Telecoms deserve immunity
Posted by Joel Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:19:33 GMT
Recently, Sen Obama came under fire by the left for supporting a new FISA bill. Let me break down a few of the facts to start with.
- FISA stands for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was passed in 1978. This act defined the means by which government agencies can survey Americans. Relevant to the current situation, it requires that wiretapping (phone call surveillance) have a court warrant.
- The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, part of our Bill of Rights, reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
- The Bush administration authorized a program which they named the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". The details of the program are classified. They have stated that the program exclusively involves surveillance of calls, emails, and other online communications where one party is in America and the other is on foreign soil. They admit that in some cases, there has been surveillance of "purely domestic" calls; i.e., both participants were in America at the time. Officials say this was a mistake due to the logistical problems posed in determining the source of phone calls, and that the executive order still applies only to international communications.
- The White House says the President has the power to override FISA and the 4th Amendment due to the Constitutional title of "Commander in Chief". In that same press release, they also cite similar measures taken by past Presidents during wartime as legal precedent: "Signals intelligence has been a fundamental aspect of waging war since the Civil War, where we intercepted telegraphs, obviously, during the world wars, as we intercepted telegrams in and out of the United States. Signals intelligence is very important for the United States government to know what the enemy is doing, to know what the enemy is about to do." The White House also says that Congress and the Judicial branch have given them this authority.
- In order for the NSA to fulfill the order they required and requested cooperation from telecommunication companies ("telecoms"), such as AT&T.
- As a result, a number of legal cases have arisen against these companies.
- The new bill essentially has two parts: it reiterates the warrant requirement, and it grants retroactive immunity to all the telecoms that helped the NSA for privacy infringement.
- Obama has said he approves of the primary purpose of the new bill, but will try to strip telecom immunity from it when it reaches the Senate.
It is uncertain if Obama will support the bill if he fails at removing the immunity element, but he implies that he will. Given the "compromise" nature of the bill, he is unlikely to be successful in doing so, leaving some to suggest he is either naive or trying to give a token gesture to the bill's opponents.
Is warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration illegal? The answer is actually, "yes and no". The law here is contradictory. It is illegal according to the 4th Amendment. It is illegal according to FISA. But, as the White House points out, their actions also have legal precedent, and Congress and the judges did in fact allow them to do this. The legality is therefore unclear.
The purpose of reintroducing the same FISA law is to make it more contemporary, as new law tends to take priority over old law when conflicts exist.
The telecoms should be granted immunity. They were merely helpless participants in all this. When an authority comes to you asking that you break a law, can that same authority then punish you for doing so? No. If a policeman were to order you to steal, and then took you to jail for it, that would be called entrapment.
These corporations were likely merely trying to do whatever they could to avoid malfeasance. They have been put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.
As for the core of the idea, I think surveillance should be limited to warrants like the Constitution sets out. If you can't determine probable cause, you shouldn't be monitoring someone. The same rationale for monitoring people without warrants could be used to extend to monitoring everyone. Protecting the privacy of American citizens who are not suspected under due process is an essential right.

