Immunity for Telecoms or National Security?

Just because the government was unethical in the past does not mean it should continue to be in the future.  If you write a law, enforce the law, and prosecute the law, then you cannot allow those who follow the law to be open to civil retribution in the form of law suits.

It’s immoral and unethical.  It puts them in a Catch 22.  Lose their business licenses and go out of business cutting millions of people off from services they want, or need depending on your view point, or follow the law and get sued into bankruptcy for following the law.

@Cmdr:

Let’s see, he could get his wiretaps continued so he could protect America and American business, or he could destroy American business and America by removing the protection they had for actions they did that were not only legal, but demanded by the government itself.

We have more than enough surveillance ability without this.  It’s just unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Let’s call a spade a spade, Switch.  This amendment really sucked for anyone who followed the law.  It’s like saying you can sue Red Cross first responders for giving CPR if, at any time in history, they ever gave you CPR, regardless of if it caused you any harm, or even saved your lives.

It’s not at all like that.  The law forbids what was done, but everyone was caught up in scares post 9/11, that I think some would reasonably allow it.  However, it went on WAY too long, and was even being done before 9/11.  So the telecoms and Bush can suck it.

It’s just plain illegal to do that kind of thing.  If you follow the law, you should be protected by the law.  Protection should not be stripped so trial lawyers can sue the pants off them and then fund your campaign coffers.  And that’s exactly what Congress is/was trying to pull here.

But no one followed the law here.  Everyone was too afraid to step and say this is wrong because they would be branded a traitor, or yelled down for enjoying terrorism or some dumb shit like that.

The Telecoms are probably the least culpable in the whole bunch (Prez, DOJ, Congress), but they are big boys who have dealt with litigation before.  I’m not going to have my government coerce others in an attempt to seize power (antiterrorism reasons are bullshit), and then try to make everyone immune.  Everyone involved should be punished, and immunity is absurd.

If you want to know more, read this:

Dear Mr. President:

The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to “provide for the common defence.” As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.

Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans’ communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration’s warrantless surveillance program.

Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.

First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA’s collection occurs under this authority.

Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not “expire” on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not “go dark.”

Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.

As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda – that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.

The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.

I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.

We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.

Sincerely,

Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

@Cmdr:

Just because the government was unethical in the past does not mean it should continue to be in the future.  If you write a law, enforce the law, and prosecute the law, then you cannot allow those who follow the law to be open to civil retribution in the form of law suits.

They didn’t follow the law!  It isn’t being enforced!  Bush is trying to REWRITE it now and grant immunity because it was counter to the laws at the time!

It’s immoral and unethical.  It puts them in a Catch 22.  Lose their business licenses and go out of business cutting millions of people off from services they want, or need depending on your view point, or follow the law and get sued into bankruptcy for following the law.

What’s immoral and unethical is spying domestically on US citizens, getting Telecoms to help you with it, then trying to grant immunity AFTER THE FACT.

@ncscswitch:

And ex post facto laws are Unconstitutional specifically because of this type of “after the fact” action that was engaged in by the government of the United kingdom in the 18th C.

And that is exactly why I am saying it is just to grant them immunity from civil prosecution.  The US Government asked them to follow the law.  They followed the law.  Now the civilians want to sue them for easy money.

The President DID have approval from the judiciary to get the wire taps.  Whether or not the approval was appropriate or not is completely beside the point.  The point is that a judge signed the order, the wiretaps were established, and the telecomms followed the law.  Now, after the fact, you want to change the law and hold them liable for following the law at the time they followed the law.

President Bush may or may not, be trying to rewrite the law at this time.  And I’ll say the same things, any thing changed in the law cannot be used retroactively against anyone who followed the law at the time.  However, that does NOT negate the fact that the telecoms followed the laws and the trial lawyers wanna get their hands in their pockets despite this by playing on the fears of the masses.

@Cmdr:

And that is exactly why I am saying it is just to grant them immunity from civil prosecution.  The US Government asked them to follow the law.  They followed the law.  Now the civilians want to sue them for easy money.

The President DID have approval from the judiciary to get the wire taps.  Whether or not the approval was appropriate or not is completely beside the point.  The point is that a judge signed the order, the wiretaps were established, and the telecomms followed the law.  Now, after the fact, you want to change the law and hold them liable for following the law at the time they followed the law.

President Bush may or may not, be trying to rewrite the law at this time.  And I’ll say the same things, any thing changed in the law cannot be used retroactively against anyone who followed the law at the time.  However, that does NOT negate the fact that the telecoms followed the laws and the trial lawyers wanna get their hands in their pockets despite this by playing on the fears of the masses.

If they did nothing wrong, then why do they need immunity?

The Patriot Act was not only wrong, it was unconstitutional.  There were no warrants, subpoenas, or anything legal in the matter.  It was requested and handed over without a fight.  Bad on Bush & co. for destroying our civil rights, bad on the company for giving in.  They all should pay.  End of story.

The Patriot Act may or may not be wrong.  However it WAS the law.

They need the protection because they followed THE LAW.  If I save your life by giving you CPR and they repeal the Good Samaritan laws, should you be allowed to sue me because your ribs hurt the next day?

That’s the SAME thing you are asking for here.  The LAW stipulated that the telecoms had to provide this information (and they did get judicial warrants, just not the exact moment the information was provided mind you) and now, AFTER THEY FOLLOWED THE LAW, you want to allow people to sue them.  Just the act of levvying a lawsuit can drive business and investors into bankruptcy.  Why?  They still have to pay court costs, they still have to hire attorneys, they still have to hire mediators, etc.  It’s expensive to defend yourself against frivolous and illegal lawsuits just as with legitamite ones.

Giving them protection against the pirates salvating at the thoughts of plunder is not only the ethical thing to do, but the only just thing to do.

And, for the record, how can something approved by Congress and Signed by the President and NOT vetoed by the Surpeme Court be unethical?  If we’re going to go down that road, campaign finance reform and a lot of other acts are unconstitutional too.

Actually the McDonald’s conviction was over turned on the first appeal.  Most real litigation like that where you have to wonder if the Judge took his meds the day he made his decision are over turned rather quickly.

This is just going to cause businesses to STOP following the law until the government attempts to shut them down.  You cannot punish companies for obeying the law and not expect a back lash.

@ncscswitch:

Following the law is an absolute defense in all civil cases.

The fact that the various litigation is proceeding against the telecoms is because the law was NOT followed when the Telecoms bowed to Administration pressure to open their records and/or allow for wiretaps without judicial order.

I don’t think the judges have heard the validation for the cases yet.  I think the President was trying to stop this before it even started.

With all hope, the judges WILL support the Telecoms and REQUIRE those filing these frivolous lawsuits to pay the legal bills of the telecoms to send a message that you cannot sue a company for following the law.

But I suspect the telecoms will get hit very hard financially defending themselves, be found not-guilty in the long run, but the damage will be done and companies throughout the land will cease following laws of this nation and may even move out of the nation to friendlier nations.

It’s better to protect them NOW then to rely on lawyers failing to shop for the right judge and getting one with half a brain left in his head.  IMHO.

And, don’t forget, contractors are legally REQUIRED to inform the government of any suspicious activity they witness under the Patriot Act.  When are all the contractors going to be sued for reporting what they saw in someone’s private home without a warrant?

How ridiculous would you like to get?  (BTW, I’ll remind you that was the PRIMARY reason I was against the Patriot Act from day one.  As a contractor I did not feel comfortable being legally responsible for not reporting what I saw in someone’s home if they did go out and do something illegal.  I was supposed to be there to do my job and leave, not snoop.)

Actually, the telecoms never broke the law.  They may freely give the Government, or anyone else, any information about you they want.  The Privacy Act does not apply.  In fact, as long as they can claim they did not profit from the information they gave the FBI/Homeland Security, they are completely immune.

I reference the case where consumers attempted to sue Jet Blue for giving away their information (including Social Security numbers, addresses, telephone numbers, demographics like number of children, race, etc) to the FBI.  The judge ruled that yes, Jet Blue did give away personal information without permission, however, there was no law forbidding Jet Blue from freely giving away that information.  And, since the Federal Government did not take that information by force (they politely asked for it) they did NOT need a warrant to get the information.

So giving the Telecoms protection for giving away information for free (the same info they probably sell to private companies and individuals btw) is just stopping frivolous lawsuits and stop the waste of federal money through wasted time and expense for a case that cannot be won, due to precedent being set with the Jet Blue Case.

Remember, the Privacy Act does not apply to everything.  Only very specific industries in very specific circumstances with very specific information.  Everything else can be handed out like candy.  Furthermore, no where in the Constitution does it state that citizens have a right to privacy.  It’s implied, but not enforced nor expressly written.  You have a right to protection against illegal search and seizure, but you were not illegally searched, you gave the telecoms this information freely, and it was not seized, the telecoms gave it away.