|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
The short answer is national security. Reasonable people don't want the records subject to discovery in open trial for trial attorneys to go on "fishing expeditions".
If specific people came forward with real damage claims I would support their actions to be indemnified for their damages and to receive punitive damages to the degree their was gross negligence or wanton violations of the law. I have not seen this and don't support subjecting telephone companies to millions of dollars spent defending pointless court cases.
|
ace, unfortunately, your opinion is completely contrary to the facts...the following sez so, and so does the federal judge who has so far allowed the civil litigation against the telecomms to proceed, within the workable and functioning framework intended for litigation such as this.
I think you've been peruaded to "buy into" solving a problem that the telecoms allegedly face, but doesn't, in fact exist.
Why, if they have broken the law and violated our rights and protections, as their customers, and as residents of the US, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF THESE COMPANIES' LITIGATION? Your priorities seem a bit misplaced.....
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ler/index.html
<i>Glenn Greenwald's Unclaimed Territory
I was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York.
</i>
Thursday January 24, 2008 07:33 EST
Jay Rockefeller's unintentionally revealing comments
....Telecoms already have immunity under existing FISA law where they acted pursuant to written government certification or where they prove they acted in good faith (see <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html">18 USC 2520 (d)</a>). There is no reason that the federal courts presiding over these cases can't simply make that determiniation, as they do in countless other cases involving classified information.
Even Feinstein's "compromise" is a completely unnecessary gift to telecoms: to transfer the cases away from the federal judges who have ruled against them to the secret FISA court. But even that pro-telecom proposal is unacceptable to Rockefeller (and the administration), because that would still leave telecoms subject to the rule of law. Rockefeller's only goal is to bestow on his telecom supporters full and unconditional protection from having their conduct -- and, by effect, the administration's conduct -- subject to a court of law. Manifestly, that's the real agenda. That's why he's feeling "cocky."
It gets worse:
Rockefeller defended the actions of the telecom companies, arguing that the companies received explicit orders from the National Security Agency to cooperate with the super-secret surveillance effort. The West Virginia Democrat said the telecom companies were being "pushed by the government, compelled by the government, required by the government to do this. And I think in the end, we'll prevail."
Can someone please tell Jay Rockefeller that we don't actually live in a country where the President has the definitively dictatorial power to "compel" and "require" private actors to break the law by "ordering" them to do so? Like all other lawbreakers, telecoms broke the law because they chose to, and profited greatly as a result. That telecoms had an option is too obvious to require proof, but conclusive proof can be found in the fact that <a href="http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/qwest-ceo-not-a.html">some telecoms did refuse to comply</a> on the grounds that doing so was against the law.
There is a branch of Government that does have the power to compel and require behavior by private actors. It's called "the American people," acting through their Congress, who democratically enact laws regulating that behavior. And the American people <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/nsa/statutes.pdf">enacted multiple laws making it illegal</a> (.pdf) for telecoms, in the absence of a warrant, to enable Government spying on their customers and to turn over private data. Rockefeller's claimed belief that we live in a country where private companies are "compelled" to obey orders to break the law is either indescribably authoritarian or disgustingly dishonest -- probably both.
Finally, we have this bit of pure mendacity:
Rockefeller added: "If people want to be mad, don't be mad at the telecommunications companies, who are restrained from saying anything at all under the State Secrets Act. And they really are. They can't say whether they were involved, they can't go to court, they can't do anything. They're just helpless. And the president was just having his way."
Rockefeller's claim that telecoms can't submit exculpatory evidence to the court is flat-out false, an absolute lie. There is no other accurate way to describe his statement.
Under FISA (<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001806----000-.html">50 USC 1806(f)</a>), telecoms are explicitly permitted to present any evidence in support of their defenses in secret (in camera, ex parte) to the judge and let the judge decide the case based on it. That section of long-standing law could not be clearer, and leaves no doubt that Rockefeller is simply lying when he says that telecoms are unable to submit secret evidence to the court to defend themselves:
<i>[W]henever any motion or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court or other authority of the United States or any State to <h3>discover or obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to electronic surveillance</h3> or to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court or, where the motion is made before another authority, <h3>the United States district court in the same district as the authority, shall</h3>, notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would harm the national security of the United States, <h3>review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted.</h3></i>
How much clearer could that be? Directly contrary to Rockefeller's claims, <h2>federal courts are not only able, but required ("shall"), to review in secret any classified information -- including evidence over which a "states secrets privilege" has been asserted -- in order "to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted."</h2> Federal courts already have exactly the power that Rockefeller dishonestly claims they lack.
Moreover, even if that provision didn't exist (and it does), and even if Rockefeller were telling the truth when claiming that telecoms were unable to submit exculpatory evidence to the court (and he isn't), then Congress could just easily fix that problem in one day. All they have to do is amend FISA to make clear that telecoms do have the right to submit such evidence to defend themselves notwithstanding the President's utterance of the all-powerful magic phrase "State Secrets." And then this oh-so-unfair problem would be instantly fixed.
If telecoms were really these poor, "helpless" victims unable to defend themselves, the solution isn't to bar anyone from suing them even when they break the law. The solution, if that were really the concern, is simply to add a provision to FISA enabling them to submit that evidence in secret, the way classified evidence is submitted to federal courts all the time. The reality is that 50 USC 1806(f) already says exactly that, but even if it didn't, Congress could just amend it to do so.
Rockefeller's claims also entail the core dishonesty among amnesty advocates. He implies that the real party that engaged in wrongdoing was the President, not telecoms, yet his bill does nothing to enable plaintiffs to overcome the numerous obstacles the administration has used to block themselves from being held accountable. If Rockefeller were being truthful about his belief that it's the administration that should be held accountable here, then his bill would at least provide mechanisms for ensuring that can happen. It doesn't, and thus results in nothing other than total protection for all lawbreakers -- including administration officials -- who committed felonies by spying on Americans for years without warrants....
|
Last edited by host; 01-28-2008 at 06:00 PM..
|