Home › Opinion › Opinion
Editorial: Legal cover from what?
Immunity request stalls bill
STORY TOOLS 
More from OpinionCongress and the White House are not as far apart on rewriting an eavesdropping bill as they seem — or at least they shouldn't be.
It is clear that the government needs a criminal and terrorism surveillance authority that's flexible, fast and capable of handling rapid technological change.
The administration would have unfettered authority to eavesdrop on foreign targets and communications but it seems clear that if there is an American involved, the Constitution requires some kind of warrant, preferably one judicially approved.
Critics complain that warrants involve too much time and red tape, but this seems an administrative problem, and if it is truly a problem, it is up to congressional oversight to solve. And in a free society, privacy protections against government snooping are hardly "red tape."
President Bush is insisting on retroactive legal immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that secretly cooperated with the government in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens.
The House Democratic leadership and the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee say they may consider some form of immunity but first they want to know exactly what it is the companies did that they need immunity from.
This request seems only fair, but the administration is balking, one suspects because it doesn't want Congress to learn the vast size and scope of its eavesdropping.
Two years ago, USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had surreptitiously gathered the phone records of tens of millions of Americans. And Verizon has just disclosed, according to The Washington Post, that it provided phone records to the authorities without court orders "hundreds of times" since 2005.
The White House and Congress couldn't agree on a rewrite of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act once before so Congress extended the law only until January, still time enough to reach a better balance between privacy and security and to ensure meaningful judicial and legislative oversight.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Verizon and AT&T are pouring thousands of "donations" into Jay Rockerfeller's coffers. He is Sen. from W. Virginia and head of intelligence committee and one pushing for immunity for the communications company giving up our records.
Probably you are not in a position to match the corps' $40,000 "donation" but you can move your accounts to non-culpable carriers. Wave Cable, for example, is available in Ventura. We have so little power. But our power as consumers remains crucial.
The lame duck administration is pushing in other areas as well: preparing the public with a pre-planned attack on Iran and now another try at media consolidation.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.p...
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This should not be an issue of politics, but one of public safety.
Communications/electronics intelligence operations require continuous searching of every possible frequency...and then some. It is not unusual to ferret out relevant information that requires immediate action. For some reason, such tidbits usually surface during a mid-watch at an overseas base when lawyers are sleeping. In the reality of today's world, where we have people purposely (not accidentally) killing women and children in the name of some distorted concept of a god, I have problems with any system that doesn't allow NSA to do it's work in a timely manner.
"Privacy" has become a religion for some, and the foundation of wealth for too many in the legal community.
I have an even larger problem with people who, based on political belief, disclose classified information and are not prosecuted for various reasons of constitutional fiction. All who disclose classified information without proper authority should suffer the same penalties, whether they be military, politician, civil servant or journalist. Especially troubling is disclosure of intelligence methods that are working. This has happened too many times since 9/11 and has caused the deaths of innocents.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 9:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perhaps killing of innocent women and children in the name of some distorted concept of war on terrorism is a step up, but I don't think so. When even the tame PM of Iraq complains that dead toddlers are not legitimate targets, you know there is a mislabeling problem. Depraved indifference is not the same as accidental killing. Not legally, Not morally.
The Frankenstein we have created in Iraq is not the product of US citizens whose privacy is being violated.
National security has become a god to people who get their news from Faux. For those in this administration, it is a cynical attempt to override Constitutional safeguards and prevent the public from knowing the full extent of their wrongdoing.
Plainly put, this administration has a record of lying, misleading and usurpation of power that makes them unworthy of truth without oversight.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 9:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sigh, I meant to write "unworthy of trust without oversight" instead of "truth." My fingers balked at using the word "trust" in the same sentence as "this administration."
Posted by jmcgaw3046 on October 22, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We keep hearing that we must protect our secrets, what are these secrets. I am afraid that many of them are to cover up the wrong doing of this admistration. So many of the supposed military secrets can be read about in Popular Machanics, or simuar type magazines. So I think that we have go carried away too far with this stuff.
We have lost the ability to trust our leaders, they have lied too much and too many lives have been lost because of that.
So I hope that Congress with show some back bone and not give away the store like it did before, other wise we will start to loose the freedom that we have.
Posted by Nosmo_King on October 22, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TimeArrow, You're probably too smart to do it but have you considered running for Congress or Senate?
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TimeArrow could have his campaign covered by AT&T and other culpable communications giants and count on biased coverage from the corporate media. And he'd fit right in.
For those who object to having their privacy violated, dump AT&T and Verison. Wave Cable can bring you telephone service and Internet in Ventura and there are other choices in other areas.
Strike a blow for freedom! Dump the perps.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting thought, Nosmo_King. At this stage of my life, I am fulfilled in being able to deal with issues such as the physical deterioration of neighborhoods and crime within the county of my birth ... in a manner where it is actually possible to achieve some measureable results.
jmmgaw3046, I can assure you that NSA classifications are as much to protect disclosure of collection methodology as to protect the contents of collected data. It may surprise you to know that the men and women, both military and civilians, within that organization and it's military affiliates, such as the Army Security Agency and Naval Security Group, are dedicated to protecting even you, whether you be Demodog or Republicrat. As with a police officer on the streets, they, too, are there to protect and serve.
Is the NSA perfect? Definitely not. Are American lives saved? Yes, and the number saved is staggering. However, you'll never know the details --- unless the the right to privacy crowd has their way in which case we could expect to see bedlam in our country.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I love bland assurances about the trustworthiness and dedication of the intelligence gathering services. Makes you feel safe.
But you'll never know the details.
You bet.
In case anyone feels the remotest tendency to believe we are in Iraq to fight "terrorism" or more laughably, to promote democracy, here is a little clue from a UK outlet about the actual reasons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0...
Posted by shaver_one on October 22, 2007 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Benjamin Franklin once said (paraphrased):
When a man gives up his freedoms in the name of security, he achieves neither and loses both.
But, it seems, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the lately lamented Karl Rove have never read the Constitution nor studied history.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Iraq was not the subject. Comments were directed at protection of those within our borders from terrorists (terrorists - not freedom fighters), period. Somebody has to look at facts that are not clouded by politics. My distaste for politicians goes across the political spectrum. It took many adminisrations to get us to where we are. Just as with the cop on the street, intelligence professionals (not political appointees) must do their job regardless of who is in office.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
shaver_one: I'm talking about circumstances, not politics. If, by intercepting communications of many, I'm able to stop a terrorist attack, I'd say my freedom was safeguarded ... not lost. I'd have preferred that approach to many things the current, and previous, administrations have done.
I have travelled frequently to both Asia and Europe since 9/11. I can't think of a single case where I've given up a freedom.
I'm sorry. I can't gnash my teeth and get in a hateful mode.
Posted by shaver_one on October 22, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TimeArrow:
I'm not talking poliics, either.
I'm talking The Constitution and American (& World) history.
And nobody asked you to gnash your teeth.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The intelligence services have already been politicized and indeed at the top, have been for a long time.
The politicos are running the agencies. You don't take orders. You don't survive in the services.
Read Tenet or John Stockwell, relative to the CIA. The FBI under Hoover notorious for dossiers on conscientious objectors to administrative policy: Fonda, Lennon, MLK, et al..
The NSA is different?
Eco-groups as terrorists? Animal rights groups as terrorists? Investigative journalists as criminals? Whistle blowers to be prosecuted? Terrorist wanna-bes provoked into "conspiring" to commit acts they haven't the means nor the skills to carry out followed by show trials to prove how effective security is?
These are political decisions made by politicians in office, not disspassionate professionals.
You have a different experience, you say, in your job with the NSA or whatever, which you haven't identified but sort of hinted at, and we'll never know the details. Trust.
This admiistration has used up its credibility. You sound like you are defending their policies.
Trust?
I'd rather have Constitutional right to privacy strickly protected because at this point, I'm more worried about people like you than any terrorist.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Protecting citizens must be ongoing, cassandra and shaver_one. I'm used to working with people who would not hesitate to put their lives on the line to protect you, regardless of your politics, citizenship or ethnicity. I am proud of the company I keep.
Again, and you don't seem to get the message, I'm not defending any administration, present or past. I won't argue politics, even with my best friends. I deal with situations. My wish is to protect my children and grandchildren from those who would kill them simply because they are Americans.
Franklin's statement (he used the word "safety," not "security") was and is appropriate. However, I don't believe it applies to the instant discussion.
If you cannot state opinions, hopefully based on personal knowledge and experience, please don't resort to personal attacks.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I get the message. I'm not buying it.
What is your personal knowledge and experience? You have only hinted darkly of such.
And you are engaging in personal attacks, not I, up to this point, but I'm beginning to get a whiff of G. Gordon Liddy's ghost here.
What is your job? What is your experience?
Or is it a case where you could tell us, but then you'd have to kill us?
Posted by sslocal on October 22, 2007 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Seems TimeArrow is talking practicalities while the rest of you are just spewing hate for Bush.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
It is difficult to have a two-way conversation when one side is trying to discuss issues and the other responds with political rhetoric. It is like the old parent-child diagram in T/A. Lets try again.
Two questions for those who think I am the threat to our nation:
1. IF intercept operations are encumbered as proposed, what would you suggest as an alternative means to identify mainland/offshore terrorist comm links along with the ability to take timely action?
2. Do you truly hold your constitutional privacy as you understand it to be more sacred than the lives of your children and grandchildren?
Just curious.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
We should like Bush?
I don't know what TimeArrow is talking. Neither do you. It's all very needs to know and apparently he thinks we don't.
What do you know about this fellow that gives you any idea of how practical his statements are? All you know is that he says things that agree with your preconceived notions.
And what I think about Bush is irrelevant. It's what I think about the Bill of Rights that's on point here.
Posted by allblacks on October 22, 2007 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What you think about Bush is relevant, since it colors every statement you make.
Are you also against CCTV at the mall? Doesn't it also invade your right to privacy?
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra, discussions between people who disagree can sometimes lead to solutions. With your expertise in constitutional law, I was expecting some good ideas from you.
For more than 22 years, I tried my best to live up to an oath that includes the words "...I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Total time away from my family ... 6.3 years. Now in a corporate environmnent, I took a similar oath for volunteer public service duties. I was, and continue to be, loyal to my country ... not to any specific politician.
I'm sorry that you feel somehow that I'm a threat to you.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can you be any more dismissive, Time Arrow? I'm the child state of consciousness in this transaction, I presume? Let's try again indeed.
You have just engaged in a number of personal attacks, yet you claim that you do not stoop to this. I'm engaging in political rhetoric, you say, but you are putting forth several political positions yet claiming that you are above that sort of things.
I do not know to what degree my kids and grandkids' lives are in jeapardy nor from whom. I do know that a. intelligence agencies historically are corrupted by politics to be used against peaceable dissidents. This is an ungoing fact of life.
b. I do know that this administration has a history of lying, misleading and interferring and misusing intelligence.
c. I do not wish to trust an agency of this administration to judge unilaterally what kind of eavesdropping on communications truly is related to national defense and which to their own. I want an intervening agency overseeing.
You imply some kind of experience related to this area, which you do not share. Then you say that only those who have actual experience such as yours, which you do not share, are qualified to speak on the subject. Does the term solecism mean anything to you?
You seem to have some knowledge of Eric Berne's psychology. I suggest that R.D. Laing's notion of the politcs of experience is more relevant.
Posted by cassandra on October 22, 2007 at 5:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jeesh, I can't keep up with this. By the time I post, something else is there to respond to.
Things like "Give their life for you" and personal sacrifices are emotionally suspect. I think about manipulation.
I am 70 years old. I am of a generation educated to grasp that all "transactions" have a political aspect, in the broad sense of pertaining to power relationsips (see. Kate Millett, R. D. Laing, and Jay Haley from the Palo Alto group et al.). I do not accept that anything is apolitical.
I, too, took the same oath, oddly enough.
i want to know who is being eavesdropped on. In the broad sense, no names. I want to know it isn't E.L.F who is no threat to me nor Green Peace or the Yes Men. I would love to know it was Blackwater who is a threat to all of us and our Iraqi brethren as well. But I DON'T TRUST ANYONE IN THIS ADMINISTRATION TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION WITHOUT OVERSIGHT. If "islamist terrorists," I would like it distinguished from Moslems rightously indignant about Israeli policy but not violent.
It's too bad. Trust. Not there.
Who would I trust? Someone from the opposing political party whom I did not believe corrupt--Cohen, Reno? Is she still alive? someone like that.
Posted by sslocal on October 22, 2007 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dang nice speech. >golf clap< You had me going until you brought up Reno.
Posted by Equitable_Enforcer on October 22, 2007 at 7:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cassandra; On BlackBerry now so brief. We are same generation but different lifepaths. I have supported every president ... but "retired" because of Carter. My dedication is to our country and not to a party. Good luck, God bless and good night.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.