Who would prosecute the Telecoms?

[ellacott]

Would it be the justice dept.? If they don't do it would it fall to Congress? Would you trust Congress to do it considering their habit of capitulating to this Administration?

[Hydra]

1. The telecoms are already free to go

The ACLU(Those Librul commie bastards!) and a few other groups are the only people making headway, and the telecoms can keep stalling and appealing until Congress sneaks something through for them when we aren't looking.

:puke:

[MrCoffee]

2. Prosecute them for what? I don't understand the question.

[ellacott]

3. If they were denied retroactive immunity from the Fisa Bill

Who would go after them?

[MrCoffee]

5. My understanding is that there are private lawsuits brought by those who were spied on

Now I'm gonna have to go link-hunting. I promise you that I read somewhere (I know, I know) on the ACLU's FISA information site that there are approximately 40 private lawsuits against the telecoms alleging that they illegally spied on people.

On edit: I found this link http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35872res20080701.html which sort-of references the consumer suits against the telecoms.

[ellacott]

6. Thank you very much

Thank you for the link.

I was wondering how difficult it would be to bring action against the Telecoms even with immunity removed from the FISA bill.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. It seems to me it would be impossible to prosecute the telecoms

without FIRST prosecuting the administration.

The lists of those they illegally spied on are a state secret. Was my phone tapped because I went to anti-war rallies and post on DU? How the hell could I know - only the government can release that information. I can't file a civil suit against the telecoms because I have no evidence. The only way to get the evidence is to first successfully prosecute the administration that told the telecoms to cross the line.

Stating from the first that the telecoms are immune to civil prosecution might be enough for them to come forward with information that will make prosecuting the administration possible. With the threat of bankruptcy hanging over them in the event of successful prosecution they have every reason NOT to cooperate.

In another thread I made the analogy of prosecuting a bank teller for robbery because he filled the bank robber's bag at the point of a gun. Qwest resisted the government, and the government pulled the trigger on them - after that, the rest of the telecoms fell in line with varying degrees of enthusiasm. The point is, they would not have committed the crime if the government had not told them to in the first place. They did not initiate the spying and offer the results to the government - THAT would be worthy of prosecution. No, they were blackmailed into cooperating.

I've got no problem with offering civil immunity to encourage cooperation in going after the real criminals.

[ellacott]

7. Very good points

This is what I was thinking. Telecom immunity is such a hot button issue but I wondered how practical it is to enforce.

[librechik]

8. Nobody--that's why that excuse for not voting NO on the FISA fix is such bull

It's okay to let the pass on civil court charges (lawsuits) becasue they can still be charged criminally.

LIKE THAT IS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN!!!

it's harder to indict than bring suit, the burden of proof is much stiffer for crimianl charges, and the DOJ is corrupt inside and out!

OBAMA is blowing us all.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Marcy Wheeler made an interesting comment about criminal

charges and I have not seen any discussion on this issue.

Whether or not she is correct on this point, I do not expect anyone to be held accountable.

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/03/dean-and-bush-and-pardons/

"John Dean's piece on FISA reads with all the angst of someone who--after a number of people have demonstrated his error--is hoping to persuade Barack Obama to get him out of the hole he created for himself. "Please, Obama," Dean seems to be saying, "hold Bush accountable so I don't have to admit immunity really is immunity."

One gaping problem with Dean's argument is the absence of any discussion of statutes of limitation. Even if Obama did what Dean wanted--and announced he would direct his AG to immediately review the warrantless wiretap program--the Republicans in the Senate could just filibuster approval of Obama's AG until, say, April 26, 2009 (five years and 45 days after the authorization signed by Alberto Gonzales on March 11), and the statute of limitations on the known crimes would expire..."

[librechik]

10. Marcy is the best on this issue

even better than Glennzilla (by a hair)

[slipslidingaway]

11. Not much discussion on this...oh well

:hi: