« American Idol 2/12 (liveblogged!)
American Idol 2/13 »

Discuss: FISA telecom immunity

February 13, 2008, 4:53 PM by Pauley

I don’t know all the details on this story, so I’m opening up to commentary on the issue.

Yesterday the US Senate rejected an amendment to S.2248 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007) that would have removed language from the bill granting immunity to the telecommunications industry regarding wiretapping of terrorist communications, thus, essentially, granting such immunity. The bill was passed shortly thereafter. This language did not appear in the House version of the bill, so this will be hashed out in conference committee soon.

The measure will, if I’m reading this right, close up any ambiguity as to the legality of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program that President Bush enacted shortly after September 11, 2001. The imminity language, again, if I’m following this correctly, would protect the telecommunications industry from prosecution if any laws were broken before this legislation comes into effect.

I’m not sure where to come down on this issue. Maybe my understanding of criminal law is flawed, but if this bill makes the program legal, doesn’t it no longer matter if their activities were against the law before? The Bush Administration and the industry both keep saying it was legal before anyway, so if that were the case, wouldn’t the courts find in their favor anyway?

I open the topic up to your discussion, as it’s confusing the hell out of me. Keep your comments civil, or I reserve the right to edit or delete them, and I will be the sole arbiter of such.

Category: In The News, Politics, War On Terror  |  Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback

Viewing 2 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    First off: Regardless of the legality or not of their actions lawsuits are expensive and bad PR. The telecoms do not want that.

    Secondly the Senate Bill clarifies language to make something that was previously a gray area expressly legal and says that it was always legal so no-on can be held liable for acting so. Yes one could have waited for the judicial branch of the government to have a case and then rule on it, but it is also the prerogative of congress to pass another bill (which the executive branch can sign into law) that clarifies an earlier law without waiting for congress. Remember that the judicial branch only interprets that laws that congress wrote and the executive branch made into laws. Even if the judicial branch interprets a law one ay, congress is free to take another pass at it. and make the new law retroactive. In this case the Senate is trying prevent the telcos from paying lawyers a LOT of money to have a judge rule. Unless a law is unconstitutional, which is a whole other ball game, congress can presents to the president pretty much any law they want (the can present those too, but it's usually not a good idea).

    Thirdly: This passed because the Senators in opposition to it believed that the best course of action at present was to obtain from voting, and to let the house or representative, which is still looking at this, to make the decisions. Remember that the way congress is organized, by design, is that the house is more in touch with the people and the senate is more of the long-term looking body. This is in part decided by the size of the two groups ans well as the term lengths. The House, in which you need to be reelected every two years is MUCH more sensitive to the people they represent then those in the senate who are there for 6 ears. The Senate members who have been fighting this issue believed that they could not sustain a filibuster and that it would be counterproductive to try. At present the FISA act will expire Saturday night. This leave the house with 3 options. 1) Pass a bill that matches the Senate's 2) Pass a bill that only differs from the Senates in the retroactive immunity part (which the president has already said he would veto) or 3) allow the FISA to expire. Having nothing passed in the Senate would mean that it would be impossible to even present the President with a low before this weekend. If the huse act's now they can make it the President's fault the current law expires ("We gave the president most of what he asked for and he vito'ed it. Who's fault is that?!?").

    Fourth. Remember that not all courts make the right call. If a JURY decides against the telcos it could then go to the appeals court, and then the SC, and as it stands now this practice is STILL in a legal gray area because the law, as written, does not specify. This takes a lot of time in courst that are already over worked, if Congress and the Executive branch want this to be legal why waste court time, especially if they might make it legal even after the court rules.

    I think the REAL moral here is not what the telcos did, but how congress can pass bill and the president can pass laws that are so ambiguous. They really need to make it clear what they mean the first time and avoid this whole thing.

    Also note that Hillary, who has spoken against this, decided to skip the vote, where she could have made a difference, so that she could be campaigning.
    • ^
    • v
    I feel like I'm talking to my self again.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus