Senators Look To Remove Telco Retroactive Immunity For Warrantless Wiretaps
from the no-get-out-of-jail-free-card dept
Even as the Obama administration is still supporting immunity for the telcos who gave the gov't wiretap info without any warrants, a group of Senators has now introduced legislation that would repeal the immunity. The simplest explanation for this:"Congress should not have short-circuited the courts' constitutional role in assessing the legality of the program."Indeed. If the programs were actually legal, then let a court say that. If the programs were illegal, then there is no good reason to have made the telcos immune.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: telco immunity, telcos, warrantless wiretapping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sigh
Every bit as meaningless as "save the children" legislation, because it won't accomplish anything. Either it will be shot down, include some provision for Executive Review that can be stricken, or the necessary evidence will just "disappear" a la a portion of JFK's brain.
What an exercise in futility...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The Bush administration retroactively granted them immunity to avoid at least embarrassment, more likely prosecution.
What they did was unconstitutional, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great News!
Oligarchy - here we come!
Freedom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
As an aside, it seems doubtful that the grant of immunity to the telcos is a slam dunk case of unconstitutionality. I rather doubt that as to the telcos the law would be viewed as a Bill of Atainder or an Ex Post Facto law.
As to the persons engaged in litigation against certain telcos at the time immunity was granted, perhaps they may have good legal arguments that rights conferred to them by then law were summarily taken away.
Make no mistake. Telco immunity is not a matter of attempts to commence criminal proceedings against the telcos. It is primarily a civil matter in which trial lawyers for plaintiffs are trying to resurrect lawsuits against "deep pockets" since in large measure the USG is may seek protection from civil liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Is this really about civil liberties. I submit it is not. It is really about civil lawsuits and the hope for large damage awards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Be careful what you wish for
As long on your guy and your party was in power, it might seem like a good idea, but what might happen if or when the people that you don't like came to power? Or the people that don't like you?
Not being able to change the past keeps revenge and retribution a little more under control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Correction of typo in previous post
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Correction of typo in previous post
But that's now what they're doing. They're taking a practice that was illegal, and making it RETROACTIVELY immune from any prosecution. And then potentially removing that.
Nothing that was legal is being made retroactively illegal. The actions were almost certainly illegal at the time. The question is whether or not cases can be brought on this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, that EFF and ACLU... that's EXACTLY what they were up to. How did you figure it out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Technically correct, but ultimately bullshit. Congress HAD to approve to put it into law, but it was the new FISA Bill practically WRITTEN by the Bush administration that granted retroactive immunity. So, yeah, the Bush administration did it, and now Obama is backing him up like a good little globalist.
"As an aside, it seems doubtful that the grant of immunity to the telcos is a slam dunk case of unconstitutionality."
Sorry, but yeah it is. The only question arose because Bush and Cheney muddied the waters by claiming that since ONE of the parties communicating was PROBABLY outside of the country, that counted as foreign surveillance. As soon as it was domestic surveillance, bingo! it was unconstitutional under both Article 1 and 2. The President essentially precluded Congress from making law domestically by enforcing rule AGAINST domestic law, and he failed to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed".
The Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States that a wiretap constituted a search, and almost always required a previously attained warrant to procede. By any reasonable definition, the wiretaps stomped all over the fourth amendment.
The attempt to retroactively grant immunity and hide evidence of the actions of the Executive Branch bring to bear issues of the balance of powers, since the Bush team basically took away the ability for the Judicial branch to operate in this case and has also raised serious questions regarding the choking out of judicial review, one of the most important functions of the Judicial Branch.
"It is primarily a civil matter in which trial lawyers for plaintiffs are trying to resurrect lawsuits against "deep pockets" since in large measure the USG is may seek protection from civil liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity."
I humbly disagree. It isn't about getting money. It's about turning the light on the kitchen and watching the cockroaches scurry, then pointing the flashlight in all of the corners where they hide. Utilizing the doctrine of sovereign immunity would probably be the last dark, dirty place the Bush administration could hide. It would basically be an admission of guilt on the part of the Bush team, a huge chunk of congress, the Obama team for backing them, several major telco firms, and perhaps some others as well.
It could finally be the straw that breaks the camel's back and creates real, actual change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
No, I don't believe so. The immunity was not granted by the courts as the result of a trial, nor was it in effect at the time the crime was (allegedly) committed. If there had been immunity in place at the time, I would agree with you, but that is not the case. Last, the telcos did not "make a deal," where they gave something up in order to receive immunity. It was a gift to protect the administration. So, really, if immunity is repealed, I don't see anything stopping it from going to trial.
Of course, IANAL, so who knows what strange and scary surprises our legal system holds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The question is one of law that in this case just happens to be associated with telcos.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that's why they were involved in these lawsuits well before immunity was even discussed.... Oops.
They do care about warrantless wiretapping quite a bit.
But, yes, now that the immunity card has been played, they care about the retroactive change as well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Does anyone seriously believe that the repeal of immunity by Congress was instigated in the first instance by anyone other than trial lawyer groups? Neither the EFF nor the ACLU carry that kind of weight before Congress. The ATLA most certainly does.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Even armed soldiers are allowed to refuse an unjust order.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ah yes, the Nazi Nuremberg Defense. Didn't fly then, doesn't fly now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Correction of typo in previous post
[ link to this | view in thread ]