Home » Blogs » lambert's blog

Rockefeller guts Constitution for telco bucks, drafting FISA bill with full retroactive immunity for warrantless surveillance

Thu, 10/11/2007 - 12:18pm — lambert

As I just shared with the Rockefeller staffer (numbers here), after mentioning I'd be very happy to write a check to a primary challenger, this retoractive immunity thing sounds like a sweet deal. 'Cause I've got some stuff I'd like retroactive immunity for--but I don't want to tell anybody about it in advance. So, maybe Senator Rockefeller could just grant me immunity anyhow? Glenn:

I just learned that the FISA bill cooked up by Democratic Sen. Jay Rockefeller's Senate Intelligence Committee does contain full retroactive amnesty for telecoms. Here is a list of all registered Verizon lobbyists, and here is a partial list of some of the lobbying firms working on behalf of AT&T. AT&T was the fifth largest contributor to Rockefeller's last campaign, followed by the National Cable and Telecommunications Association in Sixth place, Bell South in Ninth Place, and Verizon was in the top 20.

Isn't that special?

Great to see all the Presidential candidates standing up on this--Hillary, especially, since so many former Clinton administration types are lobbying for the telcos on this.

Oh, that's not happening?

UPDATE Here are the numbers. It's not every day you can help save the Constitution and Fuck Verizon, all at the same time!

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman — (202) 224-6472

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) — (202) 224-3841

Sen. John Warner (R-VA) — (202) 224-2023

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) — (202) 224-5244

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) — (202) 224-4224

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) — (202) 224-5623

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) — (202) 224-4654

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) — (202) 224-5344

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) — (202) 224-5274

»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Makes Me Sick

By Shane-O on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 1:57pm

If that TELCO immunity is retroactive - I haven't seen it yet - but I sure as hell believe it. We need to track that language down -- then ring the bells, sound the horns, scream, etc.

The only immunity clause I could find in H.R 3773 was 105B(e)(3).

LIABILITY OF ORDER - Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with an order issued under this subsection.

It is so vague and broad, I can't tell if it will be considered a retroactive pass for TELCO's.

Any thoughts on the language there?

And soon hereafter, we'll have a nice little amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 - which I'd guess might even add more protections...

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

—

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

»

Shane-O: Dat sher looks like it to me

By Woody--Tokin Librul on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 2:51pm

The only immunity clause I could find in H.R 3773 was 105B(e)(3).

LIABILITY OF ORDER - against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with an order issued under this subsection.

It is so vague and broad, I can’t tell if it will be considered a retroactive pass for TELCO’s.

For me, the tip off is this language: "Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court..."

IANALB...

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

—

Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner

»

I Wasn't Sure About The Retroactivity Until...

By Shane-O on Thu, 10/11/2007 - 4:32pm

A little research. Woody, seems you are correct. The cited language is enough if one considers Supreme Court caselaw.

In particular, Thorpe v.Housing Auth.,393 U.S. 268 (1969):

‘(I)f subsequent to the judgment and before the decision of the appellate court, a law intervenes and positively changes the rule which governs, the law must be obeyed, or its obligation denied. If the law be constitutional, * * * I know of no court which can contest its obligation. It is true that in mere private cases between individuals, a court will and ought to struggle hard against a construction which will, by a retrospective operation, affect the rights of parties, but in great national concerns * * * the court must decide according to existing laws....

This same reasoning has been applied where the change was constitutional, statutory, or judicial. Surely it applies with equal force where the change is made by an administrative agency acting pursuant to legislative authorization.

So that would be it...

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

—

The Bill of Rights is a born rebel. It reeks with sedition. In every clause it shakes its fist in the face of constituted authority. . . . it is the one guaranty of human freedom to the American people. - Frank Irving Cobb

»

Unconstitutional

By ViolaLee (not verified) on Fri, 10/19/2007 - 12:42am

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

It's unconstitutional to make retroactive immunity laws.

The US Constitution says:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

»