Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Retroactive Immunity for Unlawful Secret Wiretapping
The Washington dispute over extending the secret wiretapping law has fallen victim, not unexpectedly, to the fear-mongering and chest-thumping patriotism that has characterized so much of the post-9/11 debate over keeping the nation safe from terrorism. Once again, the administration has claimed that if it doesn't get its way, the terrorists win. Unfortunately, the administration is resorting to exaggeration and hyperbole to make its case and attempting to demonize the opposition.
Surveillance decisions
The House of Representatives left town last week and allowed an update of the so-called FISA legislation to expire. President Bush claimed this lapse ''would jeopardize the security of our citizens.'' How exactly that will happen is not clear, though. All present surveillances would continue, and lawful warrants would continue to be issued by the court established by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Procedurally, the only thing that would be lost is the administration's ability to make unilateral decisions about secret surveillance. The only other issue in this debate is a provision in the Senate-passed version of the bill that gives telephone companies retroactive immunity from prosecution. The administration's stance is wrong in both instances.
Between 1978 and 2004, the court's record is one of extreme compliance with the executive branch -- it approved 18,748 warrants and rejected five. The court was created precisely for the purpose of acting expeditiously and in secret -- and it worked well under four presidents.
The 9/11 Commission declared that in this new era of terrorism, it is imperative to maintain a balance between protecting civil liberties and protecting the homeland: ''This shift of power and authority to the government calls for an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the precious liberties that are vital to our way of life.'' The FISA court, as compliant as it is, remains an indispensable part of this system of checks and balances and is needed now more than ever.
A bad idea
As for retroactive immunity, that simply is a bad idea. Telecommunications companies that comply with lawful requests are, and always have been, immune for those actions. The lawsuits that have been filed seek to discover how these companies aided and abetted the government in unlawful surveillance. If they get immunity, no company would have any reason to refuse to comply with illegal requests in the future.
The dispute, in short, seems to have little to do with national security and everything to do with secrecy and increasing executive power. The 9/11 Commission had it right: If we surrender our liberties for the sake of security, we lose those liberties and don't improve our security.
Copyright 2008 Miami Herald Media Co.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
13 Comments so far
Show All"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." -Ben Franklin
President Bush claimed this lapse "would jeopardize the security of our citizens." How exactly that will happen is not clear, though. All present surveillances would continue, and lawful warrants would continue to be issued by the court established by the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Not stated here is that under existing FISA law, agencies engaging in surveillance have up to 72 hours to seek a warrant AFTER surveillance has commenced.
How lenient and easy is that? The existing FISA law is condemned by Bush because the Administration wants to conduct unwarranted surveillance.
The US government was warned, in detail, on many occasions with adequate time to react, prevent, and secure the entire nation of any possible terrorist attacks...
To say that we have to give up a little liberty to have a secure nation is rediculous... The government knew about 9/11 and let it happen...
What we need is not a loss of liberties for our security, but rather an impeachment of our current president so we can have our FREEDOM back. . .
Mother America please wake up
Unknowingly sleeping since the towers blew up
an Evil step-child is taking you down,
once red and white has now turned brown.
The Senate has already approved corporate spying on the American citizen. I have written to both my senators saying that I shall never vote for them again. Subjects of a Fascist Dictatorship do not have a vote.
The debate has moved from if expanding FISA is a good idea to immunity to telecoms.
With 18748 wins to 5 losses (99.98%) it doesn't appear the FISA court sets the bar too high.
If they need more than 72 hours (3 days) after the fact to get a warrent increase it to 168 hours (7 days).
Our founders created a serries of checks and balances, to prevent one branch of the government from becoming to powerful.
We need a check on the executive branch FISA provides it, PAA does not.
The PAA is a bad uneeded law and should be blocked.
After the Dodd amendment was defeated in the Senate I was scared the telecoms would get immunity. I feeling hope now that they won't, and that the Democrats are beginning to grow a backbone. It's only a nub now, but dare we dream this rare act of defiance might actually lead to a congressional resolution against the Whitehouse, even impeachment hearings? Probably not, but one can dream.
But the GOP need to be able to spy on the Democrats!!
democracy only works if the majority of the people have a lick of sense
the rule of law only works if the laws are good laws and the people who enforce them and interpret them are good people who keep an eye out for the little guy with checks and balances
The biggest factor that determines wether or not a nation or a people are truly free (aint the military) is the extent of protection or repsect a nation has for individual liberties.
George W Bush and his cabal are driving us and the world towards tyranny in the name of "national security".
Any nation that values national security above individual liberty is not a free country. It may already be too late for us. The abuse and secrecy at the top of this administration has literally obscured the problems so much that most citizens are oblivious to the takeover.
"I would just tell you there's no compromise on whether these phone companies get liability protection," Bush told reporters as he traveled back from a trip to Africa."
Too bad there's nobody with enough balls around to actually enforce the other part of FISA - you know, the one that specifically states that "anyone violating FISA is subject to criminal prosecution, including a SITTING PRESIDENT.
No, really, it actually says that. Any law enforcement official looking to become famous? Stop by our White House this evening and slap the cuffs on the Loonitary Decider and his Fourth Branch Executive Assistant Dick.
Double dare ya.
You break the law, you pay the price. This is not the Scooter Libby defense. The phone companies should have said "where is your FISA warrant?" Instead they were accessories before, during and after the crimes. They should be held accountable to make the rule of law an absolute precedent.
Common Dreams readers who truly care about this issue should consider helping out the ACLU to get their ad about this published next week as the House comes back into session. I firmly believe this is a crutial moment that will define citizens' privacy rights for the future.
Take action!
https://secure.aclu.org/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=4302&s_src=UNW080201FSA&s_subsrc=homepage
I think Chicken Little Bush has screamed the 'Sky is falling-the sky is falling' one to many times. There aren't many of us intelligent American's who honestly believe all of his fear mongering anymore. He has played that card to many times. He has rendered himself to be irrelevant. I am certain there are probably still a few die hard 'Bushie's' who believe all his nonsense. Who see a terrorist behind every bush ready to pounce on them. Most of them aren't too long on intelligence anyway. But, most of us have ignored anything Chicken Little Bush has said for quite a few years now.
There are not terrorists behind every bush. Bush is a terrorist; and, given the success of the B/T cooperative efforts to ruin all that is/was good and free, they are patting each other on the butts with increasing frequency.