CategoriesJoin Us At:
|
Phone Companies: Patriots, or Lawbreakers?
We're getting awfully tired of hearing Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell talk about how "patriotic" the phone companies are for assisting the government in spying on customers, violating their Fourth Amendment rights.
Well, over the weekend, that same kind of patriotism rhetoric reappeared when McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey were furiously backpedaling on prior statements about dead wiretaps as a result of inaction on the FISA bill before the House. The L.A. Times reports: [A]dministration officials told lawmakers on the House and Senate intelligence committees that they had prevailed upon all of the telecommunications companies to continue cooperating with the government's requests for information while negotiations with Congress continue."Prevailed upon?" Just a reminder to everyone, the telephone companies aren't doing Americans or the U.S. government any favors: They're being paid to execute these warrantless wiretaps, and when those bills aren't paid, they pull the plug on the wiretaps. And just to rub salt in the constitutional wound, it's your tax dollars that are paying the phone companies to spy on you. So no, the phone companies don't need to be "prevailed upon" to wiretap us. They just need to be paid. Bush continues to speechify on behalf of the telecoms. Yesterday he said: "Our government told them that their participation was necessary," Bush said. "And it was, and it still is, and that what we had asked them to do was legal. And now they're getting sued for billions of dollars. And it's not fair."But is it fair, Mr. President, to force taxpayers to foot the bill for your illegal spy program? That's right, illegal. After all, if it weren't illegal, the companies wouldn't need immunity from lawsuits, now would it?
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
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.