[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[Laurie Solomon]

I don't think I said that the telecoms were "asleep at the switch" as being
the reason that they failed to challenge the government - or at least, I did
not intend to imply such a reason.  I think that the decisions to comply and
not challenge the government requests were deliberate, made knowingly with
full and complete knowledge of the companies and their legal advisors, and
as you suggest with some expectation that  "some concessions would be given
and the telecoms participated enthusiastically as a result of some quid pro
quo."  As Stuart notes, the fact that Qwest refused to comply and decided to
challenge the government request indicates to me that the companies saw that
they had some options and made their decisions based on their evaluation of
the cost benefits of complying versus not complying.

 

If I have misinterpreted to whom your reply was being directed, I apologize.

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
Johnson
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 8:07 AM
To: LAURIE
Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

 

I doubt that the telecoms were "asleep at the switch" and "failede to
challenge the government".  The FCC and antitrust laws have significant
impact on the telecommunications business.  It is most likely that some
concessions were given and the telecoms participated enthusiastically as a
result of some quid pro quo.

LAURIE wrote: 

I would respectfully submit that the telecoms liability comes from their not
challenging the government's right to demand and obtain their cooperation
without obtaining a court order to do so, without any specification as to
the extent and time limits of such wiretapping, and without notifying their
customers who had an expectation of privacy that the companies were
participating in and complying with the government's requests for such
wiretapping. 

  

> Isn't it more important to restore our constitutional rights than to
create some legal liability for telecoms?  

  

Why not do both?  When an actor knowing acts in compliance with an illegal
order or law without getting beforehand in writing a formal statement of
being held harmless for their actions by those who they complying with; it
seems that they knowingly assume the responsibility for  and future
consequences of their actions and should not be excused after the fact.  I
am not sure that constitutional issues with the law are identical as
liability issues connected with acting under a law which may create economic
and social hardships to third parties of which they are deliberately being
kept in the dark about but from which the companies are profiting in the
sense of charging them for the types and quality of services that they
thought they were contracting for but were not getting.  At minimum, maybe
the companies should be forced to return the payments of their customers who
thought that they were contracting for private communications avenues free
from interception without their knowledge or a specific court order, which
they could either fight in a courtroom or terminate service because of.  

  

I guess I fail to see any difference between holding the telcoms responsible
for complying with an unlawful law and holding soldiers responsible for
following illegal orders from superiors even though the orders have been
justified by a law allowing them as in cases of war crimes where a national
law allows for such action although those acting in compliance with that law
are held accountable as war criminals.  To be sure, the telecoms are not war
criminals (maybe they are given they were involved in a war against terror);
but they still might be common criminals - after all there were many
libraries and other institutions that refused to comply with the government
requests under FISA and challenged the government rather than voluntarily
acting as government agents. 

  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080627/6c1085f7/attachment.htm