| Good news: the Senate Judiciary Committee has voted to remove telecomm immunity from the new domestic surveillance law.
Unfortunately some Senators are proposing an interesting "compromise" to complete immunity for telecomms:
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the panel, is pushing a plan that would substitute the federal government as the defendant in the lawsuits against the telecommunications companies. That would mean that the government, not the companies, would pay damages in successful lawsuits.
Wait a minute. So that means I'm going to foot the bill for the telecommunications companies that willingly violated the law and their customers' right to privacy, in exchange for federal perks and money?
No, thanks. |
| Yesterday the House voted on a bill that flat-out didn't include telecomm amnesty at all. Nancy Pelosi on the House bill:
"It defends Americans against terrorism and other threats, protects Americans' civil liberties and restores checks and balances," she said. "No president should have inherent authority to collect (intelligence) on Americans without doing it under the law."
That sounds about right. And no one should go unpunished who helped break the law, either.
Bush, of course, will veto any bill that comes across his desk that doesn't include telecomm immunity. That's fine by me. If Congress doesn't pass a domestic surveillance bill - correct me if I'm wrong here - but the law flips back to its more stringent, original FISA regulations, and would grant telecomms no immunity at all. My advice to Congressional delegates: let Bush veto!
But, why all the fuss about telecomm immunity, anyway? I mean, if the President's hinky business was really all about fighting terrorism, and done immediately after 9/11, as telecomm immunity advocates claim, why worry? I mean, it's not like courts would punish anyone for that, right?
Well, that's not what President Bush thinks:
Bush argues that such lawsuits could bankrupt the telecoms, reveal classified information and discourage cooperation with legal surveillance requests.
The second two claims - revealing classified info and discouraging compliance with legal requests - are, of course, complete bullsh*t. It's the first that's interesting. Bush is worried lawsuits will bankrupt telecomms over his program? Isn't that an admission of guilt? |
