Opinion
Telecom Immunity
Laurance Frierson
Issue date: 2/26/08 Section: Opinion
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): Now, the president admitted that he did that. Every 45 days he signed an authorization to direct the surveillance of people in the United States without a warrant as required by the FISA act.
Now, I had previously asked your predecessor, Attorney General Gonzales, given this apparent prima facie case that the president and people under him, including the prior attorney general, engaged in felonious conduct by doing so, that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the warrantless surveillance of Americans.
…Given the extraordinary circumstances involved, allegations of criminal conduct by the president and other high-ranking officials and the possibility of conflict at the Justice Department, will you now agree to appoint outside special counsel so that we finally will get an answer to this question?
Attorney General Michael Mukasey: The direct answer to your question is no, I will not. (February 7, 2008 - House Judiciary Committee)
For over five years, companies such as AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon illegally funneled Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet activity to the National Security Agency in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In the absence of government accountability, private citizens have been forced to sue telecom companies to discover the extent to which their constitutional rights were violated. Now, under the pressure of expiring sunset provisions, Congress is preparing to pass legislation that will award telecom companies with retroactive immunity for the warrantless surveillance of telephone and internet communications inside the United States. Telecom immunity denies victims redress for illegal surveillance and violations of their civil liberties, rewards telecom companies for breaking the law - and, should be unequivocally rejected by Congress.
Contrary to White House protests, the purpose of retroactive immunity is not to protect telecom companies for their "heroic" cooperation in the support of the "war on terror." Quite the opposite, by dismissing over 38 currently pending civil lawsuits and preventing any future legal action, telecom immunity is a way for the Bush administration to protect itself from disclosing the full extent to which it illegally spied on Americans in the years following 9/11. The Bush administration has prevented criminal investigation of the matter by instructing the Department of Justice to punt; with telecom immunity, they will close the door for civil actions and effectively block all judicial review of warrantless surveillance.
Now, I had previously asked your predecessor, Attorney General Gonzales, given this apparent prima facie case that the president and people under him, including the prior attorney general, engaged in felonious conduct by doing so, that he appoint a special counsel to investigate the warrantless surveillance of Americans.
…Given the extraordinary circumstances involved, allegations of criminal conduct by the president and other high-ranking officials and the possibility of conflict at the Justice Department, will you now agree to appoint outside special counsel so that we finally will get an answer to this question?
Attorney General Michael Mukasey: The direct answer to your question is no, I will not. (February 7, 2008 - House Judiciary Committee)
For over five years, companies such as AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon illegally funneled Americans' phone calls, emails, and internet activity to the National Security Agency in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In the absence of government accountability, private citizens have been forced to sue telecom companies to discover the extent to which their constitutional rights were violated. Now, under the pressure of expiring sunset provisions, Congress is preparing to pass legislation that will award telecom companies with retroactive immunity for the warrantless surveillance of telephone and internet communications inside the United States. Telecom immunity denies victims redress for illegal surveillance and violations of their civil liberties, rewards telecom companies for breaking the law - and, should be unequivocally rejected by Congress.
Contrary to White House protests, the purpose of retroactive immunity is not to protect telecom companies for their "heroic" cooperation in the support of the "war on terror." Quite the opposite, by dismissing over 38 currently pending civil lawsuits and preventing any future legal action, telecom immunity is a way for the Bush administration to protect itself from disclosing the full extent to which it illegally spied on Americans in the years following 9/11. The Bush administration has prevented criminal investigation of the matter by instructing the Department of Justice to punt; with telecom immunity, they will close the door for civil actions and effectively block all judicial review of warrantless surveillance.
Be the first to comment on this story