On the question of Telecom Immunity

[ThomWV]

If you or I were offered immunity for some set of crimes we may have committed in the past we would be required to openly and fully disclose what we had and had not done.

Let the telecoms do the same. If they wish to be granted immunity let them come forward in a public hearing room and tell us all what they have done, when, where, under what orders signed by whom? When they do that they can have immunity.

[midnight]

1. That is an interesting twist of trying to see the information that

has been kept from us.

[madokie]

2. on the surface thats sounds right

[babylonsister]

3. That's the beauty of this whole game the wh and pols are playing.

They can't possibly tell us and we can't possibly be privy to any info because it would compromise the security of our country. So, they can do what the hell they want and don't have to divulge anything. Some system.

[Bitwit1234]

4. It could be conditional immunity

If the wiretapping involved foreign calls, and they could prove security, then those types could be excluded. But if the wiretapping is domestic, they should be made to reveal any and everything involved. Especially if wiretapping involved our federal or state congresses or politicians running for office. Or groups that were not terrorist but opposed this government.

[Patsy Stone]

5. The twist is that the immunity is offered

because the "law" under which the government supposedly protected them wasn't really legal. The administration got them into this mess, and now they're trying, through Congress to get them out.

I'd assume you're right that they'd have no reason not to answer questions, but as we've seen this past seven years, no one who knows the Bush Administration much feels like they need to answer questions. Perhaps once they're off the hook for lawsuits, they'll decide to make an effort to restore their name and increase consumer confidence, but I doubt it.

No immunity and the consequences which ensue is the easiest way to find out what's been going on.

[KharmaTrain]

6. Catch 22 Time...

OK, so the Telcoms say they gave some names or produce some documents that list a few thousand names. They say "that's all their is"...and now vanish under the immunity cloud. There's no way to verify those names and then to go after the telcoms if those names were fraudulent or if there were more that were spied on and not reported. There's no either or here.

There needs to be an open, public hearing about how the telcoms were approached, who approached them and why they complied...nothing more, nothing less. This can't be done with immunity, it needs the teeth of contempt citations and subpoenas to be effective. Cases against the telcom companies that seek the same answers must not be impeded either. If there's a "national security" risk here, tell it to the judge.

Immunity is the political equivelent of "god mode"...once its granted its hard to remove.

[TahitiNut]

7. That would negate the primary reason the Cheney/Bush regime wants immunity.

The primary reason they want to sell this "pig in a poke" is because the immunity applies to behavior the extent and severity of which is unknown. Indeed, the "immunity" provision would undoubtedly be stretched to cover other behaviors ... corporate behaviors freely engaged in which were NOT reasonably seen to be necessitated by the NSLs.