The text of the Protect AT&T Act posted on the front page is way more horrible that we thought. The language of that bill not only protects AT&T, et al., but also anyone who assisted the intelligence community. You know who that covers? Let's examine it below the fold.
Who is anyone? Persons are immune from suit include "Anyone" who "provid[ed] assistance to an element of the intelligence community . . . in connection with intelligence activity involving communications that was (i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007 and (ii) designed to prevent or detect a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation of a terrorist attack, against the United States and (B) the subject of a written request or directive . . . indicating that the activity was (i) authorized by the President; and (ii) determined to be lawful."
In America, corporations are persons, so they are part of "anyone" as are people like you and me. So, what corporations and people are protected? Well, a few come to mind pretty quickly: Blackwater, KBR employees, Halliburton employees, any person who the government paid to help with interrogations, and any member of the military or government (US or Iraqi) that helped interrogate alleged terrorists. All of these people would be protected from any suit because they were all assisting the gov't at the written request (i.e. a contract) of the gov't and the gov't said it was legal (just ask John Woo - that d'bag).
If this bill passes, it will obliterate any possibility that anyone associated with spying or torturing will ever be held accountable. While the bill seems limited to "civil" actions, any lawyer worth his/her salt can argue that the Congress intended, through this bill, to preclude criminal actions as well. Indeed, it would violate basic rules of statutory construction to interpret the bill otherwise. How could Congress mean to protect people from civil actions if it didn't also mean to protect them from criminal ones? After all, while you can be innocent of a crime but liable for the same actions (See OJ Simpson), the reverse can't be true because the burden of proof for a civil action is much lower than for criminal. Thus, if you can't prove (or are prevented from proving) someone is civilly liable for their actions, they sure as hell can't be criminally liable.
For god sakes, this bill must be killed immediately.