I admit that I am really not very worked up over whether or not the telecommunications corporations wind up getting immunity for cooperating with the president’s warrantless wiretapping. Most progressives feel differently…for example, Russ Feingold (press release):
“Once again the President is trying to use fear and exaggeration to intimidate Congress into granting the executive branch unchecked power that will put the rights of Americans at risk. As it works to fix the hastily passed Protect America Act, Congress should stand up to the administration’s fear-mongering and correct that legislation’s fundamental flaws, such as the utter failure to protect the privacy of Americans at home and abroad, and the complete lack of meaningful oversight. And it must reject the President’s demand for immunity for private entities that allegedly cooperated with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program while the President continues to hide his administration’s legal opinions justifying that program from Congress. Congress can and must produce a bill that provides the tools needed to pursue suspected terrorists aggressively while also protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.”
The key here, for me, is the administration’s refusal to disclose all the details of the program to Congress (this can be done in closed session, or to just the Intelligence Committees and leadership) and the Office of Legal Counsel’s legal rationale for permitting the program. I don’t mind giving the telecommunications a mulligan for cooperating with the administration immediately after 9/11. But I can’t support granting that immunity in the absence of full-disclosure.
The House Judiciary committee voted out the FISA bill this afternoon and they did not provide immunity. The Republicans were howling about this injustice, but it is hard to have any sympathy so long as Congress is kept in the dark about what exactly the telecommunications companies were doing and what legal advice they were relying on.
However, if the Congress does get the information that they seek and the facts reveal that the administration has been truthful about the program involved…I don’t see a problem with immunizing the telcos.
I believe this is the position that the Dems should take on this matter. If the Dems pursue this strategy and the administration has been honest then we should see the telcos lobbying the administration to take the deal.
However, I’d be shocked if the administration has been honest. If the telcos were flagrantly violating citizen’s rights…citizens that were not suspected of terrorism…then there should be no immunity.
After the shock of 9/11 the telcos could be forgiven for cooperating with an over-aggressive administration. But there can be no forgiveness for wholesale violations of the fourth amendment that went well beyond security concerns.
