Space Has Repect For The Law, Drives GOP Nuts
Republican’s seems pretty bent out of shape over Rep. Zack Space’s recent vote to support the American Constitution. They’re claiming that Space’s vote against the FISA extension shows that he “puts partisanship over protecting America”, yet they don’t really mention the reason for Space’s vote. The bill Space voted against would block the judicial system from looking into abuses of the FISA program by granting telecommunication retroactive immunity.
I wouldn’t much like the idea of granting retroactive immunity for something like jaywalking, much less warrantless wiretaps. The “just following orders” excuse hasn’t been upheld in the past, why should it matter now? Besides no immunity isn’t an automatic conviction of telecommunications companies, it just leaves the door open for the courts to decide.
I bet Bob Ney loves the idea of retro-active immunity…
Thankfully, other bloggers have been quick to back Space’s position.
February 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Why would telecoms need immunity for helping their country? Well, that would be because of all those trial lawyers who have donated to Democrats like Zack Space are gearing up to sue us back to tin cans connected by string…but don’t let that stand in the way of your partisan good time…
February 15th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I believe you just made my point. If, as they claim, these telecommunications companies did nothing wrong, why are they so afraid of going to court?
February 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
David,
The problem is that the law isn’t clear. Much of our legal system is based on common law. Judges interpret any statutes that are written and make their decision. Those interpretations can, and do change. A single negative interpretation can seriously impact a telecomm’s bottom line. They operate on thin margins and the additional legal costs will reduce that margin.
Suppose that some nefarious type named Omar uses his cell phone to make arranges for some activities. Say it’s pre 9/11/01 and he’s making airplane reservations and calling his mother to give her his love.
Listening in on those calls would require wiretap warrants. Of course, time being of the essence, the telecomm may bypass the warrants and allow our government to listen in, possibly saving lives. But, given the litious nature of our country, the telecomm may fear lawsuits by Omar. So the government doesn’t listen in, Omar gets his plane tickets and leaves Boston early on 9/11.
So far, the above has been non-partisan, just factual. You can decide what side to be on. I know you don’t like FISA, but how would YOU propose the solution?
I personally think that FISA is scary. It allows the government a lot of lattitude and they could do a lot of things with it.
But I’m not sure what the alternatives are. And I’m not sure they would be effective.
There is no proof that anyone’s rights have been limited by FISA or the Patriot Act. There is a talk radio personality who has offered $1m (or is it $2m?) to anyone who can show they’ve been hurt by them. So far, no takers.
Lest you think I am just about “Big Business”, these telecomms provide a lot of jobs. I have a friend who works in line repairs for one of them. I know several people who have worked in sales for cell phone companies. Many of these jobs are low end jobs, but they are good for the people in them. Take away “Big Business” and the jobs go with them.
February 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
The FISA system was set up a long time ago just for situations like that. It does, however, require a warrant to be obtained within a certain amount of time (I think 72 hours) after the fact. I don’t like it, but I see it’s purpose. Under President Bush though, this system has apparently become a perverse version of what it was intended to be. Now they seem to be fighting all efforts to restore any oversight to the program.
When it comes to telecommunications companies, I think they’re probably all right as long as there were warrants. If not, than there should be some repercussions.
February 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
You should take an introductory law course or study some cases. Our code of law is not totally made by congressional statutes. There is also law created by agencies (e.g. OSHA) and laws created by executive order.
But most of our law is created by courts and their interpretation of existing codes.
With guarantee of immunity written into law, the courts are free to interpret the law any way they choose. That’s why this is being put into the law. To protect those companies before they go to court.
Whether you approve or not is a different story. But that’s why they need the immunity.