Matthew Yglesias (January 24, 2008) - Edwards on FISA (Politics)

Granting retroactive immunity will let corporate law-breakers off the hook and hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program.

And abort a whole bunch of very lucrative lawsuits.

I think Edwards is right to see as largely an issue of "corporate lobbyists"

Who's Edwards' biggest contributor again?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 9:34 AM

Did you have a point Ralph? I don't know why you can't tell us who Edward's biggest contributor is. Is it a secret? Are you trying to be funny/cute? And even if the legislation does abort a number of "lucrative lawsuits", what does that have to do with anything?

Posted by Rambuncle | January 24, 2008 9:48 AM

Gee, Ralph, sometimes lawsuits are good things for the country -- that's why they're part of our system of laws.

Even if a bunch of lawyers were going to get rich off of this (as opposed to charitable organizations such as the EFF, which is leading the lawsuit in question), it would be worth lining their pockets -- the alternative is vitiating the very idea that laws apply to everyone in this country.

Posted by jay | January 24, 2008 9:58 AM

Mark Kleiman had a suggestion on his blog that had also occurred to me: Obama could get a lot of media attention and generate a lot of enthusiasm if he said he'd return to Washington and stand beside Dodd in his filibuster. It would show that a) he's willing to fight for principle, even at the political cost of leaving the campaign trail; and b) would probably get more coverage than if he were campaigning anyway. I really hope he does that -- although my guess is he won't.

Posted by Fred App | January 24, 2008 10:01 AM

If Edwards' gifts from Tha Traal Lawyuhs was to influence policy improperly, what would that mean? Would a President Edwards mandate that regulators require industries to make more dangerous products so that the manufacturers could be sued more? Would it mandate that doctors make more mistakes or that HMO's deny more coverage? What?

Posted by El Cid | January 24, 2008 10:04 AM

His biggest contributor is the trial lawyers' association.

If Congress really wants to get to the bottom of what the Bush administration did, they should form an investigatory committee and send out subpoenas. But if congress did that they'd have to take a stand on the issue and risk offending potential voters, and possibly some of Edwards' fellow Democrats would be implicated. Far better to find both a scapegoat and a way to outsource the slaughter of said scapegoat.

That way they don't have to take responsibility for actually doing something, and they can let the majority of the cost fall not on their fellow professional politicans who pushed the illegal spying but on the businesses that had it pushed on them.

It makes no sense on grounds of policy or fairness, but it makes money for Edwards' industry and fits with his standard schtick of blaming all the world's ills on "big business" even on those occasions when government is the real source.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 10:05 AM

So Ralph (or shithead, as your friends probably call you), are you saying that corporate entities in the US should be immune from litigation when they break the law? Or, if a company knowingly produces a defective product that maims or kills one of your children that you shouldn't have legal recourse? Any other defenders of corporate stuff feel free to chime in.

Posted by BlueStreak | January 24, 2008 10:07 AM

Hey, it's critically important from a fairness perspective to protect the least among us, like the telco conglomerates, from the predations of public interest law firms like the EFF, who are just rolling in lucre.

That so-called liberals don't see this would prove Jonah's point, if he had one.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 24, 2008 10:08 AM

Ralph, are you saying that Americans should have no right to sue corporations engaged in wrongdoing like illegal wiretapping? Because if that's what you're saying, I want you to keep saying it, over and over again. I want you to tell everyone that when anyone illegally taps into your phone or your mail, you should have no right to sue. Please. Keep saying that. Particularly tell us how when your Republican candidate of choice takes office, this will be the first thing they enact.

Posted by Tyro | January 24, 2008 10:10 AM

Sorry I missed your second post shithead. Regarding your comment "on the businesses that had it pushed on them." Huge telecoms? Don't these guys have lawyers working for them? You're acting like they're poor helpless Ma and Pa at the corner store. "Oooh... Oooh. the feds MADE us do it." You think that maybe they could have pushed back and made a public stink about the government pressuring them to break the law? That is, if they really cared, but of course we know that they didn't.

Posted by BlueStreak | January 24, 2008 10:14 AM

Would a President Edwards mandate that regulators require industries to make more dangerous products so that the manufacturers could be sued more?

No, it would encourage Congress to write more and vaguer regulations requiring ever more lawsuits to establish what is and is not permissible behavior.

I've worked in manufacturing and what really pisses us off is not a regulation that's harsh, stringent and clear. You can adapt to that, and if it's applied to your competitors the same as to you, it really makes little difference in the operation of your business. The real pain in the @$$ is the regulations that are vague, that you're not sure where the courts will draw the line as to what's permitted, or that worst of all are so badly written that they're self contradictory or incomprehensible.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 10:14 AM

Well, look. I don't think very much of Obama, or his pretty vacuous campaign rhetoric. But if he DID do what was suggested above, and return to the Senate to make this filibuster his priority, I'd certainly be willing to start reassessing my opinion. Can't see how it would hurt him with the Democratic primary voters he so desperately needs right now.

So, Obamabots, get on your speed-dials and start hectoring your candidate into doing something useful for a change.

Same for all those Hillary-huggers out there.

Who knows? Maybe election campaigns can be useful for something after all...

Posted by RKU | January 24, 2008 10:17 AM

No, it would encourage Congress to write more and vaguer regulations requiring ever more lawsuits to establish what is and is not permissible behavior.

Hey Ralph- give us one concrete, quantifiable example where this demonstratably has been the case.

Posted by James Gary | January 24, 2008 10:18 AM

If Congress really wants to get to the bottom of what the Bush administration did, they should form an investigatory committee and send out subpoenas.

Great idea! That tactic has proved just so effective with this administration.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/conyers-miers-sub/

Posted by Jeff S. | January 24, 2008 10:18 AM

Did the telcos do this because it raised their profits?
Or because the Bush administration told them to and they didn't want trouble?
It seems rather unfair to go after the telcos for not being public spirited enough to stand up for the common good against government pressure, rather than going after the government that did the pressuring.

But that would require Edwards & other former & current Congressthieves attack fellow members of the political class; they'd rather attack the folks they extract tribute from in the form of campaign contributions, and then turn around and blame for "injecting money into politics."

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 10:21 AM

"lucrative lawsuits"

EFF is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 24, 2008 10:27 AM

You think that maybe they could have pushed back and made a public stink about the government pressuring them to break the law? That is, if they really cared, but of course we know that they didn't.

No they didn't, and they shouldn't have to. It's a real pain in the but having politicians from one side threatening to call you traitors if you don't do what they say (and with the power to use the FCC to totally screw you over if you don't go along), and politicians from the other side calling you fascists if you don't fight for their agenda (and preparing to use the courts to totally screw you over if you don't go along.)

The political battle about the balance between privacy and fear of terrorists needs to be fought, my problem is with using people who want nothing to do with it as the battlefield whether they like it or not.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 10:27 AM

Of course if Edwards himself were still in the Senate, he could be joining Dodd in leading this fight instead of just hectoring his opponents to do so. But Edwards bailed on his Senate seat and now a Republican holds it. I'll vote for the guy on 2/5 but this kind of thing coming from him is pretty rich.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 10:28 AM

Nonprofits have all the same institutional pressures to "grow or die" that any other organization has, and they often have highly paid executives.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 10:32 AM

Obama said he goofed on votes
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation:
He goofed.

Also announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.

He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.

The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.

Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.

Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office. being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.Obama replied "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger, I was not aware that I had voted no on that piece of legislation.

Posted by Hank | January 24, 2008 10:34 AM

This is the kind of ridiculous controversy that reminds me why Americans have run away from the term "liberal". It reenforces every negative stereotypes about the Democrats as anti-business, pro-lawyer, and more concerned with civil liberties than security.

Dodd, Edwards, Yglesias, and everyone who is fighting this issue are wrong on both the politics and merits of this case. So wrong, in fact, that it makes me question their judgement on anything in this area. This issue is a no brainer for anyone with any understanding of how big companies work.

It's not like the Telecom companies benefitted in any way from acceeding to these requests. In fact, I guarantee it cost them time and money to pull these requests. They obviously did it because they thought it was the right thing to do in the wake of 9/11. They didn't want to end up watching something else blow up and then have it come out that the tragedy could have been averted if they hadn't resisted the government's request.

Personally, I think that was the right call. I don't want the Telecom companies making judgement calls on issues of national security. If the government is asking for inappropriate information, we should be changing the government officials involved, not prosecuting the companies.

But regardless of whether you disagree with that, and you make clear to Telecom companies that they will be held responsible going forward, it's utterly asinine to open them up to lawsuits from the past.

It's going to waste tons of time and money for absolutely no purpose and the only people who will gain are the trial lawyers. It's utter stupidity from people who are looking to make a political point but no know nothing about business.

Posted by Gordon | January 24, 2008 10:50 AM

bluestreak wrote
are you saying that corporate entities in the US should be immune from litigation when they break the law? Or, if a company knowingly produces a defective product that maims or kills one of your children that you shouldn't have legal recourse? Any other defenders of corporate stuff feel free to chime in.

No. Lawsuits in this situation make sense. The company was at fault here, and lawsuits both compensate the victim and discourage faulty behavior in the future. Fault behavior that the companies may otherwise have an incentive to make since presumably it costs them more money to be safer.

But it's obvious the differences between that and the FISA controversy.
- It was really the government, not the Telecom companies, that were at fault here.
- Moreover, the Telecoms didn't benefit in any way from sharing the information. In fact it cost them money. All they were trying to do was to not do the wrong thing.

Your beef is with the government not the Telecoms. So concentrate your fire where it belongs. It's like a depositor suing a bank teller because he or she gave away your money in a bank robbery.

Posted by Gordon | January 24, 2008 11:02 AM

Gordon:
It reenforces every negative stereotypes about the Democrats as anti-business, pro-lawyer, and more concerned with civil liberties than security.

The proper balance between civil liberties and security is a legitimate subject of debate, even if you disagree with their side.

It's the scapegoating of business and the policy making by lawsuit that's indefensible.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 11:11 AM

(Meanwhile, I wonder what happened to Edwards' 2004-vintage enthusiasm for creating a domestic intelligence agency)

oh, it happened, haven't you noticed? he was in the mainstream then, had to keep to the talking points

Posted by gregory | January 24, 2008 11:15 AM

Edwards should offer to stop campaining if Hilary and Obama will go to DC to help Dodd.

Posted by JB | January 24, 2008 11:15 AM

It has been said several times that the telecoms didn't benefit from sharing information. Do you think that maybe the government (who regulates these guys) couldn't dangle a carrot or two to elicit their cooperation? That they would be more or less inclined to pass favorable regulatory action depending upon how much resistance they put up to helping out "for the good of the country"? Please.

And Ralph... sorry about the shithead thing. I hadn't had my coffee yet.

Posted by BlueStreak | January 24, 2008 11:16 AM

It has been said several times that the telecoms didn't benefit from sharing information. Do you think that maybe the government (who regulates these guys) couldn't dangle a carrot or two to elicit their cooperation?

Sure, whether it's carrots or sticks, when you're in a highly regulated business you have lots of incentive to do what the government tells you to do.

Which is why it's both unfair and pointless to go after the businesses who responded to the carrots and sticks, rather than the Bush administration who deployed them.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 11:19 AM

Ralph and others, I understand your points exactly. But does that mean that businesses in the U.S. have no higher responsibility than their own self-interest? If not, and politicians run away from their responsibilities, what other recourse do "the people" have? Just asking.

Posted by BlueStreak | January 24, 2008 11:26 AM

Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.

OMG, that opens up a whole new line of hilarious attack ads: Accidentally dissenting on a bill that passed anyway is no big deal, but imagine the possible consequences when a President "presses the wrong button by accident."

Of course it isn't really a button, and there's a whole lot of "flesh & blood human giving an order to another flesh & blood human" links in the chain from the President to the missile silos, but still, the jokes just write themselves.

(But I am disappointed by Obama's backpedalling on that vote; I had hoped he a was a closet extropian.)

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 11:27 AM

"it's both unfair and pointless to go after the businesses who responded to the carrots and sticks, rather than the Bush administration who deployed them."

No. The law forbids them to cooperate with illegal requests. It is not unfair to penalize them for breaking a law that was passed specifically to control them and no one else. It is also not pointless. If they are penalized, they'll be less likely to break the law next time. Maybe you don't agree with the law. Too bad.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 24, 2008 11:37 AM

But does that mean that businesses in the U.S. have no higher responsibility than their own self-interest?
Under current law, if a corporation's management does anything that's not in the company's self interest, they can theoretically be sued by the stockholders to whom they have a "fiduciary responsibility." Perhaps the laws around corporate governance should be changed to require "social responsibility" but that's going to be hard to define in a country where a good part of the electorate thinks the companies in this case did the right thing. [Companies like Ben & Jerry's and Dominos Pizza that are known for pursuing their divergent visions of the "public good" are privately owned.]

As a practical matter that's how the corporations behave, and if you're trying to write laws that give them incentive to behave the way you want you should take that into account.

If not, and politicians run away from their responsibilities, what other recourse do "the people" have?

Elect better politicians.

Anyway in this case it looks like the Senate isn't going to run away from its responsibility, it's going to face up to it and make a decision you disagree with.

Posted by ralph phelan | January 24, 2008 11:37 AM

Do you have links to all that, Hank? Or any of it?

Nonprofits have all the same institutional pressures to "grow or die" that any other organization has, and they often have highly paid executives.

Interestingly enough, nonprofit organizations have to file a 990 form with the IRS, and it is a matter of public record. You can go to www.guidestar.org and look up the EFF's 990 form — I'd link to it directly, but registration is required, but it's free so don't hesitate if you're curious. In 2005, EFF executive director Shari Steele was paid $148,958, and compensation for the five highest paid employees, mostly lawyers, ranged from $121,551 to $74,719 (only one of those five was paid over $90,000). According to this, the median salary for first-year associates in private practice is $80,000. If these people were motivated by greed, they wouldn't be at a non-profit. So basically, the idea that the EFF is motivated by profit was pulled out of your ass.

It's not like the Telecom companies benefitted in any way from acceeding to these requests.

How do you know that?

They obviously did it because they thought it was the right thing to do in the wake of 9/11.

If anything is obvious here, it's that they did it because they thought that breaking the law was the safer alternative for them, not the right one. Trying to play it safe might be understandable, but isn't particularly laudable.

But regardless of whether you disagree with that, and you make clear to Telecom companies that they will be held responsible going forward, it's utterly asinine to open them up to lawsuits from the past.

How do you make it clear they'll be liable going forward without holding them liable for wrongdoing in the recent past?

Personally, I think that was the right call.

I think the Constitution should be taken seriously, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

If the government is asking for inappropriate information, we should be changing the government officials involved, not prosecuting the companies.

I agree with you that the basic problem is the government, and I don't see anyone here saying otherwise. Can you point them out? Or link to them? But these two possibilities are mutually reinforcing, not mutually exclusive at all.

Posted by Cyrus | January 24, 2008 11:54 AM

my problem is with using people who want nothing to do with it as the battlefield whether they like it or not.

If they wanted nothing to do with it they wouldn't have handed all my call records to the Bush administration so the DOJ (a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican party) could squirrel it away to use it for *whatever* they wanted, with no oversight.

They made their own bed, they should sleep in it.

Posted by justinb | January 24, 2008 12:26 PM

"His biggest contributor is the trial lawyers' association."

Lie.

Edwards has not taken dime one from any PAC, including the Trial Lawyers.

INDIVIDUAL attorneys have given him money, but I think you will find that Obama and Clinton are quite competitive with him in that regard.

So quit lying.

Posted by drfranklives | January 24, 2008 12:31 PM

It's not like the Telecom companies benefitted in any way from acceeding to these requests. In fact, I guarantee it cost them time and money to pull these requests. They obviously did it because they thought it was the right thing to do in the wake of 9/11.

You're so grossly ill-informed on this issue you're really looking like an idiot.

If this was really true, why did the telcos in question permit this activity in *February* of 2001? Note that's quite a bit before 9/11.

Posted by justinb | January 24, 2008 12:31 PM

Your beef is with the government not the Telecoms. So concentrate your fire where it belongs

Currently, the only way to get at the information about who in the government is/was responsible for illegally directing the telcos to allow access to their networks without a warrant is by taking the telcos to court.

Why do you think the DOJ is fighting the lawsuit on behalf of the telcos? Because they don't think the telcos did anything wrong? On the contrary, they know it was illegal, they're just covering the administration's ass.

Posted by justinb | January 24, 2008 12:35 PM

If this was really true, why did the telcos in question permit this activity in *February* of 2001? Note that's quite a bit before 9/11.

Private firms, being fully informed and having perfect foresight, saw the 9/11 attacks as early as Febuary. As such, they wanted to prepare for the subsequent requests from government.

It was the lack of foresight by the government.

Romney/Santorum '08.

Posted by HappyConservative | January 24, 2008 12:41 PM

Your beef is with the government not the Telecoms. So concentrate your fire where it belongs

See my comment at 10:18AM. The "government", in this case, the Bush admin., will stonewall. There's no chance hearings will go anywhere.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 24, 2008 12:44 PM

Mr Phelan, you do protest too much. While no doubt the Adminstration and various government agencies instigated much illegal activity, the telecommunications companies took part in those illegal activities. There are plenty of situations in this world were more than one party can reasonably be held responsible for some act. This is one of them. That this violation of the law has probably not made us more secure (this Administration is apparently that incompetent)just makes the whole thing worse. If I could do so, I wouldn't do business with any company that took part.

Posted by djeri | January 24, 2008 12:50 PM

I don't want the Telecom companies making judgement calls on issues of national security. If the government is asking for inappropriate information, we should be changing the government officials involved, not prosecuting the companies.

Look, this is what litigation is for, to sort this kind of stuff out. The telcos are subject to the law like anybody else. Granting retroactive immunity to them just stuffs the whole thing down the memory hole. I don't want politicians like Dubya OR telcos making 'judgement calls' in total secrecy.

The sympathy shown here for the telcos makes a certain amount of sense in the abstract. But of course we aren't in the abstract. I find it VERY difficult to have anything but contempt for them, as they are, for a whole range of reasons. I do have sympathy for smaller businesses having to conform to gov. regs., and waiting for things to be litigated out because the law was written poorly, etc.

I have a solution to all these problems: finance campaigns publically. Why the fuck don't we do that (consistent with Buckley)? Politicians need wads of cash to run their campaigns. The whole system is corrupt by design. Edwards has repeatedly and consistently called for radical campaign finance reform, and it's of a piece with the rhetoric above. We're all sick of this system as it is; we all can agree that it's disfunctional. Fucking CHANGE it.

BTW, complaining about 'trial lawyers' is going to come up whenever there's juice about Edwards. Let's get real about this subject. Suing is often not the perfect way to settle a particular issue, but it's the only recourse people have in many cases - it's that or nothing. You can't expect people to just scuttle off into the corner to die quietly (maybe you can). The prototypical guy who always complains bitterly about trial lawyers is the first one to sue and hire the best he can find when it's HIS ass on the line. Should there be other recourse in some cases, particularly medical cases? Probably. Edwards and others have proposed review boards, etc. But the burden is on the bitter-complainer to see things as they are and propose solutions. The way it is, the people generally lobbying for our imaginary bitter-complainer just lobbies for - you guessed it - some form of immunity, rather than helping with rationalizing the situation. Corporate and business people like to talk about cooperation rather than adopting an adversarial position (eg when unions are involved), but the way business is done in this country is the very definition of 'adversarial'. It's the company against the world, most of the time. Sure, they're patriotic - if you pay them.

After 9/11, the US gov. had to confront the fact that private industry, like the telcos and credit card companies, had hugely superior databases and IT generally than did the government. It is understandable that the gov. wanted these companies to share information and/or expertise. But granting them retroactive immunity lets not only them off the hook, but much more importantly, Bush et. al. How do you find out what happened? If there was nothing wrong with what they and the 'administration' did, why do they need immunity? They might get bogged down in litigation? Please. These are people who will themselves litigate practically anything at the drop of a hat. They do that and they absolutely grease politicians from head to toe. The pols and telcos are literally partners in crime. No sympathy.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 24, 2008 12:59 PM

Edwards is a trial lawyer. He is as eager to be whoring to them and opening up a new multi-billion dollar class of lawsuits as Chris Dodd was with his whoredom based on trial lawyers and insurers bankrolling his Presidential bid.

Edwards just sees the possible fortune to be made for American companies told that they are critical to saving American lives and need to work with Federal agencies trying to regulate, promote public safety, and enforce laws.

The same principle applies in other areas where Federal agencies are out asking businesses with huge assets to trust the government in environmental matters, disease outbreaks, natural disasters to do things to address an emergency situation threatening American lives without waiting on lawyers and courts to dissect the matter and rule on it over months or years. It has worked in the past that companies that fully cooperate with government do not get sued...changing that threatens all Americans while only enriching the likes of Edwards and Dodds Gulfstream tort lawyer friends.

In the US military, there are no rights to privacy of individual soldiers if security and military necessity factor in. Even less for enemy.
If you happen to be an ACLU type that believes AQ are not unlawful enemy combatants but presumed innocent civilians instead, with full American rights as their due......keep in mind....that the US, from Customs Inspections to right of a Fire Marshall to enter any building at anytime to inspect for safety, has over 30 exceptions to the 4th Amendment related to public health & safety or other searches deemed "reasonable" simply on location or due to impracticability of getting a good, Jewish lawyer who has his ACLU card to the scene of a Coast Guard boarding or frisking a group of Philly thugs for weapons and dope.

On the issue of National Security, imagine if the FBI had put most of the facts together about 9/11 and were on a feverish search for Arabs who went through US Flight Schools on fear that they didn't want to just hijack a jet, but maybe destroy a military target like a naval base, even smash it into the US Capital, as unlikely as that appeared due to civilian lives affected...

If the FBI had asked in 2001 or 1998 (when the 9/11 plot was hatched by KSM) - the Flight Schools would have leaped to comply with release of private records and names and adresses of 40-45 such Arabs, including Mohammed Atta and the other 3 killer pilots 5 others with terrorist links and 30-35 "perfectly innocent" Arabs. They would have leaped because the FBI would have said they were investigating them as a matter of national security, possible air piracy, and American lives were at stake and that they would not get in trouble for cooperating with the FBI if some Arab got pissed off and got his ACLU lawyer...

What Dodd wants - would block any effort to stop terrorists in a 9/11 scenario - unless the FBI waited well beyond the "stories" of the summer of 2001 and developed probable cause beyond just "one Agents conjecture used to launch a fishing expedition" - to get a regular lawyer dressed in robes or a FISA one to issue a probable cause warrant with a supplemental finding that Arabs were not being "Profiled" simply for being fanatic Muslims from the ME interested in flying massive jets. Then the sacred Flight School names and addresses would finally be allowed to have government look at them. But then more delays would have occurred as probable cause needed to be established to get INDIVIDUAl warrants on the Arab pilots so their records, mail correspondence, medical exams and other things they had an "expectation of privacy" could be opened...

Sen Reid is smart enough to know Dodd's whoring to trial lawyers would bury the Democratic Party. If it resulted in private citizens and companies coming forward after another terrorist attack or mass schoolyard slaughter and saying lives were lost, they wanted to fully cooperate with public safety officials, but couldn't take the risk. Because after the Democrat's "Dodd Law" - they knew that any cooperation with the government of America could potentially ruin them unless a convention of lawyers was summoned to OK it and declare they were immune to lawsuits. Sorry about all the dead students, the nuke plant radiation release after the explosive-packed boat hit it - but the lawyers needed more probable cause to be assembled before any private company or individual was ready to cooperate on fear the deranged gunman or the nuke attack squad involved US citizens or foreigners like Atta under a valid visa and entitled to all citizen's constitutional rights....

Nor is it simply a matter of "the voters of Connecticut" ultimately safeguarding all of America and voting out a Teddy Kennedy henchman if they fear he is going too far with terrorist rights. They are almost as bad as Massachusetts voters. Smug in suburbs and convinced they have nothing to worry about since the main targets of radical Islam are in other states.

Dodd also opens up a can of worms for lawsuits by "associates" of foreigners here engaged in espionage.
Reid has to shut him down.
Dodd risks American lives.

Another poster said Obama should rush back to support Dodd's terrorist civil rights and trial lawyer enrichment stand.

He won't.

His advisors would tell him it would be political suicide if Obama is thought to value terrorists being given better rights than the US military soldiers now have with respect to privacy rights. Or Obama being a tool of the trial lawyers like Edwards.

Posted by chris ford | January 24, 2008 1:10 PM

Chris, you've outdone yourself. Usually you're just full of shit, but with that last post you've managed to be almost completely incoherent. Good job.

Posted by justinb | January 24, 2008 1:18 PM

It's not like the Telecom companies benefitted in any way from acceeding to these requests. In fact, I guarantee it cost them time and money to pull these requests. They obviously did it because they thought it was the right thing to do in the wake of 9/11.

I'm open to the argument that the telecom companies-- despite their well-paid counsel who are supposed to figure out whether a governmental request was illegal-- actually should not be held responsible for what was essentially a government policy that I am sure was presented to them as the patriotic thing to go along with in the wake of 9/11.

Nonetheless, what this view overlooks is that these suits present one of the FEW mechanisms for discovering Bush Administration wrongdoing. Indeed, one of the reasons we need these sorts of court actions is because the Congressional Democrats are afraid of investigating the White House on anything that relates in any way to the war on terror.

So, it's this imperfect vehicle (suing the telecommunication companies) or no chance of ever establishing what lawbreakers the Bush Administration were.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 24, 2008 3:01 PM

Indeed, one of the reasons we need these sorts of court actions is because the Congressional Democrats are afraid of investigating the White House on anything that relates in any way to the war on terror.

Which looks to me like more of the "if we can't convince a majority of voters to agree with us let's bypass the ballot box and take it to the courts" tactics that I hate.

And there's also the fanatic's unconcern with side-effects - as pointed out up above, suppose the Feds ask a telco or other large company to do something of questionable legality but obvious social good in some other sort of emergency, such as a massive natural disaster. With this as precedent what sort of cooperation are they going to get?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 24, 2008 3:14 PM

If not, and politicians run away from their responsibilities, what other recourse do "the people" have?

Elect better politicians.

Anyway in this case it looks like the Senate isn't going to run away from its responsibility, it's going to face up to it and make a decision you disagree with.

Posted by ralph phelan | January 24, 2008 11:37 AM

Possibly the most absurd argument I've heard. Ever. The government breaks laws, and we're supposed to just hope we have better luck next time?

I won't call you sh*thead, but I'll sure think it.

Posted by slag | January 24, 2008 3:34 PM

And there's also the fanatic's unconcern with side-effects - as pointed out up above, suppose the Feds ask a telco or other large company to do something of questionable legality but obvious social good in some other sort of emergency, such as a massive natural disaster. With this as precedent what sort of cooperation are they going to get?

3 points:

1. In many, many areas, the law is that cooperation with the government doesn't automatically immunize a corporation. E.g., fourth amendment searches. And yet, there is no evidence that corporations improperly refuse to cooperate with the government.

Of course, Qwest didn't cooperate with the government on this program. But that was the correct decision, given that in fact there is NO obvious social good in allowing unchecked executive surveillance on Americans outside of the FISA or judicial warrant processes.

2. Just because telecoms are denied blanket immunity doesn't mean they will lose the lawsuit, which would need to happen to get the deterrent effect you are positing. It just means we get discovery, including the opportunity to find out everything the Bush Administration knew about the program's illegality. At the end of the process, the Court could still conclude that the telecoms had reason to cooperate with the government and did so in good faith.

3. Even if there is a deterrent effect, the need to investigate the Bush Administration's lawbreaking and the importance of never spying on Americans outside the judicial or FISA process is so crucial that it outweighs a small increase in the possibility that firms may not cooperate with the government.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 24, 2008 3:53 PM

Obama Comes Out Against Telecom Immunity Bill
By Greg Sargent - October 18, 2007, 7:18PM
Barack Obama's campaign has just sent us a statement condemning the Senate FISA bill granting retroactive immunity to the telecoms:

“I have consistently opposed this Administration's efforts to use debates about our national security to expand its own power, whether that was on the Iraq war, or on its power grab to curb our civil liberties through domestic surveillance programs. It is time to restore oversight and accountability in the FISA program, and this proposal -- with an unprecedented grant of retroactive immunity -- is not the place to start.”
Earlier today Chris Dodd said he'd put a hold on the bill, raising questions about where the other Senator-candidates would come down on this. We now have Obama's answer -- against. No statement yet from Hillary on this.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/obama_comes_out_against_telecom_immunity_deal.php

Posted by Mr. Unite Us | January 24, 2008 4:04 PM

I'm open to the argument that the telecom companies ... actually should not be held responsible for what was essentially a government policy that I am sure was presented to them as the patriotic thing to go along with in the wake of 9/11.

Dude, keep up -- this began before 9/11. Out of the clear blue, a peacetime government decided it wanted to start wiretapping Americans. The telecom companies, Qwest excepted, went along with this *without* 9/11 available as an excuse. Oh, and remember they cut the government off when it stopped paying its bill. So much for their patriotic motives.

Which looks to me like more of the "if we can't convince a majority of voters to agree with us let's bypass the ballot box and take it to the courts" tactics that I hate.

Relying exclusively on elections to put the brakes on law-breaking administrations is terribly ineffective and dangerous. Voters only get occasional chances to remove elected presidents. In between times, there has to be some way to ensure that those presidents keep obeying the laws, since the bad effects of their law-breaking do not await the next 'accountability moment'. Moreover, law-breaking administrations can get reelected -- it's bound to happen, since we don't have a single-issue electorate, and the administration may succeed in concealing the extent or even the fact of such law-breaking. That does not negate the fact of the law-breaking.

Our constitutional rights are not supposed to subject to the popular whim or dependent on the effectiveness of opposition parties. The courts exist to protect them at all times and in all political climates, and lawsuits are one vehicle.

Yeah, I'm sure it's tough for a company to be put in that situation. YOu know what? Sometimes citizenship is tough. You make a decision to skirt the law, you accept the consequences. The rest of us have to.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 4:06 PM

Which looks to me like more of the "if we can't convince a majority of voters to agree with us let's bypass the ballot box and take it to the courts" tactics that I hate.

You think Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided, then. To put it another way, I prefer following the law to mob rule and governing by the whims of popular sentiment, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, you did notice people pointing out that the programs began before 9/11, right?

Posted by Cyrus | January 24, 2008 4:20 PM

Wait a second... have we seen "Ralph Phelan" before under a different name?

Posted by Cyrus | January 24, 2008 5:08 PM

Dude, keep up -- this began before 9/11. Out of the clear blue, a peacetime government decided it wanted to start wiretapping Americans. The telecom companies, Qwest excepted, went along with this *without* 9/11 available as an excuse.

Actually, there's some evidence that AT&T was requested to do SOMETHING in February 2001. But there isn't any evidence, yet, that there was domestic surveillance actually occurring before 9/11. That's why we need the lawsuit-- to get the facts out.

Trust me, a knee-jerk leftist anti-corporate posture isn't appropriate here. The fact is that it is actually true that we want corporate America to be cooperative when government officials appeal to their patriotism; this is a tool that can be used for good as well as bad purposes. It is quite possible that the Administration leaned on the telecom companies to do things that were illegal. It is also quite possible that the telecom companies didn't sufficiently investigate the legality of the program, or didn't care.

The reason why we need this suit to go forward is NOT because we are certain of the telecom companies' complicity. It is because we need to find out what the Bush Administration and the telecom companies did.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 24, 2008 5:21 PM

Dilan,

I agree over *why* the suit needs to be allowed to go forward, but this is nonsensical:

The fact is that it is actually true that we want corporate America to be cooperative when government officials appeal to their patriotism; this is a tool that can be used for good as well as bad purposes.

If appeals to patriotism can mask good and bad purposes, why do we want corporate America to respond to such appeals with cooperation? We want it to respond by *obeying the law*. If that means non-cooperation, so be it. Corporate officers are citizens, not soldiers; they don't have a duty of unquestioning obedience any more than the rest of us do.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 5:57 PM

Telecoms did benefit from all this in the form of lucrative government contracts.

Gleen Greenwald documents this,

Also, if telecoms were so patriotic, and so cowed and obliged to obey the president, how come they had the gall to cut FBI wiretap lines for nonpayment of bills?

Posted by akak | January 24, 2008 8:07 PM

If appeals to patriotism can mask good and bad purposes, why do we want corporate America to respond to such appeals with cooperation? We want it to respond by *obeying the law*.

Ryan:

You might think about the following scenario. Huge hurricane hits New Orleans. President receives reports of citizens suffering with no water and no shelter. President gets on the phone with CEO of cruise ship company, which has boat stock with supplies currently sailing towards Miami to pick up passengers which it is contractually and legally obligated to transport. President convinces CEO to breach those contracts and send the boat to New Orleans, where thousands of residents are able to take shelter.

Lyndon Johnson, an imperfect but effective President, did this sort of thing very well.

The point is, there is a such a thing as legitimate executive persuasion during an emergency. The problem is, as usual, that the Bush Administration deploys all of the powers of the Presidency to illegitimate ends.

Again, it may very well turn out that the telecoms are completely responsible and should pay. But if there were better oversight of the Bush Administration, there might be an argument for taking the claim more seriously that they were responding to a personal appeal by the Administration.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 24, 2008 8:40 PM

Dilan, I would tend to agree with your stance on this, but in the matter of your example, note that the cruise line would be in breach of CIVIL contracts - not criminal statutes. So it's not a really good response to the notion that we want corporations to abide by the CRIMINAL law.

I don't want corporations violating criminal law in response to patriotic or emergency concerns. I agree with Ryan in that respect.

Violating civil law is entirely a different matter. Corporations do that all the time and work it out in court or out of court settlements with the aggrieved parties.

However, I agree with you that the purpose of this law should be to enable lawsuits to determine the extent of the violation of civil law.

What Ralph doesn't get is that telecoms turning over private data to an illegal search is not a civil matter. I recognize that granting them immunity to suit IS a civil matter - but the underlying issue is not a civil matter. It is more along the lines of complicity in a conspiracy to evade the law.

Therefore the telecoms should not be granted immunity to civil lawsuits in this matter - but more importantly, they should also be held criminally liable for their participation in any illegal actions of the administration just as they would be if they assisted the Mafia (since there isn't much distinction between the Bush crime family and the Mafia.)

In other words, if your actions under civil law amount to criminal behavior, you should not have immunity against civil suit - any more than O. J. Simpson should be prevented from being sued after a criminal case against him fell apart.

In some situations, civil liability may be all that restrains a corporation from conducting a criminal act.

This is one reason I oppose the very existence of corporations. They are creatures created by the state that invariably end up either owning the state or acting as agents of the state (or both). Giving a corporation the legal status of a "person" is entirely incorrect. It removes responsibility to a large degree from those who really make the decisions and take the actions and the results are obvious in the history of the last century or so. They don't the US system "state capitalism" for nothing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 12:27 AM

Edwards on FISA

Comments (55)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories