Made my phone call. Offered my thanks. Expressed my support. They were glad to get the call.

Eric Coulter (or is it Ann Cantor?) did us a big fat favor by using a poison-pill amendment to scuttle the House bill. (Of course, he only did it so he could collect his bag of telco money and try to paint the Dems as Soft On Terra, so he shouldn't get TOO much credit.)

The bill won't be voted on until next week in the House. That gives us time to really make ourselves heard -- NO TELCO FREE RIDE, PERIOD:

http://www.house.gov

http://www.senate.gov

Here's the name of Chris Dodd's Policy Director on this website. Call into his campaign headquarters and tell him the American people need leadership NOW on this issue.

Campaign HQ Phone Number: 202.737.3633

Name: Amos Hochstein, Policy Director

Well, as I understand the FISA immunity, as you explained it here, its not for a company that was doing something legal ... its for a company that was doing something found to be illegal later, but for which they could assume was legal at the time. Thats the "good faith" immunity you discuss, and it has nothing to do with ruling that the company followed a "legal directive" as I understand it, and everything to do with declaring that a company in fact followed an ILLEGAL directive, but that they were reasonable in assuming, at the time, was legal.

No. There are two separate defenses in FISA - (1) a "good faith" belief that an illegal act was legal and (2) a written certification from the AG that it was legal (regardless of whether it was).

This is different, IMO ... the language you quote clearly states the need for a court to determine that the directive was legal. It doesn't say anything about "good faith" ... it talks about immunity for any company that can prove it followed a "legal directive."

What you're describing would, by definition, ALREADY bestow immunity under the law. Obviously, if the President issued a "legal directive" in the way you mean it -- that the President had the right under the law to order it -- then AT&T not only would have acted in "good faith" that it was legal - it would have been legal. That's a higher standard than FISA requires

You're trying to use a newspaper article to legally analyze the applicable standard. The whole point of this exercise is to get rid of the lawsuits (because Rockefeller and friends were persuaded there was good faith here). They're writing the law with that goal. The telecom lawyers are working with McConnell and the Intelligence Committee to write to the law merely to require a demonstration of what they already have.

I haven't read the draft bill yet - it's not available publicly - but I've spoken with several lawyers who have read it, and there is no question that it results in dismissal of the telecom lawsuits. The procedure is that the telecom lawyers go into the court, ex parte, and demonstrate that they were directed that (a) they should do this and (b) that it was legal (that's a "legal directive"). If they make that showing - which they will - the lawsuits end. I'll quote from the draft once it's available.

is the implicit -- nearly explicit -- precedent granting of the green light for limitless clamorem et uthesium / Writs of Assistance secret surveillance going forward, with no independent oversight whatsoever.

Whether this odious legislation will ultimately be found "unconstitutional" is far from certain, Given what Bu'ush has done to the Supreme Court thus far.

“I give you a Republic if you can keep it.”

- Ben Franklin

Sorry, Ben. It was nice while it lasted.

Of course, Jay Rockefeller probably doesn't think he's been bought. He probably just made friends with big wheels at AT&T and Verizon, or let them kiss up to him and make friends with him, and now he can't imagine letting his friends go to jail, or lose a huge lawsuit.

So it doesn't smell like bribery, but the end result is about the same.

Back in George Washington's time, rich people had strong ethics -- at least some of them, and the country had the good fortune to be led by ethical rich men like Washington. If out country is done it, it will likely be done by rich men with atrophic ethics, like Jay Rockefeller.

I called Dod's campaign, thanked them for Dod's stance on telecom immunity and asked that he do whatever it takes to stop the bill. The person that answered was happy to get the call. I did tell her that i had just read your article/post and Dod went from 3rd on my list of candidates to 1st if he follows through. She said she loves calls like this.

This is designed to include what they claim they have -- an oral "directive" from the President and the NSA.

It sets up a procedure where they go to a court - in secret - and show that they were told to do this by someone in authority and assured that it was legal. That is all that is needed.

Without being able to see the actual text of the bill, I'm not sure that you are correct, Glenn. If the text requires that the telecoms actually demonstrate that the directive was legal, not just that they had a good faith belief that it was legal, then oral directives from the President and/or NSA might still not result in telecom immunity. If the courts were to decide that there were legal means to conduct foreign intelligence wire tapping outside of FISA, then the new bill probably grants additional immunity for those extra-FISA actions. However, if the courts hold that FISA really is the exclusive legal means to conduct foreign intelligence wiretaps, then an illegal Presidential order to circumvent FISA likely does not grant telecom immunity even under the new bill.

I was interested particularly in Russian papers-Pravda and the Moscow Times. Very interesting reading.

The had some stats about the weapons industry-for the US-that's a $16.1 billion industry, while the next country was Russia with $8 billion. This is also how Prescott Bush made all of his money-in munitions.

Further down in the same article-it cited that the US spends MORE money on defense than ALL of the defense budgets of EVERY country combined---DID YOU HEAR ME? I said MORE THAN ALL OF THE DEFENSE BUDGETS OF ALL OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED.

If that does not tell what Orwellian Fascist state-run by the military-I don't know what will.

Meanwhile, GW will continue to privatize every aspect of govt. and give lucrative contracts to those business cronies. The Dems, stupidly thinking they will get in on the action-will quickly get phased out-pushed out by scandals the NSA was able to dig up/then frame- by giving the WH and Telecoms immunity.

After every aspect of govt is privatized-nothing will be left bt Executive Branch or fascism.

Thanks, Jay-I hope you are the first one to be targetted by the GOP to get rid of.

Beth in cary