16 Comments

The Wall Street Journal also had an editorial on this subject.

I think we’re taking a big leap of faith if we’re assuming that these wiretap setups were solely for the monitoring of calls with an endpoint outside of the US. And that is why these lawsuits are appropriate, because the telecom companies allowed the government to get access to calls over their network when the government obviously didn’t follow the proper laws to allow this access.

If national security trumps the law, we might as well force people to feed and house soldiers in every domicile and business along the US borders, just to make sure we are safe from terrorist.

XMAS:

“…the telecom companies allowed the government to get access to calls over their network when the government obviously didn’t follow the proper laws…”

The government acts unlawfully, therefore, its OK to sue private companies?

If the “law” is paramount, can we assume that if a “law” is passed providing limited immunity to these companies, all will be fine with you?

If US troops stationed at the border are all that stand between terrorists and my family, I sincerely hope you and your lawyer friends are not on site to point out additional US Code infractions.

“…might as well force people to feed and house soldiers in every domicile and business along the US borders…”

(I have a suspicion that many US residents along the Mexican border would be more than happy to house and feed a few overdue US troops.)

Even if a homeowner was “forced” to feed soldiers peanut butter sanwiches, would you assert subsequent lawsuits against Jiffy and Peter Pan were approproate?

Instead of immunity, why not indemnity? Since the government is so sure the requested actions are legal, and since the government is supposedly in need of the information; then the government should bear the risk of litigation.

This would protect the private sector while ensuring that, if the government acts illegally, someone can be held accountable.

Sorry for the bad link. Here is the proper link for the
Wall Street Journal article.

For some reason people seem to forget (or don’t care) that foreign terrorists, not US citizens, were the target of the phone taps. In some cases both ends of the conversation were in foreign countries but the telephone lines went through the US. Should the telephone companies also be sued for tapping those conversations?

This article amounts to a Nuremberg Defense: “We were only acting on orders from the government, so surely we shouldn’t be prosecuted.”

I don’t get it.

What’s the difference between what you propose and letting the government have the phone company monitor ALL of our calls? That would also be illegal, but could make us safer. How about we also allow the government to induce television manufacturers to insert cameras and microphones into every TV — think of all the terrorists we’d catch!

Personally, I’d rather be killed by terrorists than live in a police state, which is the obvious outcome should you get your wish.

If making AT&T pay up is a baby step toward freedom, then it’s a good thing.

There are intermediate stages between the Nuremberg defense and independent strict liability for guessing wrong on the legality of a matter. One should be entitled to rely upon a good-faith government request that isn’t clearly illegal.

There are intermediate stages between the Nuremberg defense and independent strict liability for guessing wrong on the legality of a matter. One should be entitled to rely upon a good-faith government request that isn’t clearly illegal.

Then you are talking about qualified, not absolute, immunity. Which would require, at a minimum, some discovery to determine what the government told the phone companies, and whether they relied in good faith.

For some reason people seem to forget (or don’t care) that foreign terrorists, not US citizens, were the target of the phone taps.

So the government has said. Even if that’s true, I don’t trust the federal government with too much power – for good reason, I’d argue.

Again, the government should simply pass a law whereby it agrees to indemnify private telecom companies from suit – including bearing the private companies’ costs of complying with discovery orders. This ensures that guilty parties do not escape accountability, but prevents private companies from facing “strict liability for guessing wrong on the legality of a matter.”

I do not oppose protecting the good-faith deeds of people in the private sector. I do oppose grants of immunity – immunity from suit means discovery cannot even occur. Which means it wouldn’t even be possible to learn what phone records were provided to the government.

Again, according to a WSJ Op-Ed cited in the earlier post on this subject, FISA apparently creates a safe harbor for companies who act pursuant to a certification from an appropriate DOJ official that no warrant is necessary. In other words, immunity is already available with minimal effort. In light of that option, this new legislation does not seem necessary.

While it is nice that FISA provides a safe harbor option, doesn’t it strike people as wrong that companies now seem to need detailed knowledge of every federal law and need to review it in order to comply with a government request? Just being asked now carries an enormous financial cost.

Imagine a CEO testifying before Congress responding to every question, “I’ll have to get back to you once the lawyers make sure my telling you that won’t violate some statute and make us liable for Billions.”

Given the government’s repeated claims of the legality of the program, the correct path certainly seems to be indemnity, not immunity. Curious though, and I guess we’ll have to wait until discovery if it ever takes place, whether indemnity was discussed or included when the government contracted for these services. If it was specifically not included when the agreement to implement this program was reached, I don’t see any reason to go even that far to help out the telecoms now.

The thing about this that is most silly is that most such tappings, as I understand it, aren’t even actionable, even if both partied are in the US, as long as the information gathered is not used against the US citizen.

That is (and I could be wrong), the government could tap your phone for the rest of time, listen in, glean some information that allows them to catch a terrorist outside the country, and, as long as nothing is done TO YOU, you have no cause of action.

(The difficulty here is that we, with good reason, don’t trust the government not to use such information.)

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but that’s what I’ve picked up from following a few cases… somebody want to help me out?

Mike, you really are trying to give paranoia a bad name. I’m afraid that there are certain things, like foreign intelligence operations, i.e., spying, that you should not be privy to no matter how little you trust the government.

I do oppose grants of immunity – immunity from suit means discovery cannot even occur. Which means it wouldn’t even be possible to learn what phone records were provided to the government.

Do you really expect that the identity of any and all foreign individuals be made available through the process of discovery in a lawsuit against the phone companies? Why don’t we just do our intelligence operations out in the open to alleviate your fears that you are being spied upon. I would suggest that you worry a little less about hypothetical threats against you by your government, and a little more about real threats from Islamic terrorists.

For some reason people seem to forget (or don’t care) that foreign terrorists, not US citizens, were the target of the phone taps.

This is hilarious. So I guess the new motto for libertarians is “In Government We Trust?”

66-70-83,

Um, when it comes to country-level activities, such as espionage and catching official and self-avowed enemies of our country, who have publicly declared that they want to kill us all, whom do you suggest instead?

That’s a serious question, by the way – I dislike trusting government. I just haven’t heard a suggstd alternativ that wasn’t stark raving insane.

Public defense (as in, war and defending the country for foreigners) is one of the few government powers that libertarians will almost unanimously agree that the government SHOULD have… in fact, I’ve hard many libertarians say that it’s practically the ONLY thing the government should do.