USAToday: Our view on security vs. privacy: Bush uses scare tactics to railroad flawed spying act Blanket immunity for phone firms encourages illegal surveillance.

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: bobr () bobrosenberg phoenix az us [bobr () bobrosenberg phoenix az us]

"Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly
repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and
creates a country where everyone lives in fear."
-- President Harry S. Truman, message to Congress, August 8, 1950

"Civil government cannot let any group ride roughshod over others simply because
their consciences tell them to do so."
-- Justice Robert H. Jackson
While an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Jackson was appointed
Chief United States Prosecutor at the International War Crimes Tribunal in
Nuremberg, Germany.



USAToday
Our view on security vs. privacy: Bush uses scare tactics to railroad flawed spying act
Blanket immunity for phone firms encourages illegal surveillance.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/index.html#entry-45587130

President Bush is rarely as vivid about the specter of terrorism as he is when he's
trying to stampede Congress into doing something it should think twice about. On
Wednesday, he demanded quick passage of a flawed surveillance measure because
"terrorists are planning attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by
comparison."

Whoa. There's little dispute that terrorists want to strike the United States in
horrific ways, or that the government should aggressively hunt them down and stop
them. But there's a legitimate debate over how much of Americans' hard-won civil
liberties it's necessary to trade away to fight and win, and how much to curtail the
traditional role of judges in overseeing wiretapping that involves Americans. The
president has frequently gotten this trade-off wrong, and he's doing it again.

Bush wants to extend for six more years the broad eavesdropping powers a too-pliant
Congress temporarily gave him last August. That law effectively legalized the
illegal wiretapping the administration had already been conducting for years on
Bush's say-so. In a troubling twist, the follow-on measure approved by the Senate on
Tuesday would also grant amnesty to phone companies that conducted the warrantless
eavesdropping and now face about 40 lawsuits.

It's regrettable that the Senate, including 19 Democrats, rolled over to the demands
of the administration and telecommunication lobby. History shows that when judicial
oversight is reduced, government agencies' snooping inevitably extends beyond
national security threats to political opponents, journalists, protesters and other
domestic annoyances. When an administration tries to end run the law,
telecommunication companies should be a crucial last line of resistance to protect
your privacy.

In this case, though, most of the companies knuckled under after being told that the
president had authorized surveillance and that the attorney general had certified it
was lawful. But the law at the time — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act —
was explicit. Intercepting phone calls and e-mails when one end of the communication
is in the USA required a warrant from the special FISA court, which approves more
than 99% of applications. There were limited exceptions, but "the president says
it's OK " was not one of them.

Bush warns that if phone companies don't get immunity, they'll never cooperate
again. That's a concern, but it's doubtful that companies would rebuff lawful
requests. Of greater concern is the message that illegal activity is acceptable and
will be forgiven. While companies that thought they were acting patriotically don't
deserve to be driven into bankruptcy, blanket immunity seems premature, particularly
because the administration has stonewalled most requests for documents that would
show what they did.

Bush is pressing the House to accept the Senate bill and refusing to temporarily
extend the current law, which expires on Saturday. That's irresponsible. The House
and Senate need time to negotiate their differences because the House has no telecom
immunity provision. Bush's implication that expiration of the law would expose the
nation to terrorist danger is worse than disingenuous: The eavesdropping
authorizations under the law continue for a year. Crucial decisions about civil
liberties in an age of terror shouldn't be driven by fear-mongering.

Posted at 12:22 AM/ET, February 14, 2008




-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com