Telecommunications companies immunity

Unfortunately, my plea to the senator for the area I live in has fallen on deaf ears. He apparently believes that the telco’s acted patriotically by violating the highest law of our land. I’ve stuck his email with my reply to it intertwined here. Click through to see it.

Ron Paul would never have put forth such legislation that so very explicitly violates the liberties of Americans.

 

SenateWebmail@cornyn.senate.gov wrote:

> Dear Mr. Kowis:
> 
> Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Intelligence
> Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). I appreciate having the benefit of your
> comments on this important national security matter.
> 
> Gathering communications intelligence is one of America’s front lines of
> defense in the War on Terror. As you may know, Congress passed the
> Protect America Act (P.L. 110–55) in August 2007, modernizing FISA to
> give intelligence professionals the tools they urgently need to gather
> information, while still protecting the civil liberties of Americans.
> Senator John Rockefeller introduced the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 (S.
> 2248) on October 26, 2007, in an effort to continue this vital work. S.
> 2248 would expand the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
> Court, empowering the Court to have more scrutiny over surveillance
> procedures and acquisitions. This legislation also increases
> congressional oversight of surveillance matters by increasing reporting
> requirements and requiring audits by the Inspector General.
> 
> Changes to FISA included in S. 2248 would further provide civil immunity
> for communications carriers that assisted the government with
> surveillance in the past, as well as create civil immunity for future
> assistance. Communications carriers are currently facing billions of
> dollars in lawsuits for their role in assisting the National Security
> Agency’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, instituted after the September
> 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Terrorist Surveillance Program worked
> to thwart terrorist attacks by intercepting communications between
> suspected terrorists overseas and potential operatives within the United
> States. Though acting without a court warrant, the program was conducted
> under the President's broad authority to protect and defend the nation.
> Communications carriers provided invaluable assistance, relying on
> official assurances of legality. While the process of litigation is
> integral to our system of laws, I believe it is unfair to punish the
> communications companies for patriotic compliance with the federal
> government’s War on Terror.

It's unfair to punish the communications companies for willfully
breaking the law? The position of the President is not above the
Constitution. If I recall correctly, the job of the President, that he
swore to do upon entering office, is to "uphold and defend the
Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic." Such legislation
shouldn't have been passed in any form or fashion.  The Constitution
specifically prohibits search without a warrant in the fourth amendment
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)

A true patriot would realize this and protect the highest form of law in
our land, not subvert it.

Civil immunity for future "assistance" is one of the worst ideas I've
ever heard of. This is akin to telling someone they have no consequences
for their actions, effectively putting that person above the law. The
communications corporations that I rely on to conduct business, and
personal communication, must be held accountable for their actions. I
would expect the same for myself, and anyone else. Responsibility is a
trait this country, in general, is losing.

> 
> Providing civil immunity for communications carriers that assist
> government surveillance in the future is important to ensuring the
> effective collection of intelligence. Communications technology has
> become increasingly complex, requiring the voluntary cooperation of
> carriers to effectively gather information. Without this cooperation,
> the intelligence efforts of the United States will be severely
> debilitated. Providing immunity allows communications carriers to rely
> on official assurances of necessity and legality and guarantees their
> much needed cooperation. It is important to note that the bill does not
> grant immunity to government officials. Additionally, I was pleased that
> S. 2248 was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate Intelligence
> Committee, by a bipartisan vote of 13–2. On February 12, 2008, the
> Senate approved S. 2248 by a vote of by 68-29, proving that members can
> work together in a bipartisan manner to improve our national security.

The intelligence gathering of the United States will not be hampered.
Spying on citizens without a warrant will be hampered. Intelligence
gathering on people in foreign nations is perfectly acceptable, and
should happen. However, spying on people within the United States is
unconstitutional and goes against everything this country was founded
on. Unfortunately, it will be very difficult to identify government
officials that have worked with communications companies. Especially if
the companies are offered immunity. They can destroy records of any
contact and can deny anything.

> 
> As a member of both the Senate Armed Services and Judiciary Committees,
> I am committed to ensuring that we appropriately balance our national
> security needs and the protection of our civil liberties. I believe that
> the amended FISA bill, including the immunity provision for
> communications carriers, strikes this much needed balance. I appreciate
> the opportunity to represent the interests of Texans in the United
> States Senate, and am thankful for your comments as the Senate considers
> this important legislation.

I do not believe that giving up liberties to garner a very small amount
of security is worth anything at all. This "balance" you believe you've
struck is ruining the United States of America. You're stealing
liberties that make this country great. No company, person, or
organization should be above the law. I do not feel that you accurately
represent the interests of Texans in the US Senate, especially not me.
--
David Kowis
==================================================================
|       www.ronpaul2008.com      |    www.sourcemage.org         |
|      Ron Paul for President!   |   SourceMage GNU/Linux        |
==================================================================

Be Sociable, Share!

•