Bush Administration Was Afraid It Would Have To Admit Telcos Helped With Warrantless Wiretaps To Get Immunity
from the why-would-they-want-immunity-otherwise dept
With the EFF finally successful in getting the federal gov't to hand over some lobbying documents involved in the process of granting telcos total immunity in lawsuits over warrantless wiretapping, the press is starting to go through the documents. Wired digs in and finds that the Bush administration was worried it would have to admit that the telcos had actually broken the law in order to get immunity -- but were able to route around that by having the Attorney General "submit a certification to the district court that the carrier defendant either did not provide the assistance as alleged, or did so in connection with a counter-terrorism program authorized by the president and pursuant to written assurances of legality." In other words, by doing a "this" OR "that," they could claim some sort of plausible deniability for the gullible.
Of course, the whole thing is silly. Why would the telcos need immunity if they hadn't broken the law? The only reason to push for immunity was because they obviously had broken the law. The entire push for immunity was never really about protecting the telcos, but about protecting the federal government from having to admit that it clearly broke the law as stated concerning oversight of wiretaps.
The other interesting element in the Wired report is that the Bush administration was worried that future administrations would reverse the immunity -- something it doesn't seem to have to worry about considering that the Obama administration has happily continued to hold the same position on warrantless wiretaps. However, the administration was unable to get anything put in the bill that would prevent future administrations from changing the immunity -- so, perhaps there's still some hope.
Of course, the whole thing is silly. Why would the telcos need immunity if they hadn't broken the law? The only reason to push for immunity was because they obviously had broken the law. The entire push for immunity was never really about protecting the telcos, but about protecting the federal government from having to admit that it clearly broke the law as stated concerning oversight of wiretaps.
The other interesting element in the Wired report is that the Bush administration was worried that future administrations would reverse the immunity -- something it doesn't seem to have to worry about considering that the Obama administration has happily continued to hold the same position on warrantless wiretaps. However, the administration was unable to get anything put in the bill that would prevent future administrations from changing the immunity -- so, perhaps there's still some hope.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Push your Congressman to call for enforcement of Federal Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Push your Congressman to call for enforcement of Federal Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Push your Congressman to call for enforcement of Federal Law
Not to mention you'll probably get tazered, tear-gassed, bludgeoned, and arrested for exercising you're First Amendment Rights.
God Bless the United Police State of America.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Such bullshit..
I swear I can't wait for the end of all this.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Push your Congressman to call for enforcement of Federal Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
RE: #6
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Such bullshit..
Then run for office, get elected, and try to make a change; or start blowing shit up - in other words, get involved.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Such bullshit..
Or even do something in between. Educate those around you. Write a book about it, fictionalized or reality. Do SOMETHING. My contribution might only be small, but it's SOMETHING.
I am still desperately waiting for my generation's Martin Luthar King....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
RE: Get involved..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Orz
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Yeah right folks...
/sarcasm
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Er, gun manufacturers don't take an active role in police shootings. The Telco's actually actively assisted in perpetrating the crimes against the American people....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Push your Congressman to call for enforcement of Federal Law
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I'd venture this works much like any US citizen using the 5th ammendment to avoid self-incrimination (being a witness against himself). If you haven't done anything illegal, there is no reason to rely on the 5th, but using it cannot be used as evidence for guilt (or at least shouldn't be, the human factor nonwithstanding).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment