« Crime reporter | Main | Sunday Afternoon Reading Round Up »

Finally, A Good Deed Goes Unpunished

I really need to be slightly less skeptical about the current Democratic Congress. Once again, they have done the right thing -- after, as Winston Churchill once said about Americans in general, "exhausting all other options."

They finally passed a law explicitly granting immunity to the telephone companies for cooperating with the government on tracing and/or tapping communications between foreign sources believed linked to terrorism and people within the United States. (To the best of my knowledge, it was indeed limited to communications where at least one party was outside the US at the time.) Opponents of the Bush administration wanted to sue the phone companies for aiding and abetting this program.

It's probably a bad idea to take legal advice from a work of fiction, but in Tom Clancy's "Clear And Present Danger," an FBI agent says that a CIA officer who's gotten involved in a rogue intelligence operation is not in any personal legal risk. The agent says that there was a legal precedent out of Watergate -- "Martinez-Barker" -- where two of the burglars were exonerated for the break-in because they were acting in good faith and carrying out what they had very good cause to believe were legally sanctioned activities by the United States government. The basic idea was that the burglars (and, likewise, the CIA officer) had every reason to believe they were acting under the sanction of the United States government, and not acting out of malice or greed or for any personal gain.

In the Watergate case, the real crime was committed by those who sent the burglars and persuaded them that they were acting under color of law. The burglars themselves were pawns, carrrying out what they thought were legal (albeit highly unusual) activities. Likewise, Clancy's CIA officer had been acting with the authorization of his superiors -- who were, themselves, acting in defiance of the law.

I can't find an online reference to back up Clancy's assertion, but to me the ethical principle behind his argument is sound. When the government comes to you and asks for your cooperation in fighting terrorism, there really ought to be a good-faith assumption that what they are asking you to do is legal. And if you have your doubts, then -- in most cases -- you should be able to rely on their assurances that you will not be putting yourself at any risk -- physical or legal.

This is not to say that it creates any sort of legal obligation to do so, or that such requests should completely bypass the individual or corporation's own conscience and reason. But that should be reserved -- like illegal orders in the military -- for the most egregious examples. For example, if an FBI agent comes up to you and says "we need you to kill Bob down the street," then one should not bypass one's own judgment and just kill Bob, saying that "if this guy from the FBI told me to do it, it must be OK."

In this case, the government agents who approached the telecom companies had carefully written and prepared legal documents demonstrating that what they were asking for was legal, so the telecoms had no reason to argue with them on that basis. To punish them for their cooperation is just wrong.

Now, if the deeds were actually illegal, then the government officials who arranged for it should be punished. They are the ones with the intent. Those who carried out the deeds -- in good faith, trusting that the government knew what it was doing -- should not be punished.

So, why the big push to keep the telecoms on the legal hook for what they did?

Quite simply, it's ideological. It's a move by the opponents of the Bush administration to lash out and cause some harm, however they can.

Look at it from their perspective. For all their successes as measured by public polling in demonizing the Bush administration, they have been continually stymied in efforts to actually put deeds to their words. Despite numerous attempts to end the war in Iraq, they have never succeeded (and, I think, haven't even tried) to repeal the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that gave the Bush administration its legal founding for the invasion and occupation. They have been blocked at every attempt to cut the funding, or attach strings to it that would bring the fighting to an end (by giving up). Their legal challenges have been thwarted at most every turn (witness the aftermath of the "Haditha massacre" -- every single Marine brought up on charges has been acquitted thus far, despite Representative Jack Murtha's pronouncing them guilty from the outset). While they describe the war as an uninterrupted string of disasters, failures, wrong decisions, and exercises in futility, those terms would be better applied to their own efforts.

So here's part of the Bush administration's strategy for fighting terrorism. Maybe they can't directly get the Bush administration, but maybe -- just maybe -- they can "punish" the telecoms for having the effrontery to cooperate the government. If they can't "get" Bush and his cronies, then maybe they can make it just too damned expensive for anyone to cooperate with the government.

I'm not quite certain how it happened, but the Democratic-controlled Congress managed to do the right thing yet again. Despite all the sound and fury surrounding the issue, they voted to exempt the telecommunications corporations that had cooperated with the NSA from being sued (most likely for billions in unspecified "damages") by anti-war, anti-Bush activists who simply can't seem to succeed in any other way.

Well, here's another setback to the frothing idiots. And, more importantly, a precedent has been set -- if you are asked to do something by the government and given every assurance and presented with hefty documentation that you are not being asked to do something illegal, then you're not going to later be persecuted because someone disagrees with the government.

I happen to think that's a fairly important thing. More important than thwarting Chimpy McHitler at any opportunity, any other consequences be damned.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (9)

Punishing AT&T, MCI and Spr... (Below threshold)

Punishing AT&T, MCI and Sprint would only have caused them to pass whatever fines levied on to their customers. That would have given Verizon, T-Mobile and the other companies an unfair advantage for NOT cooperating with the government.

It would be interesting to see the demographics of the telecoms' subscribers after the names of those phone companies were released in 06. I just wonder if there was a big jump from those companies to the companies that didn't cooperate? Was it really that big a deal? And if so, who were the folks doing the jumping? I'd bet that some of the Dems that jumped "in protest" scurried back to Ma Bell for their shiny iPhone.

Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, tel... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Thanks to Nancy Pelosi, telecom immunity won't be an "Obama is soft on national defense" issue in the Fall undercutting McCain.

And, there's a teeny tiny chance that President Obama won't abuse his wiretapping privileges for political gain for eight long years.

When the government come... (Below threshold)

When the government comes to you and asks for your cooperation in fighting terrorism, there really ought to be a good-faith assumption that what they are asking you to do is legal. And if you have your doubts, then -- in most cases -- you should be able to rely on their assurances that you will not be putting yourself at any risk -- physical or legal.

Oh my, here's Jay arguing in favor of "trust the government". It must be Backwards Day for supposed "libertarians".

And if you have your doubts, then -- in most cases -- you should be able to rely on their assurances that you will not be putting yourself at any risk -- physical or legal.

So you are really arguing that even if you suspect what the government is asking you to do is illegal, you can just do it anyway and escape all consequences? A private entity has no obligation to ensure what they do is legal, as long as the government tells them it is, even if the government is lying?

In this case, the government agents who approached the telecom companies had carefully written and prepared legal documents demonstrating that what they were asking for was legal, so the telecoms had no reason to argue with them on that basis.

Well, at least you're sticking to true form of basing an elaborate argument on wrong facts.

In a statement released this morning, the lawyer said that the former [Quest] chief executive, Joseph N. Nacchio, made the decision after asking whether "a warrant or other legal process had been secured in support of that request."

Mr. Nacchio learned that no warrant had been granted and that there was a "disinclination on the part of the authorities to use any legal process," said the lawyer, Herbert J. Stern. As a result, the statement said, Mr. Nacchio concluded that "the requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act."

The major opponent of the i... (Below threshold)
Roy Lofquist Author Profile Page:

The major opponent of the immunity provision is ATLA - American Trial Lawyers Association - which is, coincidentally, the largest single contributor to Democratic politicians. Dollar signs$$$$$

Nice fantasy, Roy, but the ... (Below threshold)

Nice fantasy, Roy, but the major opponents are the American people, including Republicans.

Opposition to immunity is widespread, cutting across ideology and geography. Majorities of liberals, moderates, and conservatives agree that courts should decide the outcomes of these legal actions (liberals: 64% let courts decide, 26% give immunity; moderates: 58% let courts decide, 34% give immunity; conservatives: 50% let courts decide, 38% give immunity). Rejection of immunity similarly cuts across race and class. Over three-quarters (76%) of Hispanics prefer to let the courts decide (17% give immunity), as do 74% of blacks (21% give immunity), and 54% of whites (36% give immunity). Immunity is opposed by over half (55%) of working/lower class voters (32% give immunity), 61% of those in the middle-class (30% give immunity), and 50% of middle/upper-middle class Americans (41% give immunity)). Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats and nearly half (49%) of independents say let the courts decide (give immunity: 22% and 35%, respectively). Republicans are evenly split (45% give immunity, 46% let the courts decide) with greater intensity in support of letting the courts decide (38% strongly) than giving immunity (30% strongly).
I think its premature to be... (Below threshold)

I think its premature to believe
1) telcoms don't consider this a close call and may be hesitant to help in the future
2) this is over.

Obama could easily placate the left and distract the right by initiating a witchhunt once he gains office.

What would you rather have the righties engaged in? Defending Bush or Scrutinizing your performance/decisions?

Brian, I am perfectly conte... (Below threshold)

Brian, I am perfectly content to let polls decide the course of the nation -- the polls that are, for the most part, held in the Novembers of even-numbered years. I will never let any poll -- not even those -- substitute itself for my own judgment and opinion. I will abide by those that COUNT, but I will never let them govern my thinking. My beliefs are not subject to the "collective wisdom" of surveys and those who conduct them.

You are free to do otherwise -- as you apparently do.


That might be a relevant po... (Below threshold)

That might be a relevant post, Jay, if I had said that the polls should govern the law. Which I didn't, and so it's not.

Brian's right. There's an a... (Below threshold)

Brian's right. There's an argument to be made for granting the telcos retroactive immunity, but one would expect a far right authoritarian cultist (a die hard 28 percenter) to offer it, and not a self-described independent with strong libertarian leanings. Your Constitution has been used for toilet paper, and you don't think those who enabled the crime ought to be held accountable, because they didn't bother to consult their legal personnel as to the legality of warrantless wiretapping.

Pretty weak, though not too surprising from the pathetic center-right Democratic congress. One might expect a bit more from the author of this post...






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy