John Rockerfeller attempts to justify immunity for telcos.
He fails to explain why these programs "remain highly classified". We know we're being watched, so what gives?
WHY IS THIS SO DIFFERENT THAN FIGHTING THE MOB?
After having rejected indemnification and all other approaches, one of his premises is, "The fact is, private industry must remain an essential partner in law enforcement and national security. We face an enemy that uses every tool and technology of 21st-century life, and we must do the same".
Well, if the government is so convinced of its case, including the effectiveness of its programs, and there is a circumspect telco who is not, the companies can be made to comply through the courts. That seems at least a good way to go about 'making the case' as is legislators selling off liberties for security in private.
The idea that lawsuits are 'unfair and unwise' is off the mark. So often, it is a right of action that keeps processes having the right incentives, that provides checks to abuse. On the other hand, immunity, as described, seems to put the possibility of redress of abuse into the realm of remote. How do you make a case that the AG abused authority, when you have no access to (a) his deliberations or (b) what was actually done on his approval?
No, this debate isn't over yet, I don't think.
"WITHER" THE COURTS IN THE RULES OF SECRECY?
At the heart of it, someone has to define what the role of courts is in the 'secret war'. We've had military commissions that have cut them out, except on appeal (limited mostly to procedural matters?). Now we are supposed limit the courts and to trust the AG with whatever this means?:
The bill authorizes case-by-case review in the courts only when the attorney general certifies that a company's actions were based on assurances of legality, and the court is specifically required to determine whether the attorney general abused his discretion before immunity can be granted.
