“We believe immunity is necessary, both as a matter of fundamental surveillance and to make sure providers will continue to cooperate.”

This is EXACTLY what I asked Sen. Dodd about here at FDL.

.

Ooooh! Good Catch! So they ARE STILL cooperating…but if they don’t get immunity they fear the program is illegala nd Unconstitutional. Apparently SOME lawyers versed in the Constitution don’t think that the directives are “legal” despite what the NSA and DOJ says!

radiofreewill @ 20

Philbin: It’s a question of fairness. The Gov went to the Telecoms right after 911 and said we need you to cooperate with our new program, it’s legal, and the right thing to do.

Wait a minute – “the government went to the telecoms right AFTER 911″?
Qwest sez the government came to them 6 months before 911.

Probable Answer. After Qwest refused (and the other Telecoms said that they didn’t keep “community of interest” records) they came back with a revised “Administrative Subpoena”. THAT was after 9/11.

Leahy: This is disengenuous circular-reasoning that protects the Gov from oversight, and you are attempting to use it to cover the Telecoms.

Philbin: We’re not going to deal with the Constitutionality of the issues here. We’re simply here to talk about fixing FISA.

But fixing FISA must be done within the framework of the Constitution. Courts decide issues of Constitutionality. Granting amnesty and enshrouding the rime in secrecy prevents courts from ever dealing with the issue.

Leahy asking right off the bat – What documents were presented to the Telecoms? Why do the Telecoms think it’s legal?

Philbin: It’s a question of fairness. The Gov went to the Telecoms right after 911 and said we need you to cooperate with our new program, it’s legal, and the right thing to do.

Leahy: Why are asking for immunity if it was legal?

Philbin: It’s a question of fairness. We asked them to do something patriotic and they did. Now we can’t punish them for it.

Repeat with me…if it was legal then how can they be punished? Why would they need immunity?

If we were to publicly disclose the nature of the order, we would be helping our enemies to hurt us. Also, if we disclose which Telecoms cooperated with the Gov, then those Telecoms who have international presences might be at risk.

Hmm! So some were “patriotic” and others not so patriotic? If it was legal how could the ones that deferred deny a legal directive? Why not take them to court? Especially if they were obstructing justice?

Did they just indirectly say that they will be prosecuting ordinary people IF during their search of telecoms they find some improprieties!??!?!!

Hatch up!

W: The Telecoms were acting patriotically. The bill strikes a nice middle ground.

W: The intelligence need trumps privacy.

D: When I use my cellphone, I expect privacy from the Telecom, unless -

- the Gov has a warrant, or
- other legal authorization

Did any Telecoms refuse to cooperate?

W: I can’t say, I wasn’t here at the time.

D: Let’s do a hypothetical and assume one Telecom refused to cooperate. Should that be cause to investigate the legality?

W: The Telecom had the assurance of the president, that should be good enough. The telecom could be wrong to refuse.

Now, some people want to extend US rights to enemy combatants in a war zone – that’s not right.

We follow the ‘enemy’ because we are at war, not for crime reasons. No warrant needed for that.

Graham is saying that the ‘terrorists’ win when we let them use our legal system to their advantage.

We are at War.

On retro-active immunity for Telecoms – what chilling effect would that have in the future to get Corporations to help us in national emergencies?

W: Exactly! If we don’t give the Telecoms immunity, we are chilling the future response of corporations, who will fear prosecution.