Why we sued the phone company-By Studs Terkel

[kpete]

Why we sued the phone company
By Studs Terkel, Quentin Young, Barbara Flynn Currie and James Montgomery
March 2, 2008
...........................

President Bush's director of national intelligence recently acknowledged that the goal of this legislative effort was to provide amnesty for the telephone companies. If the telecoms receive the "get-out-of-jail-free" card that the administration demands, more than 40 lawsuits charging that the phone companies acted contrary to established federal law by not protecting consumers' privacy will be thrown out of court. We are plaintiffs in one such lawsuit, and Congress should not deny us our day in court. The companies broke the law, and we believe they must be held accountable.

The Bush administration and its acolytes now claim that we must give giant telecoms amnesty for breaking the law, or else those telecoms will no longer cooperate with the government in spying efforts that help protect America. The truth is that telecoms do not need a special deal. These companies have immunity from lawsuits for turning over customer records to the government if they do so in conformity with existing law. But, in this instance, the telephone companies knowingly violated that law. If we give them a free pass this time, won't the telephone companies feel free to violate the laws protecting our privacy in the future?

....................

More important, amnesty not only lets the companies off the hook without answering any questions, it assures that the American people will never learn about the breadth and extent of the lawless program. Some seem to suggest that we should not have our day in court because a select few members of Congress have been able to review documents about the spy program operated by the White House. The judgment of a few Washington insiders is not a substitute for the careful scrutiny of a federal court.

Congress is supposed to act to protect the rights of American citizens, not sacrifice those rights to large corporate entities. The House and Senate should resist the bullying tactics of the Bush White House and ensure that we have our day in court to vindicate our rights and reveal any illegality engaged in by the telecoms. We need to know about the Bush White House's secret program.

----------

Studs Terkel, author and oral historian; Quentin Young, physician and advocate for health-care reform; State Rep. Barbara Flynn Currie; and James Montgomery, former Chicago corporation counsel, are plaintiffs in Terkel, et. al vs. AT&T.

[Echo In Light]

1. K&R

[burrowowl]

2. Go Studs et al! K&R

[aasleka]

3. If the current law states that the telcoms must have a certificate from

the government before they tap what is the problem, why do we need a new law?

What exactly is the new law and if you allow telcoms to tap without them having to answer questions and are granted immunity what will stop them from tapping everyones phones or monitoring them for private information?

[KharmaTrain]

4. Studs Is Priceless...Keeps Soldiering On...

The man is one of the last of the "New Dealers"...seen it all and then some...and still in his 90s is as sharp and vibrant as ever. Long live Studs!!!!

:kick:

[riderinthestorm]

5. I read this in the Trib this morning and wished he'd mentioned that

this Admin had been spying before 9-11. Otherwise a great read from a great mind.

Kick.

[Richard Steele]

6. K&R

[lonestarnot]

7. I'm going to throw out my fucking phones and computers. They can kiss my ass.

[bluesmail]

8. me too, K & R

[Solly Mack]

9. Studs Terkel is a true treasure

[Karenina]

10. Indeed. K&R!

[Solly Mack]

11. Hey! Get any of the bad weather?

We had trees uprooted, limbs everywhere, lawn furniture as missiles (broken windows in homes and cars).

[Karenina]

16. Just some high winds

and sporatic short downpours. It was pretty tame.

[Javaman]

12. Link? nt

[WilliamPitt]

13. LINK HERE

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped0302phonemar02,0,5245341.story

[AzDar]

14. K & R...

[mojowork_n]

15. Followed the link to the original article, but as it's "pending litigation"

there's not a great deal more specific information.

It comes down to this:

"...in this instance, the telephone companies knowingly violated that law. If we give them a free pass this time, won't the telephone companies feel free to violate the laws protecting our privacy in the future?"

Because it could be coming up in a court room (someday soon, hopefully) they can't really talk about the evidence they have, or risk tipping their hand, or otherwise letting anything play out in the media, instead of the legal process.

Just another reason (satisfying our curiosity) to support Dem's in Congress, on this one!

[happygoluckytoyou]

17. politics in america... less than a sharp image

care@ web.sharperimage.com, corporatesales@ sharperimage.com, affiliates@ sharperimage.com

in a country where sharper image decides to NOT ACCEPT their own gift card...

what can you expect



i have already written them off my list of "ever going there"

[mojowork_n]

18. Oh, no... Blue Dog Democrats in the House want to cave in!

Here's a link to a story on this in the WA PO:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302814_pf.html

Wiretap Compromise in Works
FISA Update May Hinge On Two Separate Votes

By Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 4, 2008; A03

House and Senate Democratic leaders are headed into talks today that they say could lead to a breakthrough on legislation to revamp domestic surveillance powers and grant phone companies some form of immunity for their role in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A senior House Democratic aide said a bill could be sent to President Bush as early as next week. But significant issues remain, including those surrounding immunity, said Wyndee R. Parker, general counsel of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence...

...Highlighting the party's struggle to heal its internal fractures, today's meetings will involve Democratic staff from the House and Senate intelligence and Judiciary committees, the House Democratic leadership, and then the House Democratic caucus. The dilemma faced by Democrats is that Republicans and the administration oppose any bill other than the measure passed by the Senate that includes full retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies.

"This is not amnesty," Wainstein said at the meeting. "This is targeted immunity" for companies who meet requirements specified in the Senate bill that include having received an attorney general's certification that their assistance was determined to be lawful.

A group of several dozen moderate to conservative House Democrats, known as "Blue Dogs," has pushed Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to approve the Senate bill. Some aides on Capitol Hill were discussing the potential for the House passing the Senate version but breaking it into two votes: one on the portion of the bill that deals with revising FISA provisions and a second on the immunity measure.

This procedural move would allow many Democrats to vote against immunity but still make its approval all but certain, since almost every Republican and some centrist Democrats would vote in favor..."