Now Hear This Electronic Newsletter, March 13, 2008 Posted
by Bob at 03/13/08 12:39 PM
Should telecom titans such as AT&T and Verizon be given retroactive legal immunity for allowing the government to run wiretaps on their customers without a warrant?
That question has been one of the most hotly debated topics in Washington over the past few weeks as the White House has pushed relentlessly for such telecom immunity to be included in any reauthorization of the controversial Protect American Act, which expired last month.
The Bush Administration and supporters in Congress say such immunity is vital to protect national security, arguing big telecom companies who cooperated with the government on warrantless wiretapping activities are now facing crippling lawsuits. The White House says the phone companies were acting patriotically in granting the warrantless wiretaps, helping the government more easily fight terrorists in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. The White House also contends the warrantless wiretaps were legal.
Opponents say such immunity for the telecom companies is unnecessary and unwarranted if, as the White House contends, the warrantless wiretaps were indeed legal. If they were not, critics argue, the telecom companies should face lawsuits for participating in illegal wiretaps on their customers.
The House earlier this year passed legislation reauthorizing the Protect America Act that did not contain the retroactive immunity for telecom companies sought by the White House. A couple of weeks ago the Senate passed it own version of the reauthorization, which included the retroactive immunity for the telecoms. The White House has vowed to veto any legislation that does not include the immunity for telecom companies.
The White House has stepped up its attacks substantially on congressional opponents of telecom immunity in recent days, accusing them of hurting the administration’s national security and anti-terrorism efforts.
Proponents of telecom immunity, led by the White House, say getting a warrant might allow would-be terrorists to slip away from investigators, but such arguments are dubious at best. Current law allows investigators to put wiretaps in place and then go get the proper warrants within the next 72 hours in the very limited number of such “hot-on-the-trail” cases.
This week House leaders floated a new plan aimed at breaking the deadlock, but it stops well short of granting the blanket, retroactive immunity sought by the White House. Instead, according to a report in the New York Times, the tentative proposal would give the federal courts special authorization to hear classified evidence and decide whether the phone companies should be held liable.
The proposal could come before the House for a vote as soon as today.
There is no way we can do full justice to this complicated and vitally important debate in the limited space we have here.
That said, Americans have every right to expect their telecom companies to jealously guard their privacy of their personal information – whether it’s who they are calling or texting, what web sites they are visiting, or what they are buying on Amazon.com.
Telecom companies have absolutely no business simply surrendering such private information to the government or anyone else without an appropriate warrant. Legal liability helps assure these companies will think long and hard before taking such potentially reckless actions in the future, no matter who is making the request.
The latest proposal from the House to give federal courts special authorization to hear classified information and decide whether the phone companies should be held liable seems more than reasonable. A simple rejection of any sort of immunity for telecom companies would be even better.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NEW ON www.hearusnow.org
Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on www.hearusnow.org
Consumers Not Satisfied With Cell Phone Industry; Consumers Union Testifies before House Commerce Subcommittee
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW ON “NOW HEAR THIS”
Click on the links below to view these items recently posted on “Now Hear This”, our blog:
Guest Blog: Government-Subsidized TV Converter Boxes Will Actually Block Signals From Thousands of Broadcasters
Consumer Reports Offers Tips for Curbing Cell Phone Spam
comments
(11)
1
Posted by Joe at 03/13/08 01:23 PM
Again, this Administration doesn't believe that it needs to abide by our Constitutional Laws. In other words, they are above the law. Given the appropriate information, I can't imagine the court not responding positively to any requests for wiretaps critical to our safety. I'm waiting for President Bush to issue another one of his many executive orders, this one forgiving AT&T and Verizon for these past unlawful wiretaps!
2
Posted by john delane at 03/13/08 01:29 PM
We need to be somewhat careful here. i think it is necessary to trap enemy communications whenever possible. what is needed is secure government responsibility in handling this information.
3
Posted by Bill V Romans at 03/13/08 01:40 PM
Warrents necessary -- unwarranted wiretaps, etc are illegal. Place a "hot" wiretap and you currently have 72 hours get a warrant. Use the present system in place and stay legal. ALso, nop retrocativity to phone companies who participated in this illegal act.
4
Posted by Janice Brown at 03/13/08 01:57 PM
I am very much against giving immunity for telecom companies for giving out private information without warrants. This is infringing on citizens' rights as spelled out in the constitution and anyone or any group who violates these rights MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Just because the Bush administration asks for information, those asked have the right and RESPONSIBILITY to say, "NO!"
5
Posted by eugene at 03/13/08 03:09 PM
TERRORISTS have NO RIGHTS!!!
6
Posted by Alan Kardoff at 03/13/08 04:09 PM
Gov. Spitzer's "gig" was found without granting the phone companies immunity. The terrorists that I see include individuals and organizations in the US that get away with murder. One is the meat packing house that had to recall 1400000+ tons of
beef. School violence is a major concern. So id domestic drug traffiking. Will Al Quieda come over again?
Bush and his crew could have stopped 911 before it ever began if there had been viligance. When Gov. Davis wanted to call Code Yellow for SanFran
Fed Govt overruled him. Local officials know more. And the person who tried to ignite his heel on a plane was caught by an alert flight
attendant. Where was the vigilance there?
There are enough laws on the books to protect the phone companies many times over. Bush wants to keep all the power & control including blocking
free speech. His threats that the nation would be in a terrorist crisis when Congress refused to pass the bill has not occurred. It will not. There
are enough laws on the books now.
The laws should not be made retroactive. They should be killed. There is no need. Ooops firms
make politican contributions: Viva Bush/Cheney.
7
Posted by Peter Ross at 03/13/08 05:23 PM
No immunity should be given especially since Bush says no crimes have been committed.
If no crimes have been committed then no immunity is needed!
All immunity means is a method for yet another cover-up of Bush Administrations transgressions upon our Constitution. Enough!
Where is the outrage that is most definitely called for?
It is time to put country before politics and insist that the Constitution be honored, obeyed and protected.
8
Posted by Jeff Hayes at 03/13/08 09:03 PM
The first sentence of your last paragraph MORE than states what is the LEAST of any semblance of a "middle ground."
The WAY AT&T and some of the other companies went about instituting these wiretaps (as documented by Frontline on PBS by building SECRET FACILITIES directly beside some of their main switching facilities and not letting ANYONE know what they were doing) is more than enough to suggest that at the LEAST the federal courts should have a "looksee" at this situation!
Jeff Hayes
9
Posted by Doiald Cinalli at 03/13/08 10:07 PM
I don't agree w/Here Us Now's position on the telecom non-absolution w/o a warrant. They are performing a vital role in the defense of our company by allowing monitoring "suspicious" and known terrorist communications. It is a disservice to our military if we cannot afford them adequate, accurate & CURRENT potential threats to American citizens. Please consider your position on this grave security matter. I don't agree with all the "restrictions, etc." & breaching of the average American's freedoms, but this issue is extremely important and interference with passage of the "correct legislative extensions" should not be compromised. I am a Vietnam Era Vet and I approved my own comments.
10
Posted by George D. Shaeffer at 03/13/08 11:05 PM
The entire Orwellian concept of "retroactive immunity" makes a mockery of the rule of law. In my experience, immunity is NOT a function of the Legislative or Executive branches of government; it is solely the provence of the Judiciary. Furthermore, it is used as a quid quo pro in return for obtaining evidence against a defendant's co-defendants that would not otherwise be available, thus allowing all of the co-defendants to escape trial. Finally, it is COMPLETELY unecessary, because our system of government has an appropriate method for dealing with such situations: Let the telecom companies have their day in court. If they are convicted, then the President may either commute their sentences or grant them a complete pardon as he/she deems appropriate.
Unfortunately, President Bush has a time constraint here that he cannot escape: He cannot pardon someone or commute their sentence if they haven't first been convicted and he's relatively sure that the trial, once finally started, would drag on beyond his tenure in office, removing his authority to pardon or commute them if they are convicted. The Judiciary's hands are tied at this point, because thay have no legal basis to offer any of the telecomfirms immunity at this point, so the President is trying to manipulate the outcome through his loyal minority in congress who will do his bidding even though they lack the Constitutional authority to do so. Of course, the President has shown little respect for minor inconveniences such as the Constitution since he first took the oath of office.
11
Posted by W James Hadden Jr at 03/14/08 03:22 AM
It is clear to me that the gov't. already has overwhelming power to monitor our communications. We need legislation that restricts such monitoring of sources that, over a brief period (six months, say), have NOT shown any threatening behavior. (I assume that automatic monitoring of our communications continues: we need automatic discarding of useless information!)
