Menendez: No Telecom Immunity

Maybe its me... (1.00 / 1)

but I think Sen. Menendez's hard-line stance is irresponsible and reckless. While I don't support full immunity, but having no protections for the telecom companies there is bound to be a slew of lawsuits which have the potential to bankrupt the telecoms. Some will say "good, they violated our civil liberties!" While that may be accurate to a point, it doesn't serve our country or our wallets any good to have bankrupt telecoms as the government will be required to bail out these essential corporations (much like the airlines!). I think Sen. Menendez would be wise to support Sen. Spector's alternative, which makes the US Government the liable party on behalf of the telecoms, with a special fund established to deal with lawsuits (class action of course) in federal courts. There needs to be justice for those of us who feel violated (I personally don't...its just numbers I've called that they turned over in the name of national security), but it shouldn't come at the destruction of our vital industries which employ countless Americans. I don't think we can afford that.

---

by: Reality Jax @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:04:58 AM UTC

you're joking, right? (4.00 / 3)

Taxpayers should pay any fees for a private company knowingly breaking the law? 

Can I get reimbursed for that parking ticket I got in Philly?  Senator Specter should help me out.

Telecoms will not be bankrupted by this.  I wonder why you think that.  Rather, it is one of the few opportunities to discover what illegalities were committed. 

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

---

by: Hopeful @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:27:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with Hopeful. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:48:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're being too short-sighted.. (1.00 / 1)

we are talking tens of millions of dollars in fees and punative damages that Americans are (rightly) going to seek. Telecoms are not going to just roll over...they will fight it in court, with huge legal bills, and then have massive settlements. In the end, they either have to raise the fees for consumers to recoup their huge losses...or, if they get into serious financial turmoil, require a taxpayer-funded bailout that the US government will do. I'm not justifying their cooperation, but I am advocating for a sensible solution to get real answers without long-term destructive reaction.

---

by: Reality Jax @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:56:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're being too... (4.00 / 2)

...well, personal attacks aren't allowed here, so I'll refrain.

Anyway, what you're saying is essentially the equivalent as "well, wealthy accused murderers are going to spend millions on their legal defense and the prosecution might lose, in which case they could bring wrongful prosecution cases against the government, so we shouldn't bother." Not surprisingly, that's the 'logic' Republicans gave for tax cuts for the wealthy -- they spend millions on evading taxes, so why not just cut their rates and cut the charade.

Of course, in both the case of telecom immunity and tax cuts for the wealthy, the point is not doing the logical thing. The point is doing the bidding of their powerful benefactors. Interesting that an, um, 'Democrat' like yourself would be such a fan of such 'logic.'

---

by: Scott Shields @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:35:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Scott's absolutely right (4.00 / 1)

Telecom companies shouldn't get special treatment because they messed up and infringed on the privacy of millions of Americans. They shouldn't get special treatment because the legal system might take a while to correct such a situation or because they might get hit with huge punitive damages as a result of a decision they made consciously and deliberately.

What they should do is follow the law in the first place, just like everyone else.

---

by: Brian McGinnis @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:14:09 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hm (0.00 / 0)

Personal attacks aren't allowed here???  I have suffered plenty of personal attacks!

Seriously, this is a stupid argument that is being made by Reality Jax.  See, I am not saying that RJ is stupid (I have seen other things that I agree with, for instance), but in this case the argument is.  Civil damages (particularly in this non-regulatory climate) is all too often the only way to change bad corporate behavior.

This is not going to bankrupt the telecoms.  Unfortunately, in a civil case the burden of proving damages is on the plaintiff.  If nothing happened to me because my records were investigated, then my damages are going to be rather minimal.  But, opening the "deliberations" (or lack thereof) that was involved in giving information to the government for fishing expeditions (like Frontline recently exposed in Las Vegas) would be informative.  If customers moved en masse from a company that was felt to be disrespectful of privacy to others that were, then that is the marketplace at work.

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 13:08:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just to be clear.. (0.00 / 0)

I'm an independent thinker and independent voter, as is most New Jerseyians if I recall. But thats neither here nor there.

---

by: Reality Jax @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 23:56:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Another Angle... (4.00 / 1)

If corporations can get away with obeying unlawful "orders" from the government by simply shelling out money; then the actual individual humans who made the wrong chioces will have not suffered any severe consequences.

Our laws need to be rewritten so that, in this kind of situation, the individuals who violated the laws could actually be criminally prosecuted and be held accountable in the criminal courts. 

Fines and settlements that are paid, ultimately, by shareholders and customers are an insufficient deterrent. 

I suspect that the prospect of spending 5 to 10 in a federal pen would motivate some of these smart well educated folks to show more respect for the constitution.

 

---

by: Nick Lento @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 07:44:09 AM UTC

What is the ultimate goal... (0.00 / 0)

finding out why/when/how the telecoms cooperated with the government, or to punish them for such cooperation? Is the truth merely enough...or do we need punishment as well? I think Sen. Spector's bill, if you've actually taken the time to read the proposal, would ensure the truth is determined without excessive (potentially devastating) punishment for being a tool of the Bush Administration.

---

by: Reality Jax @ Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 23:57:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Can't trust Specter. And, unfortunately, I think the right answer to your question is both, so there is a deterrent. n/t (4.00 / 1)

---

by: Creed Pogue @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 00:29:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Our Constitution Deserves To Be Protected By Very Sharp Teeth... (0.00 / 0)

...if it were up to me, I would have this investigated as far up the chain as possible. 

If Bush and/or Cheney can be shown to have approved of this kind of crap I would add it as another count to their bill of Impeachment.....and anyone who ordered it without approval form the top deserves to go to jail.

Specter is a funny guy, he gets rightly outraged at what is outrageous; but then his partisan genes compel him to go all soft and compromising.

This isn't really a partisan issue.  If a Democratic president had done this kind of thing; Republicans would have gone after his political jugular (i.e. impeachment/removal) ...and I would have supported it!

---

by: Nick Lento @ Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:08:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]