Idemnification for the Telecos?
Posted on March 2, 2008
Kevin Drum thought he might be on to something. It seems that a lefty lawyer had a theory on why the telecoms were not investing large interest in getting the FISA legislation passed quickly, and why they weren’t up and arms when the House allowed it to expire. It was especially curious to this lefty because the President talks about this retroactive immunity being so important in getting the companies to cooperate.
Some folks don’t like the idea of immunity. They argue that the companies sold their privacy out, and don’t see any reason they shouldn’t have to go through the process of justice. After all…if they aren’t guilty then they don’t have anything to worry about….right? Forget all that about being innocent till proven guilty and the burden of proof being on the accusers. The ACLU types have already branded the companies guilty.
It frustrates me, because these companies were most certainly under the impression that they were doing their patriotic duty in helping to protect Amercia. Furthmore, the companies were most likely under the impression that they were not breaking any laws. Last but not least, if the companies thought they were doing the right thing, then why should they be dragged through costly court battles to prove that? To date, no one has brought forth any legitimate evidence to the public that their privacy was actually violated by the program. Most folks support the program, and no one even acted alarmed until the ACLU started stoking fears. The whole reason the ACLU lost in their attempt was because they couldn’t prove any standing.
Anyway, the theory goes….the companies don’t care about retroactive immunity because they signed for idemnification with the government before ever cooperating in the first place. Such agreements would force the federal government to pay any legal judgments awarded in suits against the telcos.
Its an interesting theory, and it would be a huge scoop if only it were true. However, Tom Maguire rips the theory to shreds!
Jiminy, if these earnest Senators find out that Bush has already indemnified the telecoms and sent one DoJ guy to, hmm, misdirect them while a former DoJ official was kept totally in the dark on that point, there will be Hades to pay, and yes, I bet the press will get interested.
Of course, the alternative is that there is nothing to the Drum/bmaz indemnification theory. Yet another tough call!
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, News, Politics As Usual, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
5 Responses to “Idemnification for the Telecos?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
This post is very weak, Jay. You should have just linked to the others and posted.
What? You say the plaintiff is sure that the defendant is guilty?? No way!
They are innocent until proven guilty and all we’re asking is for the opportunity to do so.
Awww, just breaks your heart. It’s not like they have hundreds of lawyers to advise them before making such a decision. Or in reviewing that decision. Over the course of 5 years.
It’s ludicrous of you to suggest that they were just naively blinded by patriotism. They were aware of the relevant laws; or they were so dumb they hired a staff full of useless lawyers. They made a decision. They should live with the consequences of it, like everyone else.
The same reason every other defendant has to. That’s how justice works in this country. That’s why the plaintiff bears the burden of proof.
You’re confusing the suits against the government with the suits against the telecoms. But either way, if you’re right that no one has standing against anyone, who needs immunity? A couple Motions to Dismiss and the whole thing’s over.
Having just now read that post it was interesting to see s/he cite “Snarlin” Arlen Specter. Recall, if you will, that he unsuccessfully attempted to amend the Senate’s bill with indemnification. Yet that post also contain’s the testimony by Philbin to Specter (Judiciary Cmte) that shows why it was doomed. The telecomms could have still been sued, they would be forced to defend themseleves, yet the government would have to pay costs and all damages. Beyond what sounds like high priced welfare for lawyers, it would left it up to a federal judge to decide what classified information could be revealed.
To date, no one has brought forth any legitimate evidence to the public that their privacy was actually violated by the program.
This is arguable.
Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps
Feb 19, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to civil rights and privacy advocates who oppose the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
ACLU officials described the situation as a “Catch-22″ because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program.
A lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity met a similar fate. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year ruled against the Oregon-based U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, concluding that a key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
In that case, the charity alleged the National Security Agency illegally listened to its calls. The charity had wanted to introduce as evidence a top-secret call log it received mistakenly from the Treasury Department.
The relevance of that log was argued before the judges in the original case, in which, at last report, the evidence allowed against the “charity” failed to achieve a conviction. The ACLU’s point became mute; it continued their suit only to further its propaganda against our government, not to win acquittal of the defendants.
The Supreme Court only confirmed that testing the legitimacy of secrets, as evidence in open court, at risk of our national security, should not be entertained.
My whole thing is that, I find it very uneasy that corporations and the Government are working so closly together. That’s fascism in it’s purist form. Call me crazy, put it’s true.
I don’t like the fact that my cell phone provider is in on this. What if I’m having a conversation, and it’s abot some of my political beliefs (they aren’t mainstream) and I’m getting listen apon by some Government thug, and he doesn’t like what I’m saying. What if, he thinks, I’m some kind of “Dangerous radical”. What happens then?
I’ve never bought the argument that “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, why worry”. Have always found that to be a corwardly way of thinking. Reguardless if you aren’t doing something wrong, you should always Question Authority.