Skip to main content

View Diary: Why is Reid not skeptical of Bush's demand for telecom immunity? (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What if we are looking at it from the wrong angle (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clammyc, NonnyO, dantyrant

    .... maybe it's not that Bush has something on Reid, or that Reid has something on Bush.

    Maybe it's that the telecoms have something on everybody, as they have all the hard data and they are going to start releasing the dirty stories on whomever they perceive to be the more hostile to their interests.

    What do you think?

    •  very interesting (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AmericanRiverCanyon

      but even still, why would so many still be looking to give them immunity?

      Can't the (or I should say "this") gov't pull the 'state secrets' angle and keep the evidence hidden as it does for so many other things?

      Political Nexus is now Heading Left, the official home of BlogTalkRadio's progressive lineup.

      by clammyc on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:29:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because no one actually knows who has control of (0+ / 0-)

        the data, because it was harvested by third party private contractors.

        Or better, it was SOLD by the third party private contractors to some impossibly rich bidder, either the spooks or "the furriners"  with the intent of letting them use it if they felt like it.  

        This just isn't the telecoms who are going to get sued over this sh*t. (hell, I feel like waving to both the CIA and the RNC and the data miners right now, how y'all doin' this afternoon?)

    •  OR maybe (0+ / 0-)

      the economy is in such a fragile state right now that the class action suits which are currently underway would have the potential to push us into a recessoin.

      Verizon alone is looking at a $50 Billion lawsuit right now and the law is clear cut enough that they will have to pay it.  If they don't grant the industry immunity they will end up looking at a huge bailout.

      http://www.marketwatch.com/...

      As much as I hate it, I'm almost inclined to think that it would be irresponsible to not grant immunity since otherwise taxpayers will end up paying for the lawsuits in order to keep the industry afloat.

      •  Nope. The customers will own the telcos. (0+ / 0-)

        Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
        Court certified Marijuana Expert

        by ben masel on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:25:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure we can construct some (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AmericanRiverCanyon

        punishment - such as liability capped at some portion of executive compensation in exchange for a bar on layoffs.

        There are plenty of options that can be designed to correct the behaviors of those in the respective telecom companies who were most responsible for the collaboration with illegal spying programs, without bankrupting an entire company or triggering layoffs.

        Blanket immunity is just a green light for more of this future behavior.  

        Perhaps the real issue is, "why should the telecom companies be targeted for punishment while the illegal program's true architects, the Bush administration, faces zero accountability for their actions?"  Because there is no plan to confront Bush's criminality, it looks awfully strange to punish the mere accessories to the criminal acts.

        Total failure of the congressional leadership on a huge scale.

    •  The President's Analyst. (0+ / 0-)

      Democratic Candidate for US Senate (Wisconsin 2012)
      Court certified Marijuana Expert

      by ben masel on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 01:24:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site