Telecom immunity not 9/11 related but is secretive

Here’s a few of the details on the FISA immunity bill (full PDF).

‘‘SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY
DEFENSES.
‘‘(a) REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATION.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court againstany person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that—
‘‘(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;
‘‘(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;
‘‘(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect Amer
ica Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;
‘‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was—
‘‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was—
‘‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and
‘‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and
‘‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community the deputy of such person) to the electronic
communication service provider indicating that
the activity was—
‘‘(i) authorized by the President; and
‘‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or
‘‘(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

So, the warrantless wiretapping cases under lawsuit do not have to be 9/11 related.

“Activities in preparation for a terrorist attack.” What a Mack truck loophole. And, since this is subject to presidential certification that it was an actual terrorist attack that was being planned, the Miami ‘terrorist’ wannabe wannabes could have been illegally surveilled and BushCo would argue for the suit to be dismissed.

Or, another case. Were Bush protestors in New York City at the 2004 Republican National Convention “terrorist related”? I'm sure BushCo would claim the answer is “Yes.”

And, the government’s allegations can all be made in camera, ex parte, so the public will never know what is actually going on.

That’s the biggie, beyond immunity itself. Steny Hoyer may say, well, at least this isn’t the Kit Bond amendments proposed last year that would have had the FISA court determine telco immunity, but it’s hardly better.

Those good old states rights Republicans and their Democratic enablers forbid state courts to hear such suits. Nor can state attorneys general conduct their own investigations of warrantless wiretapping. Nor can they use state public utilities commissions or other regulatory agencies to get any information.

And, we may get more “reform” after this, as the FISA amendment bill calls for a one-year report by the IG of the Department of Justice and/or the Director of National Intelligence.

And, ultimately, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, with the main factor of a “Presidential permission slip,” discussed in secret, being telecoms’ “get out of lawsuits free” card, other “compromises” really don’t mean anything.

And, that’s not even looking at the rest of the FISA renewal bill and whether it’s really all that necessary.

If you have not yet done so, it is still not too late to contact your Member of Congress.