Telecom Companies Seek Retroactive Immunity

kidcharles writes "Newsweek reports that a secretive lobbying campaign has been launched by telecommunications companies who are seeking retroactive immunity from private lawsuits over their cooperation with the NSA in the so-called 'terrorist surveillance program.' Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has claimed that lawsuits could 'bankrupt these companies.' The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against AT&T over their cooperation in the domestic spying program. EFF legal director Cindy Cohen said of the lobbying campaign, 'They are trying to completely immunize this [the surveillance program] from any kind of judicial review. I find it a little shocking that Congress would participate in the covering up of what has been going on.'"

Why shocking?

[spooje]

Why is anyone surprised Congress would be hushing this up? If the companies get sued for huge sums, then where will they get money to bribe congressmen?

Shocking??? Get real

[WindBourne]

First, ALL companies participated in this program. To not do so, would have jeopardized their gov contracts. A major reason why the gov spreads the wealth around is because then the companies are beholden to them. Imagine what would have happened to Verizon or QWest(yes, qwest did not par ticpate in a few minor parts) if they had not? Not only would they have been denied future contracts, but they would have lost major gov contracts and probably a number of other contracts dealing with companies who are very dependant on the feds. For QWest alone, they would have lost no less than 20% of their business. Verizon would have lost a great deal more. What is shocking is that this is in the open.

Not quite

[DogDude]

You're not really understanding the situation. AT&T didn't say, "Hey, let's spy on our customers, and ask Bush if we can do it." That's not how his happened.

What actually happened was King George II told AT&T and other companies: Let us into your networks. We say so. We have the guns. If you don't comply, then you'll be branded as terrorists.

And yes, you can say that AT&T and such should not have complied, but nobody outside of the top brass at AT&T know what they were threatened with. Maybe they were given payment, maybe they weren't. Of course, the government won't release any of that information, so nobody will ever know.

God forbid...

[PJ1216]

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has claimed that lawsuits could 'bankrupt these companies.'

God forbid a company goes bankrupt for breaking the law. If a lawsuit does bankrupt the company, its the company's own fault for not having its customer's best interests in mind. Thats the law of the land... you upset your customers, you run the risk of losing them, or worse (ie: having them sue you). They made a bad business move and they should pay the consequences. They shouldn't be allowed to not suffer any consequences just because it might hurt them. That's ridiculous. Why does the government go so far out of its way to try and protect big businesses? even when its protecting these businesses from the citizens that had their rights abused by these companies. 'A goverment for the people' my ass.

Hah!

[davmoo]

I find it a little shocking that Congress would participate in the covering up of what has been going on

Then either you don't live in the US, or you are under the age of 12. Congress is as crooked as any major corporation, and anytime they want to do something like this they just duplicate The Bush Maneuver..."its for National Security".

command and control

[schwaang]

It's actually in the long-term best interests of all companies to *not* have this immunity.

This just enables a form of government interference in corporations that is even worse than regulatory laws. Regulations get made in the open and are subject to lobbying and court rulings. Whereas the NSA warrantless spying amounts to the commandeering of the corporate assets and procedures and is enforced by secret laws that (apparently) cannot be challenged in court in any reasonable way.

Even with recompensation that returns a profit on investment, this is a bad deal for corporate independence.

Re:Not quite

[Anonymous Coward]

A wanton breach of ethics is now acceptable as long as it's mandated by the government? Someone tell that to the 70-year old guy who was pulled from his modest middle class retirement and shipped to Germany to stand trial.

Re:Why shocking?

[lawpoop]

OK, the US Congress can protect him from American prosecution for war crimes, but would they alone be able to protect him from international war crimes, say, at the Hague? Now I know the US isn't part of the international criminal court or whatever it's called, but I don't recall Nazi Germany agreeing to any war crimes convention.

Re:Not quite

[WindowlessView]

And yes, you can say that AT&T and such should not have complied, but nobody outside of the top brass at AT&T know what they were threatened with.

Isn't this the kind of thing that once upon a time the Free Press leaked, Congress investigated, and the Justice Department prosecuted? Maybe it time people stopped mumbling the mindless incantation that "everything changed after 9/11" and using it as an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and justify not upholding the law.

Re:Darn...

[PJ1216]

Just taking voluntary orders from a government body doesn't make you immune from your actions. The company was never forced to do anything. Though, i suppose its possible the NSA is trying to put a lid on this because they may have used shady tactics to get the companies to comply. If thats the case, the lawsuit should still go forward and we should wait and see what the companies have to say for themselves. If they weren't given a choice, then go ahead with the lawsuit and have it come out. They won't be charged, and then the NSA can be punished.

And it is very illegal to prosecute someone above and beyond the full extent of the current law. New laws can't be retroactively applied to punish, only to free or acquit. We're talking about trying to get revenge at those who attacked our rights. It'd make no sense if we did the same thing they did.

Re:Why shocking?

[soundonsound]

The telecoms SHOULD have to pay. Strong armed or not, they knew the possible consequences of their actions and chose the easier route. Why should they be immunized from the inevitable results of their cowardice?

Re:Why shocking?

[Kingrames]

Big business: "Hey, we need billions of dollars of help right now, so that we can pay you maybe $1,000,000 in the future."

Congress: "OH BOY OH BOY OH BOY"

Re:Darn...

[cwhicks]

I am sure that they are quite familiar of the constitution and had a very clear understanding of the laws dealing with wiretapping as they deal with warrants for information everyday.

They knew exactly what they were doing and that it was illegal.

I have always disliked bullies

[earthforce_1]

And Government is the biggest bully of all.

Imagine playing a game where if the other side is losing they get to rewrite the rules of the game in their favour - retroactively if necessary. They have done it before, and they will do it again. The terrorists have already won. Our own governments have destroyed our freedom on their behalf, and it doesn't matter anymore who wins "the war". John Q. Public loses either way.

Re:Darn...

[Wordplay]

Everyone else is already calling BS, and I agree. The companies colluded voluntarily, whether it was to preserve contracts or not; greed's not a reason to break the law.

I'll also point out that the only way you'll ever be able to ensure that the government won't be able to do this again, at least so easily, is to crucify the companies who helped them do it and didn't call foul loudly and publicly. Set that sort of precedent, and they won't have willing accomplices again. Moreover, it'll be for -business- reasons, the only universal ones in a capitalist society.

Re:Ex Post Facto laws unconstituional?

[sepluv]

Bush already introduced a retrospective amnesty act in the form of the Military Commissions Act which exempted Bush and those working for him from prosecution under the War Crimes Act for acts committed before the commencement of the MCA.

As for bills of attainder (legislation outlawing a person or organisation rather than their actions), try declaring yourself a member of Al-Qaeda in the USA and see how long it takes before you are detained (or carted off to Guantanamo Bay).

Keep up. Your head of state declared two years ago that "[the U.S. Constitution]'s just a goddamned piece of paper!"

Re:Corperate responsibility

[Kjella]

Acting like the devil's advocate, the government is special. If my ISP recieves a legitimate order to hand over information (warrant) or spy on me (wiretap) they'd do it and what would be a crime if they did it for anyone else is accepted as legal because the investigative power of the government trumphs normal privacy law. Thus you can't act on the AT&T case without answering the question "Does the NSA have authorization to launch this program?" because if they do, that legitimate order would be immunity. This is clearly a ploy to avoid raising that question in court. The NSA almost certainly had authorization through some executive order from Bush, which is getting to the real core of the issue.

The real issue is the ability of the executive branch to create programs not founded in law (Congress) nor ruled by law (the courts) under the guise of national security. If Bush is allowed to prevent the courts from reviewing this program then the separation of powers has failed - they're all wielded by the executive branch. "Law" is created by executive order, they operate it and noone reviews it. If they really want the NSA to spy on everyone, put it in law. What's sad is that if they named it something like the Anti-Terrorism Investigation Powers Act it'd probably get passed, too.

Re:Why shocking?

[lawpoop]

Well, from Bush/Cheney's perspective, it's a giant payoff to their buddies Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater, along with other military contractors. The international oil companies are going to get their share of Iraqi oil once the region stabilizes. Bush/Cheney are getting their permanent bases built in Iraq, along with the world's largest embassy, larger than the Vatican City.

So, yeah, going according to plan.

Re:Darn...

[Sj0]

If the government tells you to do something illegal, and you do it, then why is it suddenly your responsibility and not theirs? I consider it entrapment.

Seriously, if you've got to hire lawyers just to make sure the government is asking you to do things that are legal, maybe it's time to start harshly punishing government officials for making requests that are illegal?

Re:Not quite

[greg_barton]

Maybe it time people stopped mumbling the mindless incantation that "everything changed after 9/11" and using it as an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and justify not upholding the law.

d00d, upholding the law is sooooo pre-9/11. Everything changed, you know. And, by "everything" I mean EVERYTHING.

Re:Darn...

[WindowlessView]

You raise some good points but the telcos, as you would imagine, have the very best lawyers on wiretapping issues. I find it very hard to believe they didn't know they were breaking FISA laws. Which makes me wonder why they went along with scheme. Maybe it was a simple as some misguided sense of patriotism. Maybe it was something more. I think we deserve to know and the law suits are a means to that end.

I don't care for the telcos behavior in this but I don't think they are the real villians. But squeezing them is the only way (currently) to get to the truth.

And yes, congress ended up passing a law that allows him to do exactly what was supposed to be against the law when this happened.

Congress would sell their mothers before having their August vacations shortened. One can only hope the people force them to do the right thing when this comes up again in 4 months.

Re:Why shocking?

[Dunbal]

The international oil companies are going to get their share of Iraqi oil once the region stabilizes. (Emphasis mine)

      Uhh, excuse me but exactly what are you smoking, and can I have some?

Re:Why shocking?

[lawpoop]

Judging by history, how does a couple thousand sound?

Sounds reasonable ;)

But, they were pumping oil out of Iraq until a few years ago. You don't need to have a violence-free paradise to pump oil, you just need a level of stability.

Re:Why shocking?

[bberens]

I never understood why people think it's a useful deterrent to sue the government.. You're suing them for YOUR money.

Re:Not quite

[mrchaotica]

And, by "everything" I mean EVERYTHING.

Exactly: the terrorists won.