I am not going to express shock, moral outrage, or self righteous indignation over the Senate’s voting not to deny retroactive immunity to the telecommunications carriers which helped the Bush Administration to spy on American citizens. I will, however, ask for someone to give me a cogent, morally defensible explanation why are elected officials are so quick to give away our most basic civil liberties.
Nonetheless, all of the arguments to justify this amendment are horse crap, to put it mildly. Let me debunk them.First, the Bush Administration’s warrantless spying program violates the FISA Law and the US Constitution. Full Stop.
Second, this program does not “make us safer.” If it did, why did the Administration approach the telecoms companies in February 2001 to institute this program? Surely, that would have given the Administration the necessary information to thwart the attacks of September 11. If, six and a half years after September 11, law enforcement has not identified the likely terrorist suspects, it calls into question their competency. Can all of be terrorist suspects?! Moreover, if you cannot pursue these terrorist threats while upholding the law, you are not competent enough to be trusted with the security of the United States. The hurdles to obtaining a FISA warrant are quite slight (including the ability to apply for the warrant after the wire tap has begun), and I am given to understand that only a handful of these requests have ever been denied. You embolden the terrorists when you argue that we should throw away the foundations of the rule of law because they might attack us.
If the teleco’s are helping to violate the law, it follows that they should face legal liability. Yet it is argued that these suits are frivolous and will bankrupt the telecom carriers. If they are bankrupted, it is because they broke the law. At any rate, I am not afraid of the US telecom network disappearing. Someone will be able to pick up those assets discharged in bankruptcy and make a tidy profit. As for junk law suits, well, attorneys who bring them are subject to censure and disbarment. What other protections do we need?
Finally, the telecom companies were not behaving patriotically. American patriots demand, “give me liberty or give me death.” They were motivated by profits from charging the government for wiretaps. Indeed, it was recently reported that Comcast stop providing the government with wire taps when it did not pay. That is not patriotic. Do you know who is patriotic? Joe Nacchio. As CEO, Nacchio projected profits for QWEST based on government contracts. When he determined the warrantless spying program was illegal and refused to provide wire taps, the government canceled its contracts. This had the obvious result of lowering profits and stock price. Nacchio was convicted of stock fraud for making these statements and sentenced to six years in federal prison, ordered to pay a $19 million fine and forfeit $52 million he gained in stock sales.
Insight: Can someone kindly provide a rational explanation for this law to me?
