issues as opposed to selected polls and politicians who may or may not be under the foot of Bush and his secrets right now. (and therefore will do what ever Bush wants) Because we all know--that the weird behavior of both Republicans and Democrats in Congress pretty much show that something really fishy is going on to allow anyone to defend, or promote the crazy policies of Bush--odds are itn''t kool aide--it is blackmail--for many who go along with him.

[slim1h2o]

Shrub is trying to run a protection racket.

[liberalme]

He DEMANDS??? Getting a little testy huh?
Well we have a few DEMANDS of our own--like impeach the murdering liar.
Anyone who sides with Bush on this one should be voted out in November.
It isn''t just the fact that 99% of Americans are honest law abiding citizens and truly, none of have anything to hide--but WE didn''t have anything to do with 911--why eaves drop on us?

Perhaps Bush and Cheneys calls should have been under surveillance prior to 911!!
Bush ordered, the telecoms agreed---let the chips fall where they may--no one is above the law--not even GI George!

[myidoncbs]

"...The same people who whined that our government didn''t protect us from 9/11, now wants to hamstring our efforts to provide that very protection."

In your desperate attempt to justify Bush''s criminality, you are overlooking the fact that all our intelligence agencies WARNED Bush that al Qaeda was going to attack us, but Bush decided to continue his month-long vacation, rather than do ANYTHING to protect us.

And, can you explain exactly how the current FISA law "hamstrings" our government''s ability to monitor susspected terrorists? FISA already allows them to wiretap ANYBODY at ANYTIME! They just have to justify it to the FISA court within 3 days. How does that "hamstring" anything?

The ONLY thing this gang of criminals cares about now is protecting themselves from prison! This is just one of Bush''s many attempts to avoid going to the pokey. Unfortunately for him and his puppetmaster, D1c.k, they are both guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and they will eventually be called before the International Criminal Court, and they will surely be sentenced to die to pay for their crimes.

[Hybdiesel]

This is all about covering bushits butt. Hang him now or later. Let the whole world see bushit and his puppet master swing from a tree, and just maybe this country could take a step forward again.

[myidoncbs]

"...odds are itn''t kool aide--it is blackmail--for many who go along with him."

I''ve always suspected the anthrax, which was primarily sent to democrats, plus a few random people. Note that, in addition to failing to protect us from 9/11, the Bush administration never caught the anthrax killer. Nobody''s even looking anymore. The anthrax got everybody freaked out ("death in the mail!" "nobody''s safe!"), so they must have thought, "Job well done!" as they proceeded with their war plans.

[cbs_oliver]

"President Repeats Calls For Lawsuit Protection Over Wiretaps; Would Surveillance Suffer Without It?"

Questions arn''t generally appropriate for use in the headlines of news stories.

I have to say, I have over time developed an intense dislike for the editor who makes headlines at CBS.com.

He should be working for the Star or maybe a porn rag rather than for CBS.

[j-whitman]

The only time phone companies refuesed to cooporate with the government was when the government didn''t pay the bill.

[cbs_oliver]

This article is about the most comprehensive and best presentation of the issues I have read yet.

Well done!

[mrconservatv]

Hi my name is traitor I''m a Bush oholic

CBS right wing posers, Hi traitor

[jumkey]

"...the Congressional Republicans'' refusal to allow an extension of current law.."

One of the many truths that has gone under-reported about this.

Remember a couple of weeks ago, when Bush and all the Republicans were screaming that we were now vulnerable to terrorist attack because this didn''t pass? IT WAS THE REPUBLICANS WHO REFUSED TO ALLOW AN EXTENSION.

[steeepe]

Well I demand that the criminal Bush be impeached, along with his accomplice Cheney. Man, this guy is just awful -- what an embarrassment for the USA. I hope that those two are brought to justice someday and that they don''t escape with pardons or immunity.

[j-whitman]

Our Constitution''s 1st ammendment our government loves to use for protection of lobbies,, also provides the ability of citizens to sue for redress of grievances. ----- Immunity is Un-Constitutional

[singingrick]

Of course Bush wants immunity for telecoms because he wants immunity for himself. He knows he''s broken the law.

[mrconservatv]

Well I demand that the criminal Bush be impeached, along with his accomplice Cheney. Man, this guy is just awful -- what an embarrassment for the USA. I hope that those two are brought to justice someday and that they don''''t escape with pardons or immunity.



Posted by steeepe at 02:37 PM : Feb 23, 2008


Does any one find it odd that Ken Lay i.e., Kenny Boy died of a heart attack and yet
D I C K. C by all accounts who has a far worse heart condition; yet lives on.

[barbaraf4]

I''ll bet President Moron pardons himself and his entire administration when he is leaving office.

[mrconservatv]

We have lost intelligence

McConnell and Mukasey


Another Bush Administration admission

As if Americans didn''t already know

[lloydbest1]

"Read the 800 signing statements this little cornpone dictator has used to alter legislation; read the Military Commissions and Patriot Acts. While your at it, Google Presidential directive number 51. We%u2019re lucky this little prikkkk hasn%u2019t yet declared martial law".....Posted by psy_war at 02:19 PM : Feb 23, 2008

I have. It''s not good. Don''t count on our luck continuing. We still have seven months before the election and nine before formal transfer of power. This administration is desparate. The tone of GWB''s demands here and of his speeches recently tell me he''s about to pull the plug.
Look for a convenient terrorist attack oh, say about the last week in September or first in October. That gives Bush and his gnomes enough time to plan and implement something nasty and enough time before the election to capture all sorts of sham "terrorists" and justify cancelling the whole works and ruling by decree.
Yeah, I know I am sounding a lot like King77shaw but the Supremes have backed the directive, the Patriot Act and the warrantless intrusion on our private conversations. Do I believe such a scenario as I have described above WILL happen? Can''t say that I do; CAN it happen...You better believe it!
Back to the article at hand. The Telecoms knew (or should have known) that the request to tap into our communications with out a court order was illegal and unconstitutional. They all should have collectively told Bush to go p*ss up a rope.

[mrconservatv]

McConnell acknowledged last week that the White House''''s . "we have lost intelligence


Ha stupid idiots

[wdrussell1]

George had a choice. Defend the Constitution or defend the telecoms, and he chose the telecoms. I''m not even surprized.

[liberalme]

House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits."

Translation:

Bush and the telecom companies have been operating illegally.

Mr. Bush said today, "It is unfair and unjust to threaten these companies with financial ruin only because they are believed to have done the right thing and helped their country."

Translation:

Could I be sued by these companies?

Mirroring his comments last week that terrorists around the world are planning actions that would make 9/11 "pale by comparison," President Bush said we must never forget that "somewhere in the world, at this very moment, terrorists are planning the next attack on America." Which is likely true.

The assault of 911 on America will never be forgotten-Who was really responsible for 911 is in question by millions, however the assault of George W Bush on Iraq and the world is unforgivable--horrific and evil.
George W Bush is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and threatens more attacks.

I have not read anywhere, where we have caught terrorists, broken up cells or assisted in other countries that have broken up cells.
This eavesdropping program is about as good as the FBI''s 800,000 names on their terror watch list.

I would be more concerned with the power Bush has given himself--with no one questioning--and the fact he does keep repeating we will be attacked by something greater than 911.
What is HE planning?

[rowdytexan2]

McConnell acknowledged last week that the White House''''''''s . "we have lost intelligence


Ha stupid idiots



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by mrconservatv at 03:00 PM : Feb 23, 2008

You mean destroyed it?

[walt1944-2009]

The Great Emperor Bush is DEMANDING that Congress give telephone companies retroactive immunity from prosecution for breaking the law, just as he and his neocon Fascist Nazi followers expect to receive immunity for the many times they ha ve broken the law to, supposedly, protect us from those nasty "terrrrrrrrorists"!

Naturally, the Great Emperor wants to "protect" his friends in the telecommunication industry as well as the big companies like AT&T, Verizon, and others, which makes one wonder if they are not breaking the law, why should they need protection???

Still, the Great Emperor Bush is confident that by using his persuasive "muscle" and having the stupidly-loyal neocon Fascist Nazi Republicans in Congress continue to support his policies of destroying the Constitution, that the evil, cowardly Whimpo-crats will "cave in" to the Great Emperor''s demands as they have always done!

SIG HEIL, BUSH!!!!
sig heil, McCain????

[neobrian-2009]

WATERBOARD SHRUB! IMPEACH BUSH & CHAIN CHENEY !
CRIMINALS ! CRIMINALS! CRIMINALS !

[fiteit1]

It is plain and simple, if it was legal they don''t need immunity!

[mcvet]

This Sleazy piece of Nazi Trash is hiding something. There''s something there he doesn''t want us to know about and you can bet the farm on that. There''s just way to much fear there, you can see it in the slime balls face. I don''t think he knows how to tell the truth so you can pretty much dismiss the trash he''s putting out there as being meant to scare the cowardly base of his. Nope, folks he''s violated the LAW and done it big time. Sieg Heil Bush

[mrconservatv]

McConnell acknowledged last week that the White House''''''''''''''''s . "we have lost intelligence


Ha stupid idiots



--------------------------------
----------------------------------------
--------

Posted by mrconservatv at 03:00 PM : Feb 23, 2008

You mean destroyed it?


Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 03:13 PM : Feb 23, 2008


They only destroy incriminating evidence

Losing intelligence means they fired another whistle blower

[rowdytexan2]

I would be more concerned with the power Bush has given himself--with no one questioning--and the fact he does keep repeating we will be attacked by something greater than 911.
What is HE planning?








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by liberalme at 03:04 PM : Feb 23, 2008

Really good question!

Call me a conspiracy nut, I don''t care, but 9/11 is as suspicious as hell! And this regime has proven over and over that loss of life bothers them not one whit.

We need to put Mr. Bush on notice that if a terrorist act is caused/allowed to happen again in the US ON HIS WATCH...that there will be an all out effort to hang his a/s/s for it! And no holds barred...

As we speak, he is allowing the Turks to genocide Iraqi Kurdish rebels...an act that he used as a means to have Saddam Hussein hanged.

[mrconservatv]

Posted by liberalme at 03:04 PM : Feb 23, 2008

Really good question!

Call me a conspiracy nut, I don''''t care, but 9/11 is as suspicious as hell!




Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 03:19 PM : Feb 23, 2008

Article on 9/11 worth reading


Unraveling Of The Official
911 Story Continues
By Mark H. Gaffney
2-22-8

Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king''s horses and all the king''s men
couldn''t put Humpty together again.

Today in America, we are witness to a great unraveling, the likes of which we have never seen before. There are no historical precedents. For many months now the official narrative about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America has been coming apart, and I mean: at the seams. The official story about that terrible day is disintegrating. The trend shows no sign of abating and in recent weeks it even appears to have accelerated. At the present rate, soon there will be nothing left of the official version of events but a discordant echo and a series of extremely rude after shocks.

http://www.rense.com/general80/humpty.htm

[jwind11]

rofl, lol, i see the people that rode the short bus to school are gathered again pretending to know anything about politics. lol

[crater7]

CONGRESS SHOULD "DEMAND THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION ABIDE BY THE LAW," AND THE TELECOM INDUSTRY WOULD NOT NEED IMMUNITY.
IF THE TELECOM INDUSTY IS BREAKING THE LAW, THEY SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, ALONG WITH THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

[mcvet]

rofl, lol, i see the people that rode the short bus to school are gathered again pretending to know anything about politics. lol


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jwind11 at 03:26 PM : Feb 23, 2008
+ report abuse

Well if it isn''t the KING Bootlicker!! So tell us you pathetic LOSER, why would this piece of HUMAN Trash YOU call a President INSIST on this IF he or they did NOTHING wrong? Come on swastika breath spew the "Party" line for us AND explain it!! You might also explain the video on the Nazi''s Web Site... If that isn''t Third World Dictator krap I''ve never seen it. SIEG HEIL BUSH!!

[bedwetter777]

I agree that the display of utter shamelessness that the Bush administration has diplayed here in his demand of immunities, and all the other displays of shameless breaches of law, have me worried that he would have no qualms about staging a "false flag" operation and use it as an excuse to stay in power past his term.

[fiteit1]

There will most likely be another attack on US soil but on the West Coast in August. The Bush Company in secret will orchestrate it. It will be funded by the money %u201Clost%u201D in Iraq and the %u201Cfood for oil%u201D program. It will be easier than the last one on 9-11 because with the rules of the Patriot Act, Executive privilege, National Security, illegal eavesdropping and wire tapping and no checks and balances or oversight they have complete control over who comes into the country and goes out. They have most likely brought groups in and have them in place. This is why it is crucial for him to keep these laws in place and keep third parties and over sight out. He is using scare tactics to accomplish this as well as to set up the %u201CI told you so%u201D when his plan is carried out. He makes statements like %u201Cpale in comparison to 9-11%u201D because he or members of his company knows what it is. He must keep plausible deniability as a %u201CI don%u2019t know anything%u201D (we already know that) excuse. The timing will be such that it will give him time to declare marshal law, and postpone the elections. He will single handily revamp the constitution using the threat of more terrorism and instill more fear in the minds of the weak.

SAY NO TO THE SENATES VERSION OF THE FISA. Write, email, call your House representative and insist that they don%u2019t cave into Bush%u2019s threat tactics. No one is above the law not even Bush.
continued

[fiteit1]

www.house.gov/house/MemStateSearch.shtml
Click your State
Highlight the rep in your State
Rt. Click & copy
Paste that into a search and that persons web site shows up
Locate the contact info and send the message, DON%u2019T CAVE IN. DO NOT APPROVE THE SENATES VERSION OF FISA

[jwind11]

Well if it isn''''t the KING Bootlicker!! So tell us you pathetic LOSER, why would this piece of HUMAN Trash YOU call a President INSIST on this IF he or they did NOTHING wrong? Come on swastika breath spew the "Party" line for us AND explain it!! You might also explain the video on the Nazi''''s Web Site... If that isn''''t Third World Dictator krap I''''ve never seen it. SIEG HEIL BUSH!!

Posted by MCVet

having great weekend thanks mcvet, i am at my lakehouse,,,just taking a break from doing my taxes....had great night last night...won 1k in poker tourney...taxes not going great tho, it looks like i will owe again this year...thats what happens when you make so much money...oh well, i dont mind, this is the greatest country in the world which gave me oppurtunity to succeed...so things are great!!! just wanted to say hi to the mental midgets.....have a good weekend of complaining!!

[mcvet]

It is also true that under the law telecoms would be safe from any lawsuits related to current or future wiretaps that invaded a citizen''s privacy if they were engaged under a court-ordered warrant - it would be legal. The only wiretaps the telecoms could be liable for in civil cases would be illegal wiretaps - which the administration, under the law, couldn%u2019t legally pursue anyway.

Why do they need any protection IF they, the Administration or the Company''s acting within the Law? The ONLY reason they need protection is clear to anyone with a brain.

[mrconservatv]

having great weekend


Posted by jwind11 at 03:36 PM : Feb 23, 2008

Does anyone here really care where you are or what you%u2019re doing? I know I don''t

[mcvet]

having great weekend thanks mcvet, i am at my lakehouse,,,just taking a break from doing my taxes....had great night last night...won 1k in poker tourney...taxes not going great tho, it looks like i will owe again this year...thats what happens when you make so much money...oh well, i dont mind, this is the greatest country in the world which gave me oppurtunity to succeed...so things are great!!! just wanted to say hi to the mental midgets.....have a good weekend of complaining!!




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jwind11 at 03:36 PM : Feb 23, 2008
+ report abuse

Typical Fascist!! No answer to your attack on your fellow citizens! ROFLMAO But I''m willing to bet you will be attending a Rally tonight of your local Klan or Skin Heads. You fascist HAVE to have that weekly dose of hate for your neighbors and fellow citizens who won''t go along with the "party". Seig Heil Y''all. COME ON Sparky get out that hood and sheet... shout it out so the Fuhrer can hear ya!! SIEG HEIL!! ROFLMAO

[jwind11]

Does anyone here really care where you are or what you%u2019re doing? I know I don''''t

Posted by mrconservatv

unless you are one of the mental midgets, it wasnt directed at you