Kia Franklin
With “Protectors” Like This…
“It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”—James Madison
Senator Dodd shared this quote last fall during hearing statements on the issue of granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that worked with the federal government to illegally spy on American citizens. Well the shining significance of the quote can be observed today, the third day of this month’s debate over the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA bill. The Senate Judiciary Committee proposed an amendment to the FISA bill which would have eliminated the option of so-called “liability protection” for telecom law-breakers. But by a 60-34 vote, the Senate decided to “table” (a.k.a. toss out) the Senate Judiciary Committee’s FISA amendment, and is instead considering the version of the amendment that provides retroactive immunity.
I’ve already done my frustrated rant about the gall and contempt for the law that seems to be growing in the Bush Administration. A few times. But by grounding this reflection with a theme I hope to provide a more tempered, perhaps slightly more level-headed discussion here. The topic in relation to this afternoon’s affront to our constitutional rights: examining the concept of “liability protection.”
Liability protection. It sounds kind of harmless, like dry political jargon used to describe a reasonable, sensible policy. It protects. It deals with liability. It’s liability protection. But who does it protect? And what’s liable to happen to the rest of us and our rights as citizens as a result?
Bush, Cheney, and executive administration officials have been saying in the past two days that if we don’t scurry and pass this bill, and in the form and fashion that Bush wants it, it’ll be at our peril. They discuss this in a do-or-die fashion that creates a sense of urgency and drama, and also depicts opponents to retroactive immunity as the bad guys who don’t want to protect America. Yet their framing it this way doesn’t make it so, and this time I think the American public is wise enough to recognize that. The Administration has yet to explain how retroactive immunity will really help protect Americans, yet it threatens to veto any version of the FISA bill that doesn’t provide it.
Which leads the reasonable person to conclude that supporters of retroactive immunity are NOT trying to protect America. They’re trying to protect America’s favorite corporate big dogs, and they’re trying to protect the executive branch’s unfettered power to wave the wand and say magic words like “executive privilege” and “classified information,” etc., in order to get out of any mess they make, regardless of the repercussions for real people. That’s what I call off the hook protection.
Who’s being protected? Well, what’s at stake here? Let’s see— I’m writing this blog. After that, I’ll probably check my e-mail. Then I’ll go home. On my way home I might send a text message or two. When I get home I’ll check in on my dad by giving him a call. Maybe I’ll do some online shopping. Maybe I’ll log on to some websites where I need a password. Maybe I’ll read DMI Blog. All of these activies could be catalogued and tracked and used for—well, I don’t know what for, because that’s a secret, too, under the current regime. And I could do nothing about it.
Something about the Fourth Amendment is just nagging at me right now, something about being secure in my person, home, papers, and effects. Hmmm….
But spying on me is for my safety, I’m told. And not just authorized, I got a warrant spying. But plain old blatantly not okay unwarranted spying. That’s for my protection. And you know what else is for the American public’s protection? Eliminating our right to hold those who illegally spy on us accountable for illegally spying. Yes, the President tells us that if the Senate doesn’t provide “meaningul liability protection” it’s putting the American public at risk of danger.
The best protection against liability is to not do things that make you liable for violating people’s constitutional rights. Now that’s real meaningful liability protection.
Senator Dodd’s statements on the issue are worth revisiting. Check it out:
Posted at 7:12 AM, Jan 25, 2008 in Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
