Dems to telecoms: Spend millions on lawyers first
posted at 6:50 pm on March 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
House Democratic leadership continues to refuse a vote on the bipartisan FISA reform bill sent to the lower chamber by the Senate. Instead, they plan to offer a version that eliminates immunity for those telecommunication companies that cooperated with the NSA based on assurances from the Department of Justice of the program’s legality. They plan to offer to allow the civil judges in the cases access to classified material to determine whether the telecoms should have their cases dismissed:
Locked in a standoff with the White House, House Democrats on Tuesday maintained their refusal to shield from civil lawsuits telecommunications companies that helped the government eavesdrop on their customers without a secret court’s permission.
But they offered the companies an olive branch: the chance to use classified government documents to defend themselves in court.
House Democratic leaders unveiled a bill that they hoped would bridge the gap between the electronic surveillance bill passed by the Senate last month and a rival version the House approved last fall.
That’s not an olive branch, that’s a multi-million baseball bat to the head. This doesn’t do anything to resolve the issue for the telecoms. It forces them into costly legal defenses, ensuring that they have to spend fortunes in depositions and preparation. What do they get at the end of all that? A judge gets to decide whether the DoJ assurances remove liability, but only on a case-by-case basis.
Wow. What generosity for companies that tried to help secure the nation from terrorist attack!
Democrats and Republicans in the Senate acted in the best interest of national security. House Democrats have acted in the best interest of their trial-lawyer contributors. The Senate should reject this sop to the class-action lawsuit industry and remind their colleagues in the lower chamber of their responsibility.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Wonderful, Democrats demand a (further) platform from which they might proclaim their self-righteous indignation over such evil, draconian measures. To think that these companies put the safety and security of their customers before the rights of terrorists to have private conversations. Shame on them!
darii on March 11, 2008 at 6:59 PM
What better way to see if the telecoms were only acting to defend America than by letting them have their day in court?
And I see we’re pretending the telecoms haven’t donated generously to the politicians who are willing to let them violate the Constitution with immunity.
alphie on March 11, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Where are the republicans? They should be raising hell about this every day until it comes to the floor for a vote. Oh Wait, shame on me. The republicans would need leadership to force the issue and we all know than have none. Maybe we can get Roger Clemens back to testify, as the house needs something to do.
Wade on March 11, 2008 at 7:04 PM
Riiight. Civil liberties.
RushBaby on March 11, 2008 at 7:06 PM
And the Democrats continue to press on with their Full Employment for Trial Lawyers agenda.
Putting aside their lack of concern about national security, you’d think they would at least pretend to care about consumers, who will ultimately foot the bill for the increased costs to the telecom companies if the companies end up having to defend endless lawsuits over this nonsense.
AZCoyote on March 11, 2008 at 7:10 PM
So does my new cellphone plan come with a legal disclaimer and can I get legal rollover minutes.
Kini on March 11, 2008 at 7:11 PM
This is just part of the Dems new economic stimulus package…for lawyers.
WisCon on March 11, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Um, its not Congres’s place to declassify information, and thats EXACTLY what they would have to do.
No way all the Telcoms have enough lawyers with Security Clearances… let alone the judges who will hear this stuff.
This is nothing more than a means to ENSURE folks like the NY Times get access to classified info…
Romeo13 on March 11, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Because in this case, the process is the punishment.
Let me put it to you this way:
In many states, it’s state law that you have to follow the orders of police officers. What if a traffic cop, while a light was busted, instructed you to make a left turn even though the light was red … You do so, only for another cop, just past the intersection, to pull you over and give you a ticket for an illegal left turn. You’d say that it was entrapment, that it was idiotic, and that, at the very least, it was wrong. So what if those two cops hate each other, so what if cop B thinks Cop A was doing something illegal? So what! Let the cops hash it out, but leave the citizens out of it. Why should you have to go to court, have to take time out of your life, have to pay the fees, have to get a lawyer, have to spend all that time and money to defend yourself? Why?
Similarly, one branch of the government is disagreeing with the other, but because the Legislative branch is made up a bunch of whiny bureaucratic wussies, they’re not up for a stand up fight. So instead, they’re going to punish telecoms for following government directives, during a program they new about ahead of time, and approved of.
That’s absolutely ludicrous.
apollyonbob on March 11, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Is it because the class actions won’t figure out how to get the money from the telecoms without going to court? This isn’t criminal- it’s civil court.
Chuck Schick on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Sorry- that should say:
Is it because the class actions will figure out how to get the money from the telecoms without going to court?
Chuck Schick on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Can’t Congress debate that spying on terrorists program after the next attack on America?
Why Congress is wasting its time and our money on petty things?
Instead, Congress should immediately enact legislation to protect the unborn Penguins in Antarctica from Global Warming.
Indy Conservative on March 11, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Scum … I really can’t think of anything else to say that won’t get me banned.
darwin on March 11, 2008 at 7:21 PM
To be even more succint alphie, the telecoms WEREN’T acting to defend the country – that’s the government’s job, just as a reminder.
The telecoms were following government directives.
apollyonbob on March 11, 2008 at 7:28 PM
I’m just curious how Nancy “Blinky” Pelosi would handle the press conference if the terrorist carried out a successful attack on the United States where thousands of men, women, and children were liquified, and we had the ability to stop it, but couldn’t, because of all this crap?
I know she will blame Bush, but will that be the time we finally will have had enough, and break out the tar and feathers?
Seven Percent Solution on March 11, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Democrats = morons
nuff said.
Onager on March 11, 2008 at 7:42 PM
With each passing week, month, year, I’m losing all patience with this bulls#$. Gonna be time to refresh the tree of liberty soon, I think.
Midas on March 11, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Were Shakespeare alive today, I think he would rewrite the line about first killing all of the lawyers. Something tells me he’d bump them to second priority and replace them with our so-called congressional “leaders.”
Sugar Land on March 11, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Don’t be rough on the Democrats. They’re protecting the terrorist rights.
Kini on March 11, 2008 at 8:05 PM
YES- YES the civil liberties of TERRORIST. TERRORIST who want to kill you.
Wouldn’t it be great if they would fight for our right to LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS? But at least life!
Bicyea on March 11, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Sons of b*tches.
No one besides a battalion of trial lawyers is going to see squat.
Democrats suck.
And beside that, they suck.
drjohn on March 11, 2008 at 8:18 PM
If only we can be certain to remind the decerebrate Democrat base of this when their rates go sky high and some lose their service altogether.
Someone’s gonna pay, alright.
All of us.
drjohn on March 11, 2008 at 8:20 PM
I’m pretty darned angry right now.
Can ya tell?
drjohn on March 11, 2008 at 8:20 PM
The Dems do not f…..g care if there is another attack while the FISA is defunct. They and the MSM will blame Bush.
davod on March 11, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Bingo!
- The Cat
P.S. It’s the consumer that will be paying the lawyers. You wanna know why fast food prices are going up? Ask the million dollar hot coffee chick.
MirCat on March 11, 2008 at 8:39 PM
What an unbelievable slap in the face to those U.S. companies that under good faith did what was asked of the by the U.S government.
I don’t know why the President just doesn’t hand out pardon’s to those companies that may be affected by this Democratic “hooray for me, screw you” game.
How do these people get elected into office? It’s little wonder why nothing in Washington seems to get done.
We need term limits for all politicians. Get elected to the next higher office after two terms or get a real job inside the U.S. economy.
Hog Wild on March 11, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Other than subpoenas, censoring and revenge-based legislation, WHAT THE HELL HAS PELOSI DONE? I hate that witch. Seriously.
>:-(
cannonball on March 11, 2008 at 9:25 PM
It’s all about funneling money to their blood-sucking, thieving trial lawyer bosses.
Democrat traitor scum (redundant, I know) are mere errand boys and girls for their paymasters.
Their fellow Americans mean NOTHING to Democrat politicians.
Again I’ll say it – anyone who votes for a Democrat, any Democrat this fall is a complete idiot.
NoDonkey on March 11, 2008 at 9:40 PM
In this thread, everybody hates lawyers. OK… the number of lawyers that have major telecom corporations as clients is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. Can you honestly argue that this legislation was the result of American Trial Lawyers Association lobbying? or the ABA?
Did you know that the McDonalds jury award in that case was reduced to under $600,000 on appeal? Do you know that the coffee was so hot that it caused 3rd degree burns and permanent injuries to a 79 year-old woman? If you’re going to use the McDonalds case as an example, you should know the facts.
Yes, many lawyers are liberal d-bags. But it’s stupid to blame bad Democrat policies on all lawyers.
bigbeas on March 11, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Bush cannot pardon the telcos, as that would be an admission of wrong-doing. His best ploy would be to keep the Dems under the spotlight until the election, in the hope that enough of the swing-voters will see the light and return both Housed to the GOP.
OldEnglish on March 11, 2008 at 10:35 PM
= Houses. Knuckles are dragging well today :)
OldEnglish on March 11, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Um, you do realize that there will be lawyers on BOTH sides of this?
Plantifs and defending the telcoms? And of course, government lawyers?
Look at the stinkin Exon Valdeez case… BILLIONS are on the line in PUNTATIVE damages… and I personaly know a lawyer who, if that goes through, will make over 35 million on it… beyond what he billed his clients over the years…
Romeo13 on March 11, 2008 at 11:09 PM
So let me get this straight.
The government tells the telecoms to turn over information about foreign enemies based on national security.
The telecoms obey.
Class action lawsuits are filed against the telecoms — NOT criminal charges, since no one seems to really believe there was a crime here. (Yes, some keep screaming about it, but you’ll notice they never ask for criminal charges to be filed)
And Democrats in Congress, rather than reward the telecoms for doing their patriotic duty, want to allow the lawsuits to go forward.
From this, you might conclude that a) the Democrats in Congress don’t care an inch about national security, and b) the Democrats in Congress don’t care that the telecom companies are being effectively punished for doing the right thing.
But wait! The Democrats in Congress do care about the telecoms’ predicament, and are willing to let them defend themselves in court with classified documents.
From which we can only conclude that a) the Democrats in Congress don’t care that much about the telecoms’ predicament, or they wouldn’t force them to go through the trial, and b) the Democrats in Congress really don’t care at all about national security, since they’d allow classified documents to be part of public trials.
And just for good measure, c) the Democrats in Congress are promising what they don’t have, anyway, since they have no authority to declassify documents.
Maybe they want a veto?
Wow, indeed.
theregoestheneighborhood on March 11, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Worse yet, it makes public the classified documents. The Democrats are stuck on stupid.
Log on March 11, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Just watch. This is nothing more than pure pandering for padering’s sake. It will go down in flames and then they can say ‘see, we tried but evil Bush and his gnomes have refused the rule of law again and see, how bad they are’. It will be all lies, again. This democrat dolts are not fighting to protect the lawyers. They are fighting to protect their own ability to sue the telecoms and question the legality of wiretaps and intercepts. Its personal for the left. Just watch.
ilitigant on March 12, 2008 at 12:04 AM
Exactly what I was thinking…they have no authority to declassify them, and when some telecom would sue, I’m sure they would be told the records are too classified to be used.
…or they don’t exist. Who would know since they’re classified?
But would any surrendercrat voter know this? No.
91Veteran on March 12, 2008 at 12:15 AM
This election is the easiest election for the GOP to win in a long long long time. We should regain the majority of both houses and win the presidency by a landslide this November if the GOP actually wants to get back the majority that is.
BroncosRock on March 12, 2008 at 12:20 AM
Tell me, if the lawyers make lots of money going after these guys…who pays?
My guess is consumers.
Terrye on March 12, 2008 at 6:49 AM
What’s it all about?
Hening on March 12, 2008 at 8:11 AM
I applaud the Dems and wish more Repubs would get on board with defeating amnesty for the telcoms. Reading this thread would make you think that anything the Govt asked of Private Industry is OK as long as it allows us to feel more secure and not let lawyers get rich.
I would much rather this was hashed out in court. It will help determine if the Govt exceeded its legal power or not. I don’t care if a couple of lawyers make some money if it means oversight of actions taken that may have been illegal at the cost of less freedom.
tgillian on March 12, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Taking notes of the standards of usage for posters, including the prohibition on ad hominem attacks, I can only say that if a person were to hold views such as these I would have to reach the conclusion that he was rather more an idiot than a genius.
Longhorn Six on March 12, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Just to flesh out that earlier post, tgillian ignores the effect this has on the future behavior of private companies when asked to assist in the very real war on terror. Asking corporate America to risk bankruptcy for assisting the government is not the way to improve the security of the United States.
Longhorn Six on March 12, 2008 at 9:35 AM
Pandering? This isn’t a new practice by Democrats. The party has used civil courts to author legislation through legal precedent for, oh, almost 60 years now. It’s “passing the buck” on behalf of protecting the party.
It’s really risky, but the results are proven. It works because in the end civil courts, unless judges throwout the ridiculous transgressions of the plaintiff’s attorney(s), are cases that will be decided by our peers in the jury. Put enough teachers, labor activists, and social justice advocates on the jury and it’s basically a win win strategy. You get your legal precedent and you insulate the party from having to author the legislation and face a campaign that would cite it.
gabriel sutherland on March 12, 2008 at 10:47 AM
Gosh, longhorn, it took you two posts and you still didn’t offer anything new (except to call me an idiot). That’s OK, tho.
To reitereate my point – if the request is legal; I have no issue with it. If the request is illegal then, well, its illegal and should be brought out so it doesn’t happen again.
The argument that it’s OK, even if illegal, because we are in a “very real war” doesn’t persuade me. I oppose this immunity for the same reason I oppose warrentless searches and warrentless wiretaps.
I’m a Constitutionalist at heart and we do have laws.
tgillian on March 12, 2008 at 3:32 PM