While some of those from our Progressive Caucus in the House have plans to try and stop Immunity, it appears Dems in the Senate have other plans. 4 plans to be exact. They are floating 4 different ideas, but the problem is the Telecoms walk away scot-free in every one of them.
Four possibilities are being discussed, said a Senate aide familiar with the discussions. The broadest would be blanket immunity, which would immunize anyone, including government officials, who had anything to do with any surveillance program. That is the approach the government favors and is strongly opposed by civil liberties advocates.
The second is targeted immunity, in which companies that can prove they were acting in good faith would be granted immunity from prosecution. The third is substitution, in which the government would replace the defendant in the lawsuit. Finally, there is indemnification. The cases would proceed through the court system, and if there were financial penalties, the government would assume them, the aide said.
Unacceptable. Why should those that are granted access to make money on our communication only if they uphold the law be given a free ride after violating the civil rights of so many ? You would think they were the President or something. In this country there are laws to punish those that don't report a crime, or help a hurt person. This should go double for anyone with that responsibility to the public. Claims are being made they allowed the laws to be broken for patriotic reasons and shouldn't be punished for that. What is truly patriotic is to stand against anyone who would try to break the rules of our Constitution. That would be patriotic, not the other way around.
Some of the other ideas being kicked around seem almost as bad to and the ACLU. One of those is a type of Blanket Warrant, only reviewed by a IG, and only every 3 months, and then the FISA court once a yr.
The bill would require the Justice Department inspector general to audit the use of the umbrella warrant and issue quarterly reports to a special FISA court and to Congress, according to congressional aides involved in drafting the legislation. It would clarify that no court order is required for intercepting communications between people overseas that are routed through the United States. It would specify that the collections of e-mails and phone calls could come only from communications service providers -- as opposed to hospitals, libraries or advocacy groups. And it would require a court order when the government is seeking communications of a person inside the United States, but only if that person is the target...
Democrats have made huge strides in making improvements over the Protect America Act," said Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Yet we think that the Constitution requires as a minimum that an individualized warrant is required whenever an American's communications are targeted. This is going to be the big sticking point." Democrats to Offer New Surveillance Rules
Yes, that should be THE point of any new law. Nothing where a person inside the States is done without a warrant, period. Why is this so hard for Senators to grasp ? Most of them have been attys in other lives, and even many have been prosecutors. If anything Lawyers should understand why our civil rights are so important and need to be jealously preserved.
There is another sticking point. Congress has continuosly asked for the legal opinons, and to know exactly what the Telecoms have done before they write a new law. Common sense right ? The White Housa has yet to turn over anything like that and while they claim to be putting it all together, it wont be available till after the votes ? Is COngress really gullible enough to pass a law without that info. Wait, don't answer that....
Go read it and weep. If this is the Dems plans I would hate to see those of the Right. Geezzz.
You can find the Progressive Caucus Plan over at Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...