[RP TownTalk] Md senator helps pass Telecom immunity

[Alan Thompson and Sarah Wayland]

On Feb 16, 2008, at 12:50 PM, Roland Walker wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2008 8:39 PM, Robert Oppenheim  
> <Rob.Oppenheim at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Actually, the period covered by the immunity is 5+ years, beginning
>> on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007.
>
> The link is broken now, but I assume you have the time span correct,
> and that I had it wrong.
>
> The period of time covered by the immunity affects the emotional
> impact, but not the merits, of my argument.

I must respectfully disagree -- for the first several months to a  
year, the nation was in a state of emotional shock, and was  
responding without necessarily thinking carefully through  
consequences.  After a few years, and certainly by a few months after  
the New York Times article that revealed the program and its  
questionable legality (published December 16, 2005) they should have  
been seriously questioning their actions, and perhaps seeking to  
bring themselves in line with the law.

> The broad powers of the Commander-in-Chief with regard to surveillance
> under Article 2 have indeed been tested in court.  In addition, the
> role of Commander-in-Chief prima facie includes surveillance powers,
> as under his or her command are military surveillance facilities such
> as you might find at Fort Meade.
>
> I don't believe telecoms should be punished for complying with  
> lawful requests.

I'll just quote Senator Dodd on this one -- he's much more eloquent  
than me:

"In their telling, when our biggest telecom corporations helped the  
President spy without a warrant, they were doing their patriotic  
duty. When they listened to the executive branch and turned over  
private information, they were doing their patriotic duty.

When one company gave the NSA a secret eavesdropping room at its own  
corporate headquarters, it was simply doing its patriotic duty. The  
President asked, the telecoms answered.

Shouldn't that be an easy case to prove, Mr. President? The  
corporations only need to show a judge the authority and the  
assurances they were given, and they will be in and out of court in 5  
minutes. If the telecoms are as defensible as the President says, why  
doesn't the President let them defend themselves? If the case is so  
easy to make, why doesn't he let them make it? Why is he standing in  
the way?"

- Senator Dodd, on telecom amnesty, Dec. 17, 2007

If the law is so clear, the cases will not be a significant burden on  
the telecoms (perhaps costing less than they've spent trying to  
influence this legislation).  Since we (and, according to our own  
Representative Hoyer) don't know much about what was asked for and  
what was provided, I don't think we know whether the law is clear or  
not.

> The remedy, should you disagree with those actions by the President,
> is political.  Vote for someone who would make different decisions.

Or to ask your elected representatives to vote to have the courts  
perform their duties under the constitution, which is how this  
discussion started.

	Alan


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20080216/3939d6e0/attachment.html