Posted on 09/28/2009 5:16:56 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Dodd pens telecom immunity repeal By Eric Zimmermann - 09/28/09 04:01 PM ET
A handful of Democratic senators are promoting legislation to repeal immunity for telecommunications firms that cooperated with the Bush administration on a warantless wiretapping program.
Congress voted last year to provide "retroactive immunity" to any companies participating in the controversial program. But with a more sizable majority, some Democrats are pushing to repeal that.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) will introduce the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act, opening up some of the country's largest firms to legal liabilities. Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) have signed on as co-sponsors.
“I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles,” Dodd said in a statement. “We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizens' privacy and due-process rights, and we must not allow that to stand.”
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
drip...drip...drip....
I thought the Constitution had something to say about Ex Post Facto laws...
I am so sick of the notion that the government is spying on John Q. Publicman and his live-in man friend John F. Publicman. I have an idea for the civil-libtards: don’t communicate with terrorists and the government won’t coming looking for you. It is really quite simple. I would be willing to bet a great deal of the surveillance was conducted on calls coming into the united states. Our country is a little less safe today
I don't think the Soviet Constitution bothered with those things.
“Do you think that we want those laws to be observed?
We want them broken. There’s no way to rule innocent men.
The only power the government has is the power to crack down
on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that
it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” - Ayn Rand
Bottom line: Dodd needs lots of crooked trial lawyer dirty shyster money if he hopes to win re-election.
When another horror such as Sept. 11th happens, who will the Democrats blame for not connecting to dots to prevent it??????
When we finish the inquisition against our own CIA, who will still be working there, and how badly will their hands be tied??? Will our CIA be able to connect the dots as they gain intelligence on our enemies????????
The Democrats charged that Bush did not connect the dots to uncover the Sept. 11th plot. They put plans in place to spy on our enemies, but to good Democrats/liberals, we have to connect the dots in a certain way, otherwise it violates the rights of terrorists.
So are we really obligated to not violate the rights of terrorists? Do we really have to see another Sept. 11th happen because we can only do certain things in spying on them?
And since we’re on the subject, why is it that, the same liberals/Democrats who were so outraged at the Valerie Plame thing, and the alleged outing of a covert CIA agent, were applauding the N.Y. Times publishing state secrets such as the wiretapping/data mining program, and tracking cell phones of known Al Qaeda operatives? Why are some secrets ok and some provoke outrage among the liberals?
And finally, regarding “warrentless wire tapping”, when did we start having to give constitutional rights to enemies of the country, who are non-citizens?
The liberal outrage about warrentless wire tapping comes from a mindset that these terrorists have constitutional rights as if they are American citizens.
So Sen. Dodd... what if the thug terrorist would have been successful in blowing up a building in downtown Dallas recently and it could have been [and ultimately was] prevented by the F.B.I... done through actions via telecom wire-tapping?
Would the rescission of a retroactive immunity count as an ex post facto? I’m not so sure.
I’m quite certain this is illegal. You can offer ex post facto immunity, but having done that then it violates every principle of common law and Constitutional law to find the same people ex post facto guilty.
This is equivalent to a President or a governor pardoning someone and then subsequently turning around and saying, “Oh, sorry, I’ve just decided you’re guilty after all. Back to jail with you!”
The President or a governor can’t pardon someone who never was tried for a crime.
On the one hand I am glad if the immunity for this un-Constitutional stuff is gone... on the other hand, I suspect that the telecom lobby’s check didn’t clear ....
So why is Obama doing the same????
Oh yeah, we can bring suit against him too, right? Wrong, that would be RAAACCCIISSST.
It has nothing to do with crime. Dodd wants to open up the option of civil suits. Follow the money!
They were also all for Enhanced Interrogation, before they were against it...
Not true. Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon for any and all crimes he may have committed.
Dodd is a danger to this country.
Dodd and the Dems are not only trying to destroy our national security surveillance systems but also law enforcement in general. No telecom company would ever cooperate with LE or gov again.
How odd that Dodd quotes the country’s founding principles, when he has violated those very same principles. What a scumbag.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.