Telecom Companies Seek Retroactive Immunity

kidcharles writes "Newsweek reports that a secretive lobbying campaign has been launched by telecommunications companies who are seeking retroactive immunity from private lawsuits over their cooperation with the NSA in the so-called 'terrorist surveillance program.' Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has claimed that lawsuits could 'bankrupt these companies.' The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a lawsuit against AT&T over their cooperation in the domestic spying program. EFF legal director Cindy Cohen said of the lobbying campaign, 'They are trying to completely immunize this [the surveillance program] from any kind of judicial review. I find it a little shocking that Congress would participate in the covering up of what has been going on.'"

Comments

Why shocking?

[spooje]

Why is anyone surprised Congress would be hushing this up? If the companies get sued for huge sums, then where will they get money to bribe congressmen?

Ex Post Facto laws unconstituional?

[lawpoop]

Excuse me, but aren't ex post facto laws specifically forbidden by the constitution?

Article 1, Section 9:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. My understanding is that an ex post facto law works both ways: You can't make illegal activities that were legal in the past; nor can you make legal activities that were illegal in the past. In other words, you can't change the legal status of actions in the past.

Re:Not quite

[fangorious]

Qwest said no.

command and control

[schwaang]

It's actually in the long-term best interests of all companies to *not* have this immunity.

This just enables a form of government interference in corporations that is even worse than regulatory laws. Regulations get made in the open and are subject to lobbying and court rulings. Whereas the NSA warrantless spying amounts to the commandeering of the corporate assets and procedures and is enforced by secret laws that (apparently) cannot be challenged in court in any reasonable way.

Even with recompensation that returns a profit on investment, this is a bad deal for corporate independence.

Re:Not quite

[WindowlessView]

And yes, you can say that AT&T and such should not have complied, but nobody outside of the top brass at AT&T know what they were threatened with.

Isn't this the kind of thing that once upon a time the Free Press leaked, Congress investigated, and the Justice Department prosecuted? Maybe it time people stopped mumbling the mindless incantation that "everything changed after 9/11" and using it as an excuse to abdicate their responsibilities and justify not upholding the law.