CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Immunity By Any Other NameIt's the calm before the storm, as my D.C. colleague Mandy Simon calls this week's FISA maneuverings. The Hill reports that Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) predicts passage of Senator Kit Bond's FISA proposal in the Senate. Bond's FISA "compromise" cohort Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said through a spokesperson: Whatever we produce will make the necessary fixes to the FISA law, enhance protection of civil liberties and not provide immunity to telecoms or anyone else for the president's program.Call us skeptical, but Bond and Co. never seemed all that concerned about protecting Americans' civil liberties or privacy. (Especially not Rockefeller; immunity is telco money in the bank for him.) Caroline Fredrickson, our Legislative Director, says it's a sham, and explains why. In an email to ACLU members, Caroline says: There’s a deeply disturbing premise behind this dangerous FISA legislation: The president simply had to claim his request was legal for immunity to be granted to telecom companies that illegally handed over personal information.Or, as Threat Level's Ryan Singel puts it: That's a slam dunk for immunity, since the existence of those request or orders already known to be true from the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on warrantless wiretapping — but there is nothing in the law that says a letter from the president trumps the law's requirement for a court order for surveillance of Americans.We're urging everyone to pressure their Congress members to reject this wolf in sheep's clothing. The only "compromise" here is a compromise to all Americans' right to privacy and due process.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites. We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published. Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section. 1 Response to "Immunity By Any Other Name" |
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Jun 17th, 2008 at 8:14pm
Bad things are going on in Sweden, too!
Check this out, the Swedish parliament may pass an evil surveillance law TOMORROW:
And please act, if you can.