Robert Cruickshank has a great, in-depth post at the Courage Campaign looking at the expected amendment to be offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and why progressives should reject it. Feinstein’s amendment would have the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court determine if companies like AT&T and Verizon should be granted immunity; the FISA Court would make this decision behind closed doors. Cruickshank also addresses the Specter amendment which would substitute the federal government in the pending cases against the big telecom companies, finding adequate reason to reject it as well. Cruickshank’s post is definitely worth a read.
Cross posted at the CREDO Blog.
Disclosure: I have joined the CREDO Mobile team to stop the Bush administration’s illegal wiretapping program and hold the telecom companies accountable for their lawbreaking.
Hold Fast 
I have a question to which I know the answer but really want you to address: is it really the telecoms’ lawbreaking that we’re concerned with? Or is it the fact that issues of standing and proof prevent us from using the courts to go after our government and find the truth from them?
I’m all for going after a second best target who has unclean hands but I think I would grant immunity if I could get some accountability and retribution on the governmental level.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Granting immunity prevents discovery from happening. The telecoms are the last opening to find out what the Bush administration did, how they justified it, and who helped them along the way.
That said, the telecoms new better. Austin – if you, without having a law degree, but with some legal training, were a lawyer for AT&T or Verizon – you would know that what Bush was asking of you was not legal. You would say “no”. Frack, AT&T helped write FISA. They knew the law and the broke the law.
LikeLike