There is no justice for all, without justice for all.

You break a law, you pay the price.

AT&T broke the law.
If they are given amnesty, there is no justice in America.

People in our government broke the law. If they are given amnesty, there is no justice in America.

How can people who are so adamant about the second amendment rights totally ignore the fourth amendment?

Typical libs... Worried about the rights of terrorists that want to kill Americans.
If B.J. Clinton would have taken tougher measures against terrorism,as President Bush is doing,we would have been spared 9/11.
I must admit though,B.J. did fire off a few cruise missiles at Osama and hit an empty tent,so he's a few points up on the wimpter scale over Jimmy Carter.

Paulo

Paulo,
George Bush had nine months to act before 9/11. What did he do? Did he go on vacation or something?

Related to this article. If the Bush Administration Surveillance Program is LEGAL as they claim, why would telecoms need immunity from lawsuits? I must be un-American for asking such a question. I'll go onto more important things like talking about who will win the Chase for the Nextel Cup. My money is on number 48. Yee haw!!

Paulo:

If your hero W had read and followed his PDB in August, he would have had an inkling into what was going to happen on 9/11.

Also, if Condi and her friends had listened to Clinton's advisers about keeping an eye on Al-Qaeda, instead of planning ways to get rid of Saddam, this might not have happened.

Oh and Paulo - they had EVERYONE'S computer files - not just the terrorists.

Spin it anyway you want,but history shows there were 8 terrorist attacks on U.S. interests during the B.J. years and 9/11 was planned under his nose...FOR 3-4 years!
As your hero Al Gore would say...The debate is over!...B.J. was soft on terrorism and hard on teenage interns.

Paulo

Paulo;
So, you're saying it's OK for our president and businesses to pick and choose which laws to obey?

There are ways to do everything that needs to be done, to fight terrorism, legally.

Why did they choose to do it illegally?

Don't they trust our justice system?

I don't think you understand. Yes, we do need to defend ourselves, but we also need to maintain law and order. If we give our leaders the right to ignore the law, we're all going to face things a lot worse than terrorists.

Think Pakistan.
Think Musharraf's actions against his constitution and court.

Do you really want to place America under that kind of government?

Jethro:

I am not defending the telecoms. But anyone who has been sued would understand that questions of legality have almost no bearing in civil courts. Suits are filed all the time that have little to no chance of success. They are done simply to force the targets of the suit to spend money on defending themselves or to settle.

Furthermore, how can anyone call themselves conservative if they don't stand for law and order?

I thought it was liberals who don't respect law and order.

I have no special love for the telecoms, but aren't we missing a bigger issue here?

If the law was broken, wasn't it because of the administration?

It feels as if the guy driving the get away car is going to jail for 20 years, but the guy who actually robbed the bank isn't even being charged with a crime.

Paulo, you should really look into emigrating to Pakistan. I have a feeling the Musharraf brand of "Democracy" would be far more yto your liking than anything approaching real Democracy.

From "State Your Secrets
The smart way around telecom immunity".
By Justin Florence and Matthew Gerke
Posted Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2007, at 11:32 AM ET
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2177962/

(excerpt)
"...Fans of immunity, which would be retroactive, have staked their position on a claim with which it's hard to disagree. If the telecom companies really acted in good faith based on the Bush administration's legal representations, they say, then it's the administration that should be on trial. Thus, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., has stated that he supports immunity because he's seen the legal documents the administration gave the telecoms that vouched for the program's legality. Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., have hinted the same. The president himself cares so deeply about retroactive immunity that he's said he'll veto a FISA bill that gives him everything he wants but that.

Think this is all because the administration cares about its friends and campaign contributors in the telecom lobby? We don't. Because if that's all that mattered, there would be a much simpler solution, which wouldn't require the president to threaten to veto a bill that he claims is essential to protect America. When the administration first asked the telecoms to help with its surveillance activities, the companies demanded—and received—written assurance from the White House and Justice Department that the program was lawful. If the administration really cared about the telecoms, it would simply allow them to use these legal documents to defend themselves in court.

But it won't. Instead, the administration invokes a little-known rule of evidence called the state secrets privilege, which allows the executive branch to avoid revealing evidence—or even litigating cases—if it claims that doing so might reveal a "state secret." Bush lawyers have used the state secrets privilege to convince a federal appeals court to dismiss an ACLU lawsuit against the National Security Agency asking a court to declare the spying program illegal. And in the cases that have been brought against the telecoms, the administration has invoked the same privilege to argue that courts can't let the cases go forward because the telecoms would be in the unfair position of not being able to defend themselves—because, of course, the administration won't let the companies turn over the relevant documents. Retroactive immunity isn't about letting the telecoms off the hook. It's about hiding the administration's own legal claims from any judicial or public scrutiny. The administration wants to keep these cases out of court so it can cover up for itself."

Do you get it now, kiddies? The Administration is trying to cover up it's own illegal activities! That qualifies as HIGH-CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS!!!

Prosecute the telecoms, bring the proof of governmental malfeasence to light AND IMPEACH THE MOTHERS!!!

Remember what the right wing said about the illegal wiretapping: If you have nothing to hide, then you should not mind it.

So now the right wing is telling us that even if the telecoms have something to hide, they don't have to worry about it?

What hypocrisy!!!

dogjudge makes a good point - if the government comes knocking on your door and demands you provide it with information, and you feel the legality may be in question - who do you take your case to? The same government that is demanding the information? Any focus on telecom companies is misguided and should be redirected towards the bush administration.

"THERE IS ANOTHER WAY"

CANCEL YOUR SUBSCRIPTION I THINK THEY WILL STOP SPYING ON YOU, STOP EAVESDROPPING YOUR CALLS, AND DATAMINING YOUR EVERY WISH, FANTASY, HOPE, DREAM, AND PRIVACY.

THEIR IS MICROSOFT AND OF COURSE THE OTHERSIDE OF MA BELL AMERICA - QWEST! WHO DIDN'T SHARE YOUR, DEEPEST THOUGHTS, LOVE, PRIVACY, FANTASY, HOPES OR DREAMS.

HMMMMM I WONDER WHY THEIR STOCK DROPPED FROM 38.00 TO .97 IN 2001!

Paulo,

I love how you can go straight from Clinto to Carter and skip the 12 years of Republican rule in between.

Your logic is clear. If it happens on a Republic's watch (like 9-11) it is the fault of the democrat who proceeded him.

If it happens on a democrats watch (like the previous World Trade Center attack in 1993) it is his own damn fault.

"If it happens on a democrats watch (like the previous World Trade Center attack in 1993) it is his own damn fault."

Posted by: Carl L

Carl, you should also remind idiot Paulo that the perpetrators of 1993 WTC attack were brought to justice. We handled that attack correctly. By the Judicial System of the United States.

I would be willing to allow retroactive amnesty for the phone companies if in the same bill there is retroactive accountability for the killing and torture purpatrated by private contractors.