Maine Owl

Maine Republican goes to bat for warrantless snooping

There is an interesting story in the Bangor Daily News this weekend titled "Snowe: Keep telecom immunity in updated bill." Because it does not look like this posted online anywhere, I'm going to go ahead and reproduce it in its entirety below the fold.

There is nothing Snowe says that is particularly new to one who closely has been following the debate on telecom immunity for acts of warrantless surveillance. Surprise, surprise, Snowe is an ultra-hawk on this. Basically, Snowe (an Intelligence Committee member) is in favor of broad warrantless surveillance powers because, as she puts it,

At a time when al-Qaida lurks in the shadows, making no distinction between combatants and noncombatants, between our battlefields and our backyards, we as lawmakers must act with firm resolve to ensure that the intelligence community possesses the tools and legal authority needed to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil.

And what of the telecom. companies cooperating in these supposed terror-prevention efforts? On the reasonableness of granting the companies immunity for black-letter violations of law at the behest of the radical authoritarian-statist officials in the Bush government conducting unconstitutional spying, Snowe said in a hearing last Monday,

If a telecom company was approached by government officials asking for help in warding off another terrorist attack, and those government officials produced a document stating that the president had authorized the activity and that that activity was legal, could we really say that the company acted unreasonably in complying with this request?

Well, yes. Granting them immunity for cooperating with officials who's requests subsume Constitutional rights in such as obvious way would remove a major protection of those rights for ordinary citizens.

Damnit! Why can't someone probe the notion these officials always use, that this expanded surveillance somehow "protects" the public from terrorism? They are more about maintaining consent for egregious policy than confronting terrorism. Free countries always will have certain kinds of vulnerability. Ramping up authoritarianism, an essential component of which is broad-based surveillance, is nearly useless in stemming terrorism. My feeling is it leads to a siege mentality that may one day increase the risk of terrorism.

As you can see, I find Snowe's position (Collins's is identical) on this to be totally without merit. I think it is time she (actually both of them) were asked some questions that draw out the truth of these surveillance programs. (See THIS recent post for a strong presentation thereof.) We need to get them both on the record explaining themselves about the true nature of these programs separate from the false rhetoric that the surveillance chiefly is for the purpose of ferreting out terrorists.

Here goes:

Dear Senator __fill in senator's name_,

I am a concerned citizen, critic of the policies of the United States government, and an activist to prevent further military adventurism and bloodshed conducted in my name as a result of the policies of my government. There are millions of people like me. I feel that the FISA revisions you advocate, which would grant telecom companies guilty of committing violations of black-letter law immunity from legal action, to be a direct threat to my ability to exercise free speech, to organize the millions of us who oppose you, and to petition you for redress of these grievances.

I ask you the following questions concerning your position on these policies,

1. If it is known that surveillance is being conducted on a "terrorist," why is it unreasonable that a traditional, lawful, warrant be issued in an immediate or timely manner for such surveillance? (I believe that talk of "modernizing" the law is a red herring. The traditions the founders established in the Bill of Rights are as pertinent today in the age of the Internet as they were in the late 18th century.)
2. Your statements suggest that either you do not understand or do not wish to discuss in public the scope of the surveillance in question. I believe that enough information has been revealed in public, for example on the MSNBC Countdown program and in major newspapers to support my contention that the snooping involved is not targeted upon foreign "terrorists," but rather upon the public as a whole. Therefore, I ask you, If you did understand that the surveillance involved "large net" capture of all domestic as well as international electronic communications, would you still support immunity if in a court of law that fact could be proven?
3. The more troubling version of the previous question that I would prefer not to have to ask is, Do you support creations of broad-scale databases of peaceful people based on their communications and political beliefs that could be employed for authoritarian purposes in creating a climate of fear and squelching free speech? If not, what guarantees will be left that untrusted officials (like those in your party who are running the government) will not be able to create such enemies profiles without proper warrants containing Constitutionally supportable suspicion of actual illegal activity?

I suppose this is enough for now. You could re-write your letter to be a bit less confrontational. In fact I recommend that, as from experience I know both Snowe and Collins feel powerful enough in Maine that they can ignore any sort of issue they don't want to discuss with you or have in public at all. They will ignore you. So, how can questions like these become part of the public discourse? It's going to take persistent media work....

Below the fold is the full BDN story.

Snowe: Keep telecom immunity in updated bill
BY VICKI EKSTROM
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON NEWS SERVICE
Bangor Daily News - Saturday/Sunday February 2-3, 2008

WASHINGTON — Senate leaders continue to negotiate the terms of an updated intelligence surveillance bill, deadlocked on whether to grant immunity to telecommunication companies facing lawsuits for allegedly assisting federal agencies in surveillance of potential terrorists.

Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, along with most of her colleagues on the Select Committee on Intelligence, supports immunity for the private companies.

"If a telecom company was approached by government officials asking for help in warding off another terrorist attack, and those government officials produced a document stating that the president had authorized the activity and that that activity was legal," Snowe asked Monday at a committee hearing, "could we really say that the company acted unreasonably in complying with this request?"

In a bipartisan vote in October, the Intelligence Committee, chaired by Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV D-W. Va., passed an updated version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, a 1978 measure that allows government surveillance of suspected terrorists through wiretapping and other techniques. The committee's updated bill included retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies.

Proponents of the bill say that by subjecting these private companies to lawsuits the U.S. may lose the private sector's cooperation in future law enforcement and national security projects because of their fear of being sued. These companies are an essential resource for the U.S., according to Snowe.

"At a time when al-Qaida lurks in the shadows, making no distinction between combatants and noncombatants, between our battlefields and our backyards," Snowe said, "We as lawmakers must act with firm resolve to ensure that the intelligence community possesses the tools and legal authority needed to prevent future terrorist attacks on our soil."

Opponents of granting immunity include Sen. Patrick Leahy D-Vt., chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

"We cannot expect to learn from mistakes if we refuse to allow them to be examined," said Leahy who said be believes the Bush administration is trying to protect itself from being held accountable for illegal activity and that the lawsuits are possibly the only way for outside review of the administration's actions.

"The administration knows that these lawsuits may be the only way that it will ever be called to account for its flagrant disrespect for the rule of law," Leahy said.

Snowe favors examination of the cases, but because of the sensitive information involved she believes they should be examined by the House and Senate intelligence committees or the court established by FISA, a spokesman for the senator said.

Additionally, while advocates for immunity argue that immunity is necessary to maintain the cooperation of telecommunications companies in the future, opponents say the bill already protects companies that provide future lawful assistance and that their opposition applies only to surveillance that was done in the past and is now being called into question.

Congress approved a White House update to FISA last summer, the Protect America Act, which cleared private companies from any future lawsuits provided that they had documentation from the government proving that what they were doing was lawful. The act was approved for only six months to allow Congress time to either pass the bill or create its own bill. Facing a Feb. 1 expiration, the House and Senate voted to extend the study period to Feb. 16 and President Bush signed the extension on Thursday.

The House passed its own version of an updated FISA bill last fall and did not include the immunity provision. On Monday the Senate narrowly voted to open the Intelligence Committee's bill up for debate rather than accept the House version. The Senate is considering three amendments specifically directed at the immunity portion of the bill.

One amendment would strike immunity. Another amendment, proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Cal., would leave it up to the FISA court to decide if the companies acted in good faith. If they did, the FISA court would grant immunity.

A last amendment up for debate was proposed by Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., also a member of the committee. Their amendment would hold the government, not the private companies, directly responsible.

All of these amendments are expected to be voted on by the Senate next week, according to Leahy's office.