by Deb Cupples | The issue of Telecom Amnesty was scheduled to be argued in federal court today. Yesterday, Wired reported:
"The Bush administration on Tuesday will try to convince a federal judge to let stand a law granting retroactive legal immunity to the nation's telecoms, which are accused of transmitting Americans' private communications to the National Security Agency without warrants.
"At issue in the high-stakes showdown — set to begin at 10:00 a.m. PST — are the nearly four dozen lawsuits filed by civil liberties groups and class action attorneys against AT&T, Verizon, MCI, Sprint and other carriers who allegedly cooperated with the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program in the years following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The lawsuits claim the cooperation violated federal wiretapping laws and the Constitution.
"In July, as part of a wider domestic spying bill, Congress voted to kill the lawsuits and grant retroactive amnesty to any phone companies that helped with the surveillance; President-elect Barack Obama was among those who voted for the law in the Senate. On Tuesday, lawyers with the Electronic Frontier Foundation are set to urge the federal judge overseeing those lawsuits to reject immunity as unconstitutional. At stake, they say, is the very principle of the rule of law in America.
"'I think it does set a very frightening precedent that it's okay for
people to break the law because they can just have Congress bail them
out later,' says EFF legal director Cindy Cohn....
"The judge presiding over the case, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, announced late Monday he wanted to discuss 11 questions (.pdf) at Tuesday's hearing, one of which goes directly to the heart of the immunity legislation." (Wired)
Today, Wired reported:
"Tuesday's court room showdown in San Francisco lacked the fireworks of Dodd's fiery oration, though the judge handling the case gave some indication that he may take over Dodd's place as the one-man anti-immunity crusader.
"Although the government has already submitted classified evidence to U.S. district judge Vaughn Walker, the libertarian-leaning jurist has declined to look at the evidence. He's already ruled against the government that the cases need to be dismissed on the grounds of 'state secrets,' an assertion judges are rare to second-guess.
"'In essence that gives the Attorney General carte blanche to immunize anyone...,' Walker said, wondering what odd creature Congress had fashioned. 'What other statute is like this statute?'"
Firedoglake points out the tone of one of the questions that Judge Walker asked:
"What exactly has Congress created with § 802 (in Pub L No 110-261, 122 Stat 2467, tit II, § 201 (2008))? It does not appear to be an affirmative defense but rather appears to be a retroactive immunity for completed acts that allegedly violated constitutional rights, but one that can only be activated by the executive branch. Is there any precedent for this type of enactment that is analogous in all of these respects: retroactivity; immunity for constitutional violations; and delegation of broad discretion to the executive branch to determine whether to invoke the provision?"
This doesn't look good for proponents of retroactive immunity.
Telecom Amnesty really does go to the heart of a bigger issue: whether all of this nation's people (and corporations) are required to follow our nation's laws.
Fact: the companies being sued wouldn't be subject to law suits if they'd had lawful warrants allowing them to gather data in all instances.
The lawyers advising those companies likely knew (if they're worth even half what they get
paid) that the companies would be violating federal laws by doing what Bush Administration officials asked them to do without first seeing lawful warrants.
Those companies chose to do it anyway -- perhaps because they got paid to do it. Giving retroactive immunity to people who make money from breaking the law sets a bad precedent.
I found this interesting: a Bush Administration lawyer told Judge Walker that Barack Obama would likely support Telecom Amnesty.
Yes, Obama voted for the FISA bill that included Telecom Amnesty provisions: I was in the Senate Gallery in July when he voted. Big "but" coming: Obama had opposed Telecom Amnesty for months before that vote. Even weeks before the vote, he publicly expressed opposition to Telecom Amnesty.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Cutting Executive Pay Would Save Jobs
* Bailouts Redistribute Wealth Upwards
* Someone Please Take the Economy Away from Mr. Paulson
* Does 1,000 Spankings/Beatings Justify Killing Abusers?
* Our President Says the Darndest Things
*
Comments