Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues To Overturn Telecom Immunity
Mike writes "The title says it all — The EFF is suing to have the unconstitutional telecom immunity overturned. 'In a brief filed in the US District Court [PDF] in San Francisco, the EFF argues that the flawed FISA Amendments Act (FAA) violates the federal government's separation of powers as established in the Constitution and robs innocent telecom customers of their rights without due process of law. [...] "We have overwhelming record evidence that the domestic spying program is operating far outside the bounds of the law," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it."'"
Intelligence agencies, telecoms, and the Administration want to sweep this case under the rug, but the Constitution won't permit it.
This administration does what it wants, without repercussions. They've already done several things that go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They don't care, won't care, and have never cared about trifles like the founding documents of the country.
What will happen? W will claim executive privilege, file papers blocking the motion, then make looking at the papers illegal again citing executive privilege.
It's Orwellian, but that - or something equally bizarre - is what will happen. Count on it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Help us continue this fight: http://secure.eff.org/wiretapping
We've just opened a new page for student rates: http://www.eff.org/students
Third-party details on how EFF compares to other non-profit groups: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7576
(Unlike many groups, the vast majority of EFF's funding comes from individual donations: it's directly due to personal contributions that we can fight these and civil liberty cases.)
The problem is 49% of Americans don't understand what we fought for in the revolution, or in the World Wars. They thing that "fighting for freedom" means going to another country. They think freedom means more TV channels. They think it is okay for the government to ignore the constitution if there is a 1 in a billion chance it will stop another 9/11.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance"
(Unknown - attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
Right, I understand that the administration does what it wants ignoring the consitution, and I want to see them jailed for it. And I understand that telecoms were complicit in that. That's about all I know about the case right now.
It seems a bit different from someone driving the getaway car for a bank heist, if nothing else in scale of the crime. Have any laws been broken by the telecos? Is there a law saying that you must obey the constitution even when ordered not to by the government? There is a law against aiding and abetting someone who robs a bank, but I would imagine there's no law against aiding the president when he urinates on the constitution. Is it that they broke privacy laws without a proper warant?
It seems to me that if I were the owner of a telecom company, and some government agent or the president was telling me to turn over documents, I'd consult my lawyers, sure, but if they came back with "Uh... we really have no clue as to what you should do, there's not much precedent here..." then what? If this was a case of the executive branch saying "We passed this law that says you have to turn over these documents to us or you're going to jail, we don't need a warrant," what is the teleco supposed to do? Claim powers of judicial review, say the president is being unconstitutional, and no?
I'm sure most slashdotters know how painful that is!
...
No. No, we do not. I don't know where you got your ideas of the typical slashdotter's sexual activities, but they scare me.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Without a suit being filed, unconstitutional laws get to stay on the books, and they get enforced.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
I'll just invoke the American Politics version of Goodwin's Law here (hereafter the Nixon-Goodwin Law) and note that this kind of thinking was what prompted Nixon to push directly or indirectly (it is never quite clear how much he knew in advance) for the Watergate break-in and it's subsequent coverup. For Nixon the idea of losing the election was too much to bear.
Now W may not be so far gone as to think he can just refuse to leave but the idea that he or overzealous supporters (of the type Nixon had) might go to great lengths to see McCain in, the man Bush said would lead his legacy in Iraq, well that is different.
Note that I am not claiming McCain would do this or that it is being done. Nor am I claiming that other Republicans might not be horrified by it, There were Republicans who were, arguably, more angry with Nixon than others. Some of them such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had to wait a long time to get back into the Whitehouse (Cheney was then an aide and Rumsfeld a Deputy Secretary of Defense).
However When Nixon did it, angry as people were no mobs formed and noone swung from trees. Indeed some of the key players such as G. Gordon Liddy are out today and practicing politics once more.
More likely if nasty things occur and are discovered then some heads will roll but for those at the top they will, like Nixon, merely go home to be pardoned by their successor so that the nation "can heal".
Lets be honest. Steal small and you go to a supermax. Steal big and you merely go home to live off your ill-gotten gains as Nixon did.