A deal has been cut. In order to enable the government to engage in secret wiretapping, Congress has agreed to give the telecoms immunity for breaking the law. It was so important to the Bush administration that the telecoms get a pass that they were willing to put our nation at risk of terrorist attack. Whew. That was close. I know I’m sure glad that the risk is over.
The deal, expanding the government’s powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, would strengthen the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign targets. It would also allow them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national security information would otherwise be lost. If approved, as appears likely, the agreement would be the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years.
And sometimes, they even catch a good old American criminal in their nets. How great is that!
The agreement would settle one of the thorniest issues in dispute by providing immunity to the phone companies in the Sept. 11 program as long as a federal district court determined that they received legitimate requests from the government directing their participation in the program of wiretapping without warrants.
Of course, because it would all be a secret, the lawyers for the other side would never know about it, have a chance to argue against it, present evidence that it was a big old sham or take any action to prevent it. In fact, the court couldn’t even explain why it was dismissing the case, since that would be a breach of secrecy as well.
And if you have a problem with this, why not just invite your local al Qaeda cell over for tea and crumpets, you terrorist lover. It’s good to know that Congress is watching our back.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The question is how far will this go? Terrorism to start, then organized crime, then stealing cable and betting on horses? Who is going to draw lines for the government to follow, the government? It’s shameful that this is the approach they’re considering.
It would also allow them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national security information would otherwise be lost.
A week? That’s crazy. If our intelligence agents can’t fill out a wiretap application and find a judge to sign it within 24 hours for a national security matter, they’re not really really taking it seriously.
Glenn Greenwald has a great post on this and a quote from Sen. Kit Bond (R), MO:
“I’m not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I’m sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do,” Bond said.
Consider that a Bush appointed Federal judge has already found that no colorable argument can be made that these telecoms could have believed that the “government’s” request was lawful and you see how eerie this “compromise” and this quote truly are:
In other words, when the Executive Branch demands that you break the law, “that is something you need to do.”
To paraphrase Dick the Butcher, “the first thing you do is, you kill all the law[]s.”
With all due respect to the Bush-appointed federal judge, the telecoms didn’t require much convincing, as they had every reason to go along and no reason to think twice. Bond’s assertion reflects the predominent corporate attitude: Why argue with the government? If they say jump, ask “how high?”
Where is the incentive for any telecom to be anything other than totally compliant? After all, even if they’re wrong, they have Congress to clean up their mess.
The quote that the deal would settle a thorny issue “by providing immunity to the phone companies in the Sept. 11 program as long as a federal district court determined that they received legitimate requests” is true but there’s a little more to the story as I understand it.
The Court’s “determination” is limited in that if the Attorney General certifies to the court in secret that such a request was made by the Executive branch, the court MUST dismiss the suit.
In other words, the court doesn’t get into that pesky issue of whether these were lawful requests, only whether they were made.
As Feingold said, “this isn’t compromise, it’s capitulation.” Or, more accurately, as Albright once said of Castro, “this isn’t cajones, it’s cowardice.”
No wonder a new Fox News poll shows that Republicans have higher opinions of the Dem controlled Congress than Democrats do!
The stunning thing is that the Bush Admin couldn’t get this bill through a GOP controlled Congress but now they get it through a Dem controlled Congress because the Dems are afraid they’ll be labelled weak if they don’t give in.
Wow.
What’s even scarier is the Nachio (sp?), the former CEO of Qwest claims that he was targeted both for cancellation of gov’t contracts and with prosecution after refusing the Bush admin’s request. I haven’t kept up with the case recently but, let’s be honest, the claim that the Bush admin selectively prosecutes isn’t exactly far-fetched.
So the telecoms had incentives to go along but also an example of what might happen if you don’t go along, what Sponge Bob would call the “stony lonesome.”
Joe took the words from right out of my mouth…
How far are they going to take it and where are they going to stop? This is just another step closer to being videotaped everywhere we go….
The gov says they are doing all this in order prevent terrorism while at the same time we have people saying that the way we are detaining Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 1, in Gitmo is unconstitutional….
doesn’t really make sense to me
The Politics of FISA Capitulation
If only the Senate could hold off voting on the FISA Capitulation Bill until after November, there might be hope.
The Politics of FISA Capitulation
If only the Senate could hold off voting on the FISA Capitulation Bill until after November, there might be hope.