No immunity
Senate veers off track in its surveillance bill
The Rocky
Friday, February 15, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
The Bush administration is in a tizzy because Congress will take its Presidents Day recess and allow the temporary "terrorist surveillance" act passed six months ago to expire at midnight Saturday.
Earlier this week, President Bush actually suggested that al-Qaida operatives are watching the calendar, poised to plot new attacks freely with Congress absent - and U.S. intelligence officials will be largely powerless to stop them.
Don't insult the American public, Mr. President. You'll still have the ability to wiretap suspected terrorists - and the warrantless surveillance powers in the bill are valid until August.
Bush is riled because the House is leaving town without adopting immunity provisions in the Senate surveillance bill. The Senate version granted immunity from lawsuits - unwisely, in our view - to telecommunications firms that cooperated with the warrantless wiretaps on overseas calls.
If immunity is in the final legislation - and Bush has said he'd veto any bill that doesn't include it - it would kill the 40-plus lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms in federal court. The litigation challenges the legality of the program and the actions of telecoms that cooperated with the government.
If the lawsuits don't move forward, we may never learn if some telecoms compromised the privacy of innocent Americans. A grant of immunity could also set a dangerous precedent for other businesses when federal agents or local cops who don't have a court order demand private or confidential information about their customers.
(Colorado Sens. Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar both voted to pass the Senate legislation and to oppose an amendment that would have stripped the immunity provisions from the bill.)
Look, we think the government should have greater leeway - and constitutionally, does have greater leeway - to monitor international communications with al-Qaida than it does to intercept domestic phone calls or e-mails.
But we've largely had to take the administration's word that the wiretap program didn't go beyond the narrow confines under which it would be legal. Moreover, any program that lets the government snoop without a judge's approval deserves outside scrutiny to prevent abuses.
In this instance, the lawsuits may reveal whether the wiretaps were targeted or were more like fishing expeditions. We may also learn how effectively the telecoms separated international communications from domestic calls or e-mails.
The government initially tried (and failed) to quash these cases, claiming the program was so top secret that even admitting that private telecoms participated would compromise national security. Federal courts wouldn't buy that line. So AT&T and other telecoms started claiming they were victims - Washington had persuaded them that the program was legal and they had little choice but to assist in the fight against al-Qaida.
Those claims may be true, but they seem to run counter to the experience of Joe Nacchio, the former Qwest CEO who was convicted on insider trading charges last year. Two years ago it was revealed that Nacchio refused to comply with appeals from the government to participate in the warrantless wiretap program; he balked at turning over information about his customers obtained under what Qwest considered suspect legal circumstances.
Court documents released in October revealed that Nacchio first met with national security officials in February 2001 - six months before the 9/11 attacks. "Nacchio's account," The Washington Post reported, "suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon."
Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush said Wednesday, punish companies that want to "help America." Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution - and so should the government.
Comments
Posted by Froward69 on February 15, 2008 at 6:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Get a Warrant!!! thats not that difficult to do... Immunity for your telecom corporate buddies is shameful! using fear to pass legislation is exactly how Hitler did it. Linking business interests to government is the DEFINITION of fascism! Thats exactly what the republicans want!
Are you NEOcons paying attention? Will you ever see just how Damaging to AMERICA you are trying to be???
Posted by Spencer on February 15, 2008 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Allard does not surprise me (rubber stamper) but what the Hell was Salazar thinking about?
Posted by Earl on February 15, 2008 at 7:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
once again the dums have shown their hate for Bush and the need to protect our country from another attack.
I will bet good money that if another attack does happen it will be all Bushes fault as he didnt do enough.
hey backward 96 who was it that had all the fbi files in her room of people from the other party? but that is so much different than looking for terrorist groups calling their buddies in the US isnt it?
Posted by davis_x_machina on February 15, 2008 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder why it is that the party of "well if you've got nothing to hide..." can't answer the question of why the telecom corporations would need blanket retroactive and proactive immunity if there were nothing untoward about their actions. Given that the all inclusive vacuum cleaner communications intercept program began long before 9/11, but the bushies still ignored the "bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. presidential daily briefing hand delivered to his vacation spot more than a month before the heinous crime of 9/11. I wonder if for people like Earl will disagreement with the policies of the next president constitute hatred for that person whomever it might be, especially if, as is most likely, that person is of the party not Earls and the majority of that disagreement comes from the Repubs. Will it still be hate?
Posted by Charles_B on February 15, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Earl:
Tell us what powers Bush doesn't have now that the House did the right thing and let the PAA expire.
...
...
Answer:
None. He can wiretap whoever he wants whenever he wants. All the PAA did was remove oversite functions and give amnesty to lawbreakers.
You simply don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
Posted by Charles_B on February 15, 2008 at 8:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken Salazar should go ahead and make it official by becoming a Republican. On every major issue of importance he capitulates to Bush out of political cowardice.
I'm looking forward to supporting anyone who runs against him in 2010. I've never regretted a vote more.
Posted by Tbone on February 15, 2008 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey, the rocky gets it right for once! Way to go!
Posted by mytwosense on February 15, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If telecoms get immunity, we may also never learn why so many Dems voted to give it to them! This is beyond Bush now...both parties are guilty of taking away our rights to privacy, and our rights to defend that privacy in court.
When that many Dems vote for such an unlawful piece of legislation, something truly isn't adding up. All Americans should be in an uproar about this, no matter your political affiliation.
Posted by TiredofLiarsandhypocrites on February 15, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
War is Peace, Slavery is Feedom.
I like what Davis X says. Even when they have the intel in front of them they don't do or know how to do anything with it.
Salazar is a real dissapointment. The whole administration is a joke.
Is it 09 yet?
Posted by Earl on February 15, 2008 at 12:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
oh so sorry charlene b I forgot that you have every answer to the problems of the world. the part of the bill your liberals didnt like was being able to get information without going through the courts and the NYT for the information. it has nothing to do with everyday Americans and spying on them as you like to profess.
not to worry 09 will be here and so will Al-quida to help every one out.
Posted by ollie on February 15, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Earl;
BOO!
Posted by Michael on February 15, 2008 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"I wonder why it is that the party of "well if you've got nothing to hide..." can't answer the question of why the telecom corporations would need blanket retroactive and proactive immunity if there were nothing untoward about their actions." - davis_x_machina
Allow me to answer that for you my left wing friend. It costs 10s of MILLIONS of dollars (if not more) to fend of the bogus and nuisance lawsuits that groups like the ACLU bring against those they feel like f*$#ing with on any given day. And guess what???? Even when they lose they are not required to pay the legal bills of the defendant that they have harassed. This is one area where the USA needs tort reform and we would be better served to look at the Euros in this regard. If you sue somebody in the UK and you lose, YOU PAY for their legal bills. It makes potential plaintiffs think twice about bringing a lawsuit when they know they pay if they lose.
Posted by Froward69 on February 15, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Earl, if the government actually got warrants the telecoms or any other company would be AUTOMATICALLY immune from civil suits. thats a fact...
Insisting upon RETROACTIVE Immunity is simply trying to cover telecoms and bushy boys asses from civil litigation.
homeland safety has nothing to do with it... unless you actually believe bushy boy? If you do? I have a bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn to sell ya.
Posted by Spencer on February 15, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you about tort reform Michael (it's needed) I'm in an industry where we get sued all the time without merit. Problem in Europe is that the small guy doesn't even try to sue sometime. Example: you try and sue a huge insurance company and they can run the costs through the roof so people don't bring legitimate lawsuits. We have our problems but still the best system.
Posted by peterpi on February 15, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree, the RMN got it right. There's a perfectly simple way for the Bushies to get their hands on telecom records. It's called a warrant. Requests for wiretaps from FISA have a record of something like 1,000 approved, 4 rejected, so FISA isn't a barrier. Neither are the real, regular courts. The Bushies just want to bulldoze through all that and snoop on anyone they damn well please. If an American gets spied on, too bad. After all, we're all guilty of something fishy anyway. And Nacchio proves that sometimes, even scumbags have scruples. But Bush and Cheney couldn't find scruples even with all of the NSA, CIA, and FBI spooks looking for them
No immunity! No warrantless wiretaps!
Posted by NotChasB on February 15, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Now the Dumacrats can finally get what they have been wishing for. A big terrorists attack on one of our major cities like NYC and then turn around and blame Bush for not protecting us. Like oraganized crimminals only terrorists have to be concerned with wire tappings and surveillence. Maybe the person at the Rocky who wrote this editorial is Mr. Ali Kaboom in disguise or just your run of the mill paranoid liberal. Of course they may have something to hide, being appeasers and collaborators with the enemy.
Posted by Charles_B on February 15, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Earl:
"oh so sorry charlene(sic) b I forgot that you have every answer to the problems of the world."
You would be wise to remember that in the future.
Posted by Charles_B on February 15, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Michael:
"It costs 10s of MILLIONS of dollars (if not more) to fend of the bogus and nuisance lawsuits that groups like the ACLU bring against those they feel like f*$#ing with on any given day."
The telecom companies had a very clear guideline to follow when deciding wether or not to give Bush the information he requested. It was enumerated very clearly in FISA. That's what FISA was written for in part--to draw clear distinctions for telecom as to what they could and couldn't do. They have teams of lawyers that were more than competent. They simply chose to violate the law.
"And guess what???? Even when they lose they are not required to pay the legal bills of the defendant that they have harassed. This is one area where the USA needs tort reform...."
Are you done thumping the straw man yet? Qwest, to it's credit, refused to participate in programs it's lawyers deemed illegal. AT&T and Verizon could have as well.
You can make a case that they were acting in good faith, but the proper place to make that argument is in court, not congress.
Meanwhile, you can continue crying into your milk about how wrong it is for telecoms to have to defend themselves against these charges, but I don't think you'll find many sympathetic Americans (besides Ken Salazar and the sell-outs in Congress), after all, if *we* break the law, we don't have high powered lobbyists greasing up our Senators in order to avoid culpability.
Or do you simply think telecom companies are above the law? At least that would be honest.
Posted by popo on February 15, 2008 at 7:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Earl & NCB,
Guys like you made it possible for Bush & Co. to damage the U.S.A,and use our troops as pawns. Are you proud of yourselves? Or just stupid enough to still believe everything they say?
NAIN....We know.
Posted by Brain on February 16, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
How did Hillary and Obama vote on this?
I bet IF one of these POLITICIANS becomes president very little will change in regards to FISA.
Posted by ollie on February 16, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey NotChasB;
BOO!
Posted by mytwosense on February 17, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Brain, Obama voted against it. Hillary didn't even bother to show up to vote - and she was in the DC area. She lost any remaining support from me, and probably a hell of a lot of others, as a result.
Posted by Brain on February 17, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
According to senate.gov neither voted (not voting) and McCain voted yea; I wonder why the 2 Democrats didn't vote?
Again, I bet very little will change (with FISA)regardless which one of these candidates are elected.
At least one of them had the courage to vote!
Posted by Charles_B on February 17, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
On this Topic:
http://www.markfiore.com/node/958
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.