foozle (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} foobart) wrote,@ 2008-01-24 14:10:00 |
|
FISA, oh boy!
So here are some things I'm honestly curious about.
The administration wants to provide retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government implement a broad eavesdropping plan which was, in most legal opinions, blatantly illegal. The fear is that these companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc) are liable for damages to the extent that it would take very little (and pretty straightforward) litigation to destroy them.
Of course, the companies which stand to lose big for (to put it bluntly) being held responsible for their actions are lobbying congress to get retroactive immunity. From a strictly profit-maximizing perspective this makes perfect sense: spend $$ to lobby in congress to avoid lawsuits totalling $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Here's the first thing I'm curious about. By most accounts, Qwest is the one baby bell that denied the government the access it wanted under the program. If that's the case, is Qwest lobbying against telecom immunity? If the facts are what they appear to be, and I were running Qwest, I'd be dedicating as many resources as I could afford to prevent such an immunity from being passed.
The more obvious, and possibly more naïve question is this: why is the primary concern here the telecoms? If the program was blatantly illegal, aren't those people in the government who implemented it even more culpable than the telecoms?
As far as I can tell, the only reason that the telecoms are in more danger than the relevant governmental offices is the lack of legislative independence at this point in history. Telecoms are in real legal danger because the independent judiciary might look at the facts of the situation and try to come to a just solution. Since the legislative bears primary responsibility for the oversight needed on the government side of the fence, the lack of legislative independence means there's little danger for the wannabe J. Edgar Hoovers.
I'm all for holding telecoms accountable, but it makes me sick that, for all the attention that this line in the sand is getting, it's been drawn in a small corner of the beach that the real bullies never visit.
(Obligatory call to action: Contact your senators! Writing to the Obama and Clinton campaigns to say that this issue is important to you would probably help, too. Join the EFF! Or the ACLU! Or both!)
So here are some things I'm honestly curious about.
The administration wants to provide retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped the government implement a broad eavesdropping plan which was, in most legal opinions, blatantly illegal. The fear is that these companies (AT&T, Verizon, etc) are liable for damages to the extent that it would take very little (and pretty straightforward) litigation to destroy them.
Of course, the companies which stand to lose big for (to put it bluntly) being held responsible for their actions are lobbying congress to get retroactive immunity. From a strictly profit-maximizing perspective this makes perfect sense: spend $$ to lobby in congress to avoid lawsuits totalling $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Here's the first thing I'm curious about. By most accounts, Qwest is the one baby bell that denied the government the access it wanted under the program. If that's the case, is Qwest lobbying against telecom immunity? If the facts are what they appear to be, and I were running Qwest, I'd be dedicating as many resources as I could afford to prevent such an immunity from being passed.
The more obvious, and possibly more naïve question is this: why is the primary concern here the telecoms? If the program was blatantly illegal, aren't those people in the government who implemented it even more culpable than the telecoms?
As far as I can tell, the only reason that the telecoms are in more danger than the relevant governmental offices is the lack of legislative independence at this point in history. Telecoms are in real legal danger because the independent judiciary might look at the facts of the situation and try to come to a just solution. Since the legislative bears primary responsibility for the oversight needed on the government side of the fence, the lack of legislative independence means there's little danger for the wannabe J. Edgar Hoovers.
I'm all for holding telecoms accountable, but it makes me sick that, for all the attention that this line in the sand is getting, it's been drawn in a small corner of the beach that the real bullies never visit.
(Obligatory call to action: Contact your senators! Writing to the Obama and Clinton campaigns to say that this issue is important to you would probably help, too. Join the EFF! Or the ACLU! Or both!)
