Political Quotes

On the recordJanuary 30, 2008
that is a very serious question because if those lawsuits should continue, either directly against carriers alleged to have participated or substitution or indemnification, No. 1, the identities of the providers could be revealed which would compromise our intelligence sources and methods. No. 2, the providers would be far less willing to cooperate with legitimate requests for assistance in the future, thus crippling our intelligence collection. Why is this? Quite frankly, because this would have a huge damage to their business reputations. They have already been accused falsely of all sorts of things that have raised questions that are reflected in damage to the value of the shareholders of the company and potentially bring great risk to the employees of those corporations and their facilities. These lawsuits would occur not only in the United States but even more likely they would occur overseas, and there could be real personal danger if the companies are confirmed as assisting the Government's fight against terrorism. Their facilities, their personnel could be at risk of terrorist targeting or other vigilante actions.
Said by
Julian Bond
Alabama

Editor's note · Context

Discussing the implications of lawsuits against carriers involved in intelligence operations.

Share

More from Julian Bond

Mar 28, 2012

It's the most -- one of the most cynical things I've ever heard of or seen spelled out in this way.

transcripts.cnn.com
Jun 26, 2008

I thank our leaders for getting us on this very important bill. As we have discussed before, the failure to modernize and authorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act last summer has caused serious gaps in our intelligence…

govinfo.gov
Feb 4, 2009

Today I wish to talk about a number of concerns I have about the underlying bill as well as some amendments I have filed and propose to call up. I think it is important to put this in context. Our Nation is in the midst of a serious…

govinfo.gov
Jun 25, 2008

I dispute his statement that there were 6 years of unlawful activity of the President. He said no court will be able to review the illegality; no independent officials have reviewed it. First, it is my understanding, although I was not one…

govinfo.gov

Other voices in this conversation