We were quite disappointed with Congress earlier this year, selling out the country and granting retroactive immunity to telcos for any involvement they might have had in any warrantless wiretapping program. The immunity basically gave the White House a get out of jail free card that it could hand to any telco -- even if that telco clearly violated constitutional rights. No matter which side of the political aisle you fall on, this should be extremely disturbing. It basically lets the President decide that certain companies don't need to obey the constitution. That, by itself, seems to be unconstitutional.

Not surprisingly, the EFF and the ACLU sued over the granting of immunity, and the judge in the case heard the arguments on both sides on Tuesday. While there was a lot of back and forth, at least part of the exchange suggested that the judge agreed with the government's position, telling the EFF's lawyer that he should take up his complaint with Congress, not through the courts.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't a large part of the reason for the judicial system to be a check on the power of Congress and the White House -- specifically on making sure they don't do anything unconstitutional? It's not clear when the judge will rule, but I've yet to see a single reasonable explanation for why telcos should be granted immunity. If what they did wasn't illegal, then there's nothing to worry about. If what they did was illegal, but they felt that it was in the best interests of the country, then let them explain that in court to mitigate the situation. Granting retroactive immunity goes against everything the rule of law should stand for.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story