Redstate

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

isn't critical to the defense and safety of this country.

However, that's just my opinion, and I can see where there's a legitimate argument for granting retroactive immunity on the grounds the the telecommunications companies acted under a reasonable presumption that their actions were legal requests from the federal government (then you get into the question of using, 'they said it was ok' as a legal defense, which retroactive immunity would short circuit). Then any suits would be under the Federal Tort Claims Act and not be directed at the telecommunications companies.

The entire issue isn't black or white, there are valid arguments for both sides on this one.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

you have no say in the defense of the country.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Without the promise of immunity, what is a publicly traded company to do? To what legal authority do they seek counsel from? There is clearly no legal obligation to help the government, while conversely, helping the government may result in litigation, public campaigns, etc. As a business, it makes no sense for telecom companies to cooperate in the future without immunity.

They could seek a court to pre-approve the activity, but such most courts would dismiss the action for lack of a current dispute, getting court approval would take time, and even then, the fact that some action is legally permissible does not preclude a future damages judgment (the fact that the FDA approves a drug does not immunize the drug company from product liabilty judgments).

Bottom line, cooperation with the government will be nil or close to nil unless you then pass a law saying specifically what companies must do, and (hopefully) insulate them from any liability resulting from compliance with the law.

Bottom line: in the real world, the arguments against immunity are arguments against effective cooperation.

Warrants are exactly what is needed to compel the various companies to cooperate. FISA as it was crafted, had the capacity to grant such warrants.

Fishing expeditions are not permitted, even for the good of the country. If the situation is really that dangerous, declare a state of emergency, suspend the articles of constitution that need to be suspended and deal with the situation.

The whole point is that it isn't supposed to be easy for the government to investigate without proper suspicion and justification.

Put another way, you can trust the current government with the power, but are you prepared to trust someone like Clinton and a Democrat congress with the same power? I don't. and whatever good may come of it, whatever good intentions are behind these laws, they're not worth the long term risk of abuse and misuse.

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

is to push any litigation and liability to the federal government, and not the telecom companies. Otherwise, no telecom company is going to cooperate with the Feds since (1) coooperation is not required by law and (2) cooperation raises the possibility of liability.

A cost benefit analysis will always favor inaction, and reduced security for the country.

The end result actually is quite black and white.

If FISA doesn't grant the Federal government the power to force the telecoms to cooperate, then it's not much in the way of protection. So it really bothers me that we are granting them immunity for (alleged) violations of the Fourth Amendment in the interest of national security when the entire enterprise is subject to their willing participation -- the message being sent (intentional or not) is that our government is more interested in protecting the telecoms than our civil liberties or our national security.

If you're going to use Federal power, then use it and force the telecoms to cooperate!

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

that in NOT providing immunity, the Democrats are more interested in feathering the nests of their masters, the Trial Lawyers, than they are in protecting our national security.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Either way you look at it, the rationale sucks.

"Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account" - Winston Churchill, 1921

Why is our national security subject to the telecom's choosing to cooperate with the government? Why would they choose to help (maybe they're great patriots but maybe not)?

I've also heard it said that lawsuits might compel the telecoms to release secret information. I don't see how this can happen as I thought the 'state secrets' protection was very strong?

Actually the administration can seek a court order through fisa to demand cooperation. So in fact the telecos would be required to cooperate regardless of the protect America act and retroactive immunity.

There doesn't really seem to be a credible argument for retro active immunity that I can find. It just stinks of corporate welfare, and I don't support welfare of any kind.

____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

I've found like 10 links but lots of them are to liberal sites like media matters and the aclu, so i doubt they would be looked at very favorably as resources. At any rate here is an old USA Today article discussing why qwest refused to cooperate originally.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Basically they were worried the program might be illegal without a FISA warrant, which Bush never bothered to get.

"The NSA's domestic program raises legal questions. Historically, AT&T and the regional phone companies have required law enforcement agencies to present a court order before they would even consider turning over a customer's calling data. Part of that owed to the personality of the old Bell Telephone System, out of which those companies grew.

Ma Bell's bedrock principle — protection of the customer — guided the company for decades, said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy director of Consumers Union. "No court order, no customer information — period. That's how it was for decades," he said."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----0...

toss in the Lonewolf amendment:
(warning PDF Link!) http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS22011.pdf

and basicly you have that FISA can issue warrants. In addition there are provisions in place to permit surveillance without a court order up to 72 hours before going before the FISA court to obtain said permission.

The court granted over 2200 warrants in 2006. Adding more judges to handle the load and ensure a timely reaction to the surveillance request if need be.

Keep in mind, these are all Ex Parte Orders, which means that the government is the only party at these proceeding. In fact of all the FISA orders, only 5 have been rejected since the creation of the court.

What FISA is about is accountability. Making sure there is more to the surveillance than a fishing expedition.

Is that really such a bad thing to have?

---
"The bass, the rock, the mic, the treble, I like my coffee black, just like my Metal." - MSI

You should trust your government a lot. They're here to help.

In terms of immunity don't the American people have the right to some protection as well? What recourse do we have for our private information being handed to the government without any justification or due cause?

Is that just the price of entry to living here now?

I'm really really interested to see how the right handles it when they lose the rest of their power in November and all of these wonderful new laws are in the hands of the evil DemocratIC party. Its coming guys, you can convince yourself otherwise but another republican lawmaker was indicted today. Ted Stevens and Don Young aren't far behind (I'm from Alaska, trust me they're going down this summer, and its going to hurt us as a state bad, but its coming)

...we'd have an uncomfortable two or three months until we were reassured that, once again, Congressional Democrats were actually quietly grateful that we were there to dictate foreign policy for them. In other words, no real change.

Since you asked. :)

Moe

PS: Gentlemen, I understand that it's no doubt comforting to pretend that this is not a settled issue - but you all do know that the House is merely delaying its betrayal of the anti-FISA people, yes?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!