Fred Hiatt's lame defense of the Telecoms
By John Amato Saturday Oct 27, 2007 1:01pmThe Washington Post's Fred Hiatt demonstrates yet again why he's a tool for the Bush administration yet again.
Of all the dumb and dishonest arguments in favor of telecom amnesty -- and there are many -- the dumbest and most dishonest is that it is unfair to subject telecoms to the "high costs" of defending against these lawsuits. It should come as no surprise, then, that this is the principal argument The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt advances today in his latest call for telecom amnesty:
As we have said, we do not believe that these companies should be held hostage to costly litigation in what is essentially a complaint about administration activities.
The poor telecoms that were complicit in breaking the law shouldn't be made to open up their pockets and explain their actions because Bush asked, but if your law-abiding family needs SCHIP because you don't have the money to save your kids well from tragedy ... that's too bad.
Login or Register to post comments.
Its ridiculous and they know it. I think they're trying to see what the 24% will swallow whole. I wouldn't be surprised if they're next bit of legislation advocated punching infants, just to see what the faithful will say.
In their defense, those fuckin' infants can be real pieces of shit!
Here is my plea for Gore to run. http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Nnph3zkHNw
Re-Elect Al Gore for a climate change in Washington.
The telecoms will get their way, you watch. They are SWIMMING in money: just ask Hillary Clinton.
Some of the CEO salaries are listed here:
http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceou/database.cfm
They do not want to lose the enormous perks of being CEOs to pesky lawsuits.
The next time someone tries to advance the argument that we are not confronting American Fascism right now just send them to this 'work' by Hiatt.
Herr Haitt wants the government to join with business against the interests of the people.
Res Ipsa Loquitur, Fred.
These rich, arrogant, stealing, lying assholes should pay for breaking the law. They don't want us to know how far their sneaky game extends.
So the public should be held hostage for them breaking the law?
I want to know how far up chimpy's ass they went.
Deezus @ 1:
Don't like your kids? Give 'em away on Craigslist!
And, if anyone is doing a poll on this my answer is, "yes, I DO want the telecoms to be held hostage!"
Why should the driver of the get away car be held liable for the actions of some people inside a bank?
We pay the telecoms and the cable companies a monthly fee for them to take the money to pay off politicians when they should be taking care of us and respecting our privacy. Why do we keep paying them? It's because in this world, we need those services but we could minimize them. They should realize that we are their base and their source of income. The investors should also wake up to this fact.
they are enriching
the pharmaceutical companies
by making me take all these aspirins
heh...
These Telecoms should be proud to defend themselves against lawsuits from the customers they sold out.
See, if I don't have anything to worry about, then I shouldn't worry about the BushCo scum eavesdropping on my telecoms or email. Right? I mean that's what Bush tells us.
So, by extension, the telecoms shouldn't have any reason to worry about lawsuits! Right?
It all makes sense in the BushCo version of reality.
Something else to consider...Look what happened to Comcast when they refused to go along with BushCo. They lost contracts with the government and the CEO wound up in jail on phonied up charges.
What will be interesting is to see how, if the immunity is stripped from FISA, BushCo will arrange Pardons for the Telecoms.
Makes you proud to be an American!
BTW: Have you seen how much money the Telcoms donated to the Immunity provisions biggest supporter, Rockerfeller?
One more point.
Did anyone notice that when Quest (sorry I mis-identified it as Comcast in my earlier post) made public documents about the BushCo telecom grab that QUEST was approached by the NSA in FEBRUARY of 2001!
That's over 6 months BEFORE the attack on 9/11.
Could be that the other Telecoms don't want the dates of their complicity known.
1. Smokescreen
The focus on "telecom immunity" is curious. I'm wondering about the emphasis on the telecom immunity. Seems very narrow. Wondering about what other issues aren't getting attention.
2. War Crimes Liability
Also, by focusing on "telecom immunity" are Members of Congress hoping to narrowly focus (or ignore) only on the technical aspects of the violation; but distract attention from the illegal use of that unlawfully gathered information to support prisoner abuse and war crimes? Members of Congress would have an incentive to rally around the narrow issue of telecom immunity: It distracts attention from Member of Congress alleged liability for failing to enforce war crimes -- how illegally captured information was used to implement Geneva violations.
3. Legal Counsel Duties Breached
Finally, by focusing narrowly on "immunity of the telecoms," wondering about the broader liability legal counsel would hope to deflect. Legal counsel in OVP-WH-DOJ-GOP would have a problem if it were proven counsel knew of the illegal FISA violations, were instrumental in planning memos, and knew the unlawfully captured information was used to implement war crimes. Narrow issue of "telecom immunity" could be a strategy to then argue, "Now that the telcoms have immunity, so should legal counsel who signed off on it." It appears this immunity-push is the camels nose under the tent: To ultimately arrive at some legal outcome that -- if first proposed -- would be rejected. By focusing on "telecom immunity" will counsel then hope to block needed investigations to review legal counsel alleged misconduct warranting disbarment.
In our new "War on Terrorism," it's no longer Bombs Away. It's Scams Away.
You know that the only thing that keeps corporations from breaking many laws is the high cost of litigation. They knew or should have known that they were breaking the law. (I heard somewhere, once, that ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law) These corporations have huge legal departments that should have advised them against this acitivity, ESPECIALLY, since they started doing it BEFORE 911!!!! I'm willing to bet that the legal departments DID warn them against it, and that they weighed the risks and decided that a little political capital with the president was worth the risk. Well they gambled, they've gotten caught and they should have to pay for their crimes. And for corporations, that means megabucks.
Now, whether that will happen or not, is unsure. Jay Rockefeller and Hillary Clinton as well as other "law makers" have been heavily bribed to make sure that the telecoms are above the law. Hillary Clinton has, of course, gotten the largest bribes of all from the telecoms. That is why she is completely silent on Dodd's hold and filibuster.
Curious
George Bush isn't interested in immunity for the telecoms, but the immunity for himself and his administration that will be inherent in that immunity. He doesn't want those telecoms testifying as to who made the requests, what sort of pressure was applied and what sorts of favors were promised.
George wants to make sure that HE can go on breaking the law and never have to worry about being held accountable. And democrats like Rockefeller and Clinton are going to see that he gets his immunity.
One issue I'm not hearing -- maybe I missed it -- the State-level litigation on the telecom violations of state privacy statutes. Regardless what Congress and Russert do or do not discuss on immunity, how does Congress and the telecoms propose to link [a] Federal level immunity to the telecoms to [b] the ongoing state-level privacy litigation against the telecoms for FISA violations that breached state privacy laws?
All this talk that the "Congressional immunity for telecom FISA violations is going to shut down reviews" is (apparently) meaningless: The State-level litigation by Maine, Vermont, Missouri, New Jersey, and others continues against the telecoms. What did the telecoms realize they could not block from review at the State-level litigation in Federal Court; and what evidence are the telecoms and others unable to block in this litigation that would compel prosecution for FISA violations?
foolme1ns @ 15:
Doesn't matter about what the telecoms "might testify" -- by way of depositions -- if there is evidence -- which the President and telecoms cannot control, and is admissable. You're right that Bush doesn't want depositions; but just because the President "wants" something, it doesn't mean he's able to block the evidence through other sources, means.
What evidence have the telecoms and President learned is admissable which would implicate the President; and what efforts did the President and others make to destroy this evidence; and who was on the subpoena list to have that information disclosed? Was there someone the President and other legal counsel working for the WH-DOJ-OVP-GOP have learned about that would be admissable; and rather than risking open litigation and having this surprisingly "not destroyed evidence, that we through was buried" show up, would it not make sense to attempt to close the risk by shutting down all litigation?
Again, this objective -- that of shutting down surprise disclosures of implicating evidence gainst the President -- fails when we consider the state-level litigation against he telecoms fails. COngress granting immunity for the telcoms doesn't prevent the telecoms from having to provide evidence at the state-level litigation. I suspect the real concern is that there is evidence -- which the telecoms, NSA, GOP, and President thought did not exist -- that has surprisingly surfaced well after many legal counsel assured the President there was nothing linking him to the FISA violations and subsequent illegal use of that information for other unlawful activity including war crimes against POWs.
Interesting question. I'm pretty sure that George Bush will have people arguing that no evidence against the telecoms can be used, because it would hurt "national security".
Since corporations run the country via back door bribes disguised as "contributions", it is plain that the United States is now a fascist nation in name and deed.
The talking heads and academics who disagree are just part of it.
It seems fascism really did come to America carrying a Bible and wrapped in the flag, announcing its arrival with 24 hour sales and media blitz campaigns.
Now get back to shopping you worthless scum.
How many times have we seen movies of someone who pretend to be an govt official requesting personal information? This is silly folly to fall for it, and any business are hesitant to hand over personal information without a warrant. This is business 101 and to let them off the hook with huge volumes of information without a court order should be punish with all seriousness of the crime.
you can voice your displeasure at:
samiller@washingtontimes.com
cdolan@washingtontimes.com
These are the same kind of lame excuses and apologenics used by those supporting immunity for pharma from their bad vaccines.
This country and court system has turned into a system for the corporations rather than "for the people".
The apologists are republican and democrat alike.
It's time to take back this country from the corporations. Hold them responsible if and when the act irresponsibly.
seevee @ 7:
Are you serious?
This whole thing gives new meaning to that Verizon ad with all those people following you around
What exactly is the connection between telecom immunity, and the SCHIP program?
Sounds like you're really trying to stretch it with that one.
Don't want to pay for a lawyer? Then don't - millions of alleged felons make that choice every year. F*ck the Telecoms. What have they done for me lately?
.
So sad, too bad that the legal departments of these telecoms didn't get it right.
Breaking the law IS a crime.
.
seevee @ 7:
Because 'CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME' and 'AIDING AND ABETTING' are crimes in themselves.
Good morning sunshine. Sleep well under that rock?
.
Max-1 @ 27:
It's a sad day in America when this becomes a "debatable" point, and the legal commounity "isn't sure" if they agree with this.
seevee @ 7:
Let's start with the 4th Amendment! Do you know what that is? It's our guarantee that the governement will NOT relenqish our privacy rights without due process and probable cause!
In other words, it's like being pulled over because you have a bumper sticker that say IMPEACH!
[edited, keep it civil - site monitor]
I think seevee @ 7 was being just a tad sarcastic, don't you?
Let the Telecoms alone. If we don't grant them immunity, think of the precedent we'll set.
The next thing you know, we'll expect 7-11 hold-up men to give back their loot. Or Congressfolk to be fined for accepting bribes for passing legislation. Or BigOil to be penalized for price-fixing. Or attorney/defilers of the law of the land, the Constitution, to be prosecuted.
Before you know it, cops won't be able to run protection rackets, lobbyists won't be able to moonlight as pimps, presidents won't be able to lie us into wars.
What in hell will the good ol' US of A come to? We won't be able to recognize it.
Goseph Gerbils @ 31:
Sorry! Sensitive subject and nobodies pissed!!!!!!
This is one of those violations that can't be allowed!
I just think we should be able to sue them until we own them.
Besides aren't the phone lines owned by the citizens?
Hey John,
What would think if some of the telecoms were THREATENED?
What if they were told "if you don't help us with spying on Americans, then you will end up like Enron or Worldcom".
Why are you IMMEDIATELY concluding that they were completely eager beavers in spying on American citizens? Why can you not see that it is entirely likely that coercion and threats WERE used? For what possible material benefit would the telecoms gain from Americans for spying on those Americans?
You must understand that with Bush, he is probably NOT all "buddy buddy" with ALL business like he is on TV. That isn't real. For he told the Taliban behind closed doors before 9/11 to "give us your oil or we will greet you with a cluster of carpet bombs".
How can you be so sure that he didn't threaten the telecoms? As someone who reports the news, perhaps that would be a logical question to ask wouldn't it? At least consider it?
For if the telecoms WERE threatened, then later PUNISHING them for giving in to those threats would be a gross injustice that I am sure even you could understand.
It makes sense to dig a little more into this issue before you start clamouring for their jail time. It is INNOCENCE until proven guilty remember?
Wow....
it is unfair to subject telecoms to the “high costs” of defending against these lawsuits
My grandpappy always told me, "If you can't afford the high costs of defending yourself against lawsuits, don't WILLFULLY break the law. It doesn't 'just go away' as some might hope."
If they have nothing to hide, these lawsuits shouldn't worry them.
Edwin @ 37:
Edwin,
The same people who control the courts are the ones who engaged in the illegal wiretapping. The telecoms probably can't say what really happened because then the people that are guilty of actually starting the wiretapping would put the telecom employees who blew the whistle in jail.
Our courts are not uninterested third parties, they are made up of Bush friends. So by so cavalierly stating that "if the telecoms had nothing to hide then they would be ok" is like saying "if the telecoms were wise about things, they would shut the hell up or else they will end up in jail, or worse".
I guess you are another person who hasn't considered the possibility of the telecoms being threatened.
Fred Hiatt's beltwayitis gets worse every day. He'll do anything to normalize stasidom
These telecoms in their privacy docs tell customers that they will hand over docs if "legally" required to. What constitutes legal? A call from Cheney, or a court doc?
If the answer is Cheney, can a lawyer on this board tell me if that's what you learn in Law 101?
Hello @ 29:
I doubt that it was the legal departments that are at fault in this case. If they had been, senior management at the telecomm companies would have thrown them under the bus by now. It appears to me that senior managers didn't have this option which is why they've had to take it to the level it is at now.
It's easy to hire new lawyers and lawyers at these companies are not that dumb. They know that they will lose their license to practice law if they break the laws for which they are employed to provide advice. And they are also smart enough to keep all documentation that show they provided sound legal advice. CEO's know this too.
What bugs me about this is that when you compare this to the telecomm meltdown just a few years ago where Bernie ended up in prison, what kept the government from bailing out the companies then? If the telecomms have to pay millions for violation of privacy rights, it won't come out of the CEO's pockets. Thousands will be laid off and prices for services will go up. Essentially it will be us bailing out the telecomm companies. Again.
The "defense of the telecom legal counsel"-argument is flawed on many levels:
1. DoJ Connection Between Verizon GC and FISA Experts
I respectfully disagree with the analysis that the telecom legal counsel were not dumb: Legal counsel was well connected with DoJ: Verizon General counsel is a former DoJ Type.
2. Flawed to Assert What Legal Counsel "Should do" as "What Was Done" or "Minimal Performance Level
That they "should know" something is meaningless: Qwest CEO refused to cooperate with the illegal actdivity. It cannot credibly argued that the Verizon legal departments were "not at fault" -- they should have known full well, and appear to have refused to do due dillegence. Loook at the statements the legal counsel made in memos in re the State-level litigation to enforce state privacy statutes against the telecoms: Verizon GC and DoJ appear to have been singing from the same sheet of music: Both chriping, "This is a state secret" while the State AGs were expanding discovery on public e-mails showing Verizon was well connected with the various fiber optic testing centers used for the fiber optic tapping.
3. Telecom CEO and Boards on Same Sheet Of Music
It appesr the telcom CEOs/Boards and the legal counsel were on the same sheet of music: Go along with the alleged illegal interception, and blame everyone else. Telecom CEO/Boards haven't fired legal cousnel, they've done the opposite: Pressed for immunity. That's not throwing anyone -- just the US Constitution -- under the bus.
4. Risks of Adverse Consequences Insufficient To Achieve Lawful Results
To implicitly suggest legal counsel "knew they will lose their license if they do this" is not proof that nothing happened. The telecoms are requesting immunity because the lawyers would likely lose their license. It's too late to care what "might hpapen" to the lawyers as an excuse to decide or not decide to punish the lawyers.
5. Open Record Contradicts Assertions About CEO Options
It's absurd to argue CEOs at the telecoms "didn't have an option." Qwest CEO refusal shows there was an option: Refuse.
6. Open Record Raises Questions About Telecom Legal Counsel's Competence
It can hardly be said that the telecom lawyers provided "sound" advice when the open e-mails from Verizon's law clerks show legal counsel was reviewing these legal issues on FISA; but the Verizon CEO/lawyers continued to engage in the alleged illegal activity. If there was "sound" legal advise, they wouldn't be asking for immunity; they would do the opposite: "Our lawyers advised us this was legal." But they're not doing that.
Wag @ 35 "For if the telecoms WERE threatened, then later PUNISHING them for giving in to those threats would be a gross injustice that I am sure even you could understand."
Let a court decide that issue.
You are pleading, when the whole issue is ACCESS to the courts.
How come the rightwingers always try to PLEAD clearcut criminal actions in public, while blocking access to the courts?
Cry into your own napkin. If the telecoms broke the law, they have lawyers.
Wag @ 38 "Our courts are not uninterested third parties, they are made up of Bush friends."
If that's the case, why did the SCOTUS tell Bush that Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is still in effect? Why did federal courts open up Guantanamo to the lawyers?
We have a lot of legal courts not being run by cronies. Pleading in public to defend the telecoms is HILARIOUS to me. Companies like Time-Warner-AOL-CNN are complicit in this coup from the start.
We need to break up the telecoms and the media companies AGAIN. And that's coming. Right after we hear their lawyers moan, and the gavels fall.
Conspiracy Is Not A Defense, But A Separate Offenses
No one can be lawfully permitted to [a] engage in illegal activity but [b] claim they were threatened; and [c] not report the threat to lawful authorities. Agreeing to an illegal threat is not a defense, but evidence of an unlawful conspiracy.
The problem with "claiming there was a threat"-defense turns the entire "we were doing the right thing"-argument on its head. Why would anyone believe they were "doign the right thing" if -- to get them to do what was "right" -- one would have to threaten them. "The right thing" would have been self-evident: Demand a warrant. That didn't happen. Until now, we're asked to believe "this was a lawful agreement" to do "the right thing". Now the world is asked to believe the opposite: That this was an illegal agreement to do the wrong thing; and the telecoms had no choice. Baloney. The telecom PR-media-lawyers are contradicting themselves.
Wag @ 38:
1. Conspriacy
That someone was "threatened" isn't a defense. It shows they thought about the law, ignored it, and failed to report the threat. The defense fails; if iasserted, could be grounds to assert conspiracy. Qwest CEO refusal shows there was plenty of time, other options, and not an immediate reuqirement to act. There was ample time for the telecoms to internally debate, review, and come to a legal conclusion. "Threats" imply "no time to think, act, or do anything else." Utter non-sense for the telecoms to pretend they were threatened.
2. Call the President On The Bluffed Threat: Basis to Demand Documents Which Cannot Be protected BY Privilege
Let's see the evidence of a threat; and lets find out which DoJ-OVP-WH-GOP legal counsel threatened which telecoms. Either there is evidence of a threat; or there was no threat. What was the threat which was documented; and how can the President claim "this evidence of a threat" is a "state secret": Evidence of unlawful threats cannot be protected or immunized. President cannot claim provildge for evidence of illegal activity: Threats to engage in other illegal activity. If possible, it would mean the President could threaten someone with death unless they supported Genocide -- some orders have to be disobeyed.
3. Call the Telecoms On Their Non-Sense: Expand Grand Jury Inquiry
Fine, Congress wants to immunize telecoms for FISA vioaltions. Do they also propose to grant immunity for all the illegal threats made in re this illegal agreement? That's fanciful, and an ever expanding circle of illegal activity which Congress would say, "There are no legal consequences." That's absurd: Anyone could argue, "But we were only doing this illegal activity because ti was remotely connected with a threat . . ." That defense didn't work in Germany before/during WWII. If defense is where the US public is, then we have a bigger problem: What else has the contracting community done in the name of what?
4. Moving Arguments Imply Retroactive Efforts To Justify What Was Not Lawful Or Defendable
How can a "state secret" then get tured on its head to, "Oh this was lawful" then "We want immunity:" then "We were threatened." This is a moving argument and evidence of more non-sense and contradictions.
Paul in LA @ 43:
Let the court decide? I would very much let them if the courts weren't so close to the government as it is today. 20 years ago (if I were old enough to understand) I would have agreed with you to let the courts decide. But even the courts cannot be trusted, especially when the Neo-Cons are the ones who put some of them in the Supreme Court for example, which is where this case will end up because the telecoms have enough money to contest any verdict and so it may very well go up the SUpreme Court level. When THAT happens, who do you think is going to "win", regardless of who wins THAT decision, the regular American is going to get shafted yet again.
But I am concerned that nobody is asking the question I asked. You are saying if the telecoms broke the law, then they have lawyers. OK fine, but why be thinking like this INITIALLY? We should be asking whether or not they were threatened, meaning we should be encouraging them to come forward. But you and a lot of others make that more difficult because the environment in which they would do so is much more hostile. I just hope that someone deep inside the telecom industry comes forward one of these days and tells the truth completely. For better or for worse. But we are living in a country that has such a big government that they have enough money to pay off those telecom people to shut up, just like they paid off people to shut up about 9/11.
What a BS argument that this Fred Hiatt dude is trying to foist. Complicity with the Bush "administration's" illegal and feloniously criimal activities was always a matter of simple choice. To wit: Qwest Communications, for example, told the NSA they would be happy to provide information - on a case-by-case basis - upon recent of proper court orders specific to individual cases, otherwise the NSA and the "administration" could go pack sand. The "administration", ever desparate to avoid judicial review, instantly backed down.
The telecommunications companies each had the privilege of obeying the law and were, by virtue of their obligation to follow the law, also protected by those laws. They all knew this. Verizon, AT&T and others choose to step outside of the law, because it fit their corporate expedients and porbably their corporate boards' political philosophies. In each case, it was a choice they made, which they knew to be wrong. You can neither make choices nor avoid making choices without there being consequences. They choose to break the law; they should suffer justice and be held accountable. If they are exempted, then all companies will be above the law by simple virtue of joining forces with whatever futre government-sponsored criminal enterprises come down the pike.
What bothers me is that those who were supposed to be the watchdogs have instead betrayed the American People's trust (Jay Rockerfeller, flush with $42,000 of telecom money, attempting to give these companies a pass on their criminality and betrayal of their customers' trust). Were it not for Sen. Dodd's action, the amnesty would likely be sailing through unimpeded. It is an indictment that so many Democratic senators needed to be browbeaten into supporting Dodd.
What I see as a larger issue is the very premise of this impending bill. It is alleged that the FISA act needs to be "reformed". This is nonsense! FISA already has all the tools it needsto protect America, aide the gathering of intelligence and national/international law inforcement. There was no need to do anything at all, ands as it exists it is already a near intolerable weapon of violations of rights to privacy and unfair search and siezure. The only thing that this so-called "reform" is going to do is further degrade our freeedoms, liberties and Constitutional protections. That is the only purpose of the current work being done on FISA, and talk of "reform" is the pretense under which this latest assault upon us all is being conducted. Anbody who loves freedom, liberty and the Constitution should be screaming bloody murder. Instead, we are being distracted by the telecom immunity issue.The entire bill should be tabled and allowed to die.
It is incomprehensible to me how our elected representatives can hold the Constitution which they are sworn to defend and protect in such shabby regard.
Wag @ 46 "Let the court decide? I would very much let them if the courts weren't so close to the government as it is today."
That's entirely moot to the issue of putting apparent CRIMES in front of our courts. Your theory that the courts are unreliable, and the left or the Dems too hostile to such crimes, for the telecoms to what? Get a fair trial? No, they can't get a fair trial, you say, because the courts are rigged. Your argument is circular, and yet you pretend to the high road.
WE deserve access to the courts to SUE THEM for their apparent crimes. THEY don't need access to the courts, WE DO.
"We should be asking whether or not they were threatened, meaning we should be encouraging them to come forward."
"They" are behind a raft of corporate lawyers and will NEVER cooperate with an investigation, even though we offer whistleblowers protection under law.
"But you and a lot of others make that more difficult because the environment in which they would do so is much more hostile."
Oh my! Boohoo for the big corporations.
The facts will come out, and indeed, already have. Whether or not telecoms were 'threatened' or ordered to do this IS THEIR DEFENSE. Their defense is less important than OUR RIGHT TO SUE.
WE, not the telecoms, are the damaged party.
Paul @ 47 "What bothers me is that those who were supposed to be the watchdogs have instead betrayed the American People's trust (Jay Rockerfeller, flush with $42,000 of telecom money, attempting to give these companies a pass on their criminality and betrayal of their customers' trust). Were it not for Sen. Dodd's action, the amnesty would likely be sailing through unimpeded."
If you thought that Rockefeller was a watchdog, you don't know much about mutts.
"It is an indictment that so many Democratic senators needed to be browbeaten into supporting Dodd."
'So many'? About half of them are DINOs, going back now many, many years.
"It is alleged that the FISA act needs to be "reformed". This is nonsense!"
No, it's not. Go back to the House bill, which absolutely offers no immunity, and try to understand.
"The only thing that this so-called "reform" is going to do is further degrade our freeedoms, liberties and Constitutional protections. That is the only purpose of the current work being done on FISA, and talk of "reform" is the pretense"
No, you're wrong. READ the FISA RESTORE Act. It not only restates the Fourth Amendment protections, it also requires a full accounting of all spying actions with the telecoms going back to Nine-eleven.
Start here, http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/RESTOREvPAA.pdf , which lays out the proximal need for FISA RESTORE, namely to reverse the changes caused by bill the Republicans rammed through in the last days of the August session (but which expires anyhow in a few months).
"“The RESTORE Act, as currently drafted, crafts a careful balance between security and freedom and it makes clear that FISA is the law of the land,” said Rep. Nadler. “Chairmen Conyers and Reyes have written a bill that restores many of the freedoms that were undermined by the White House’s bill passed this August.”
This is the House Judiciary Committee summary:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/HR3773FISASummary.pdf
And the whole bill:
http://judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFS/HR3773FISA.pdf
Login or Register to post comments.