Telecoms Want Off The Hook

[marmar]

from TomPaine.com:



Telecoms Want Off The Hook
Emily Berman, TomPaine.com
October 16, 2007


Emily Berman is counsel in the Brennan Center for Justice's Liberty & National Security Program and works to protect individual rights through the promotion of effective oversight mechanisms for the United States' national security policy.

The battle lines are drawn. Congress has again taken up the issue of electronic surveillance, trying to rein in the excesses of the "Protect America" Act. A central point of contention: deciding whether telecommunications companies will be granted immunity for their complicity in the government's warrantless wiretapping scheme.

The telecom giants and the Bush administration are pushing hard for immunity. The question remains whether Congress will be able to hold the line against White House demands that the telecom companies are absolved of responsibility for their potential past violations of Americans' rights.

The President and his Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell would rule out of bounds any civil and criminal penalties for any and all violations of the telecoms' statutory, regulatory, or constitutional duties, leaving those whose civil liberties have been infringed without a remedy.

The immunity provision was one of the few items on the administration's surveillance wish list that did not become law as part of August's hastily-enacted PAA. Now that Congress is trying to mitigate the damage wrought by the PAA, the White House is once again resisting efforts to hold accountable those who have violated the law and Americans' constitutional rights.

But the administration simply hasn't explained why such a provision is necessary or wise. Some say the telecoms deserve praise for aiding counterterrorism. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already bars penalties for private parties who get a certification from the government that their actions are lawful. If the telecoms intercepted, stored and turned over to the government Americans' communications and communications records without this assurance—which was designed with this precise situation in mind—are they really the well-meaning patriots that immunity supporters make them out to be? ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/10/16/telecoms_want_off_the_hook.php

[Atman]

1. But BushCo claims NOTHING WAS ILLEGAL. What's the immunity from?

Come on, George. 'Splain it to us stupid 'Murkins.

.

[Demeter]

2. Let's Make a Deal--Hand Over Bush and Cheney, & AT&T Goes Free

I think the country could live with that.

[rodeodance]

4. SWEET

[unhappycamper]

3. Ouch.

~snip~

Dire warnings that litigation against the telecoms will disclose classified state secrets or bankrupt the companies themselves are even less persuasive. Courts handle classified information on a regular basis, so there is no real danger of untoward revelations (except those that embarrass the government). And telecoms are no stranger to multi-million dollar payouts. Just last month, one major telecommunications company settled a suit for $30 million. Talk of telecom bankruptcy is speculative—and undermined by the fact that the stock market hasn't flinched in response to the pending lawsuits. If the Administration's true concern was for the telecoms' financial well-being, the government could simply impose a limit on damages that could be collected from those companies, as it did for air carriers, airline manufacturers and airport owners after 9/11.

[antiimperialist]

5. are cell phones involved in this too?

I have a friend who tells me that only Verizon, but not Verizon Wireless, is engaging in illegal wiretapping without court order. I told him verizon wireless must be in on the deal as well. Are they?

[reinhardt]

6. A government will govern everything it needs.. to govern. n/t