I have to admit, I find it all a little confusing. At the very least I'm experiencing a bit of rhetorical whiplash trying to parse the dialog coming out of Washington.
For the past few years we've heard the collected conservative members of the United States congress practically threatening to tar & feather anyone who mentions the word amnesty with regard to illegal immigration...
"…We will not grant amnesty to illegal aliens in this Congress or, hopefully ever again. We did that once. Everybody said it was a one time deal. We were to never do it again. The problem with doing it was we reward people who violated the law. We reward people who came into the country illegally.”
- Senator Phil Gramm, (R-Texas)
“I thought then [1986] that taking care of three million people illegally in the country would solve the problem once and for all. I found out, however, if you reward illegality, you get more of it." - Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
(Quoted in the New York Times)
These are only two that I found when I looked. There are more, lots and lots more. Those two aren't the only ones reciting this mantra or one like it. Anyone who broke ranks was vilified. Even the president. It damn near derailed John McCain's hopes for the White House and might yet. I talk to people all the time, conservatives who are still pissed at him for crossing the aisle.
But that's not the half of it. We were repeatedly warned of the dangers inherent in amnesty, in the rewarding of those who break the law by allowing them to get away with it. And to be frank, it wasn't just the Republicans. This is a bucket of tar that spared few politicians and just about everyone had a slightly feathery look about them at the time... such were the prevailing winds in Washington. But I digress. What I want to focus on here is the sentiment: 'If we let them get away with it... what's to keep them from doing it again?'
That's a hard line, a conservative line. And though I disagree strongly with most of the rhetoric about immigration, at least I can respect a principled stance. And I'm not immune to the conservative thought process here... laws exist for a reason. They're the guideropes that show you the edge of the cliff. If you step beyond this point you're Wile E. Coyote. If you step across the barrier and don't fall... why wouldn't you cross the barrier again? Hey mom! See what I can do?
Look ma! No consquences!
So - somewhat related to our debate here of late - you can understand my confusion when I see that there a Conservative push underway to grant an amnesty by applying retroactive immunity to the telecoms after they violated the laws? Not once, but literally millions of times? Each time carrying a specified penalty under federal law.
USC Section 18,2702 and 2703 lay out the parameters in which a telecommunications company whether internet, wireless or land-based may share information in their possession or moving across their equipment with the government. And it's a pretty clear law...
"A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant."
usc sec 18, 2702 - Cornell Law usc sec 18, 2703 - Cornell Law
So what is in that law that's supposed to make me want to give them a pass? They stepped off the ledge... why shouldn't I want to see them hold up a little sign that says 'Yipe!' and then plummet to the desert floor below?
They might be able to argue a case under 2702, subsection c4, but in order to prove it there needs to be an adjudication by the judiciary and the rest of the two codes are demonstrably written to prevent just such a deviation from the law.
There are laws on the books for a reason, not least of all because information has value. The SEC has an entire body of case law governing who can know what, when and what you can do with what you know for exactly this reason. Information is money. It's also power of a more ephemeral kind, as the columnist at Wired said, and the disparity of power felt by a citizen when they are dealing with someone who knows everything about them when they have no idea who has their information or what uses it's being put toward... well, it isn't going to make us feel safe & secure so much as violated. So the laws were broken.
And because the bulk of information that flows across the electronic hubs of our nation's telecommunications array is unprecedented, and if you're trying to 'find out who the bad guys are' it's a daunting task. I get that, I really do. But I keep coming back to a single salient question... why cut out the judiciary in the first place?
The telecoms should have demanded the legally mandated subpoenas. Because they didn't, they're in legal jeopardy. But I don't buy the argument that if we don't indemnify them after the fact they won't cooperate in the future... in fact, they'll just adhere to the laws. Like they were supposed to do in the first place. If some nice person in a snappy government suit shows up with a writ, you bet your bippy they're going to cooperate... because they won't have a choice. And they will be protected by the code they adhered to...
"No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter."
That is how you protect yourself and your shareholders from litigation. You obey the law and the law protects you. You step across the line and... Wile E. Coyote time.
And I'm still wondering and no one has yet answered me... why didn't the NSA just ask for a legal finding on what they were up to? How again did a FISA hearing somehow impede them from protecting us? Before they built a secret router into AT&T's facility to monitor internet traffic (Hi guys!), before they asked (politely, I'm sure) for the 'largest database ever assembled' to thumb through for information... where was the judge in all this? The laws of our land demand one. Explicitly. Do they think Al Qaeda has infiltrated the Federal Bench? Or do they just see the judiciary as a hurdle to be cleared or gone around so they can do their jobs as they see fit...
I've told you most of what I think on the subject of FISA and warrantless wiretaps, not to mention combing the calls and internet postings. But a subject we've largely ignored is the Telecom issue and I think it needs to be addressed because I - for one - am angry at the flagrant abuses I see in all this. The lawbreaking was so profound and the audacity of the legislators trying to double-talk and pretend that it's ok sickens me. Because, as the distinguished gentleman from Iowa reminds us "if you reward illegality, you get more of it."
Posts
8 comments:
You raise an interesting question here. It's interesting, but maybe not consequential, that the same word "amnesty" is being used for both sets of problems: illegal immigrants and lawbreaking telecoms.
Personally, I see a lot of difference in the situations at hand. I think there is a big difference between an individual entering this country illegally and then coming to assume/expect he won't be punished, and a corporation complying with a request (technically unlawful though it may be) from a dapper-suited member of the US intelligence services.
Please note that I'm not implying that I favor or oppose amnesty in either one of these cases. I'm just pointing out that just because some people oppose anmnesty in one instance and favor it in another does not necessarily make them hypocrites or logically inconsistent.
There are enough differences in the situation that shade the meaning of "amnesty" so that a person could have a different opinion of the action in two different cases.
It's not a vague technicality. That was the point of quoting and linking back to the law. There's not an executive at a telecom that doesn't know that law exists and know it backward and forward. The guys at Quest knew it when they sent the feds packing with a friendly "That's nice, come back with a warrant."
And "Amnesty" has a specific meaning both in Websters' dictionary and Black's Law dictionary. To make political hay, the word amnesty has been bandied about quite a bit by people trying to score points with one part of their constituency or the other with little regard for whether the word fits what's actually happening or not. So when they start talking about retroactive immunity, I think it's amusing to remind them of what they said not three months before. And I think that the American people need to wake up to... yes, logical inconsistency, and yes... I call it hypocrisy... Someone was blowing smoke, either in the one event or the other. They didn't 'mis-speak' to use Senator Clinton's unfortunate turn of phrase. They were either lying to score political points or they are now. Either they really mean that lawbreaking can't be rewarded or you'll get more, or they don't.
You can't have it both ways and I'm tired of pretending that you can.
I'm a big fan of hanging people with a rope of their own weaving. If they don't want to own the sound bite, they need to either keep their mouths shut or pay the piper.
And of course by 'unfortunate turn of phrase' I mean... "Lie"
Some have taken a lot of flack for advocating "amnesty" for illegals when they are in fact doing no such thing. A "path to citizenship" that involves extensive financial and other penalties and insures clear background checks and solid employability (but does not involve the largest mass deportation of humanity in history) is not really amnesty, and I don't care whose fancy dictionary you use.
And where was the word "vague" in my reply?
Go ahead and be tired of people trying to have it both ways. I don't particularly feel that illegals or telecoms should have anmesty (strictly speaking), either. My point was don't be so quick to pounce on a merely semantic resemblance between the two situations, however rhetorically interesting it may be to do so.
I'm not entirely sure that what I just wrote makes any sense. Ah, well, never mind. I concede, and hereby withdraw from my ill-advised foray into the telecomm amnesty discussion. Hang 'em all, I say. Just don't bitch about it when your phone and internet bill looks like your gas credit card.
Not to mention lettuce...
G'night, everybody.
I do find it compelling and your post doesn't confuse me overmuch, mainly for the same reason you cited... when they came after McCain and others who are trying to unravel an immensely complex issue for advocating 'amnesty' they were wrong. They were being idiots and having a field day torturing the English language, a politicians are wont to do.
That word "amnesty" gets people in trouble, so they used it in firebrand speeches on the floor of the House and Senate and I still think it only fitting that it bite them in the ass now.
And the vague... word... was... mine, I guess. Though I certainly infer it from your wording in that second paragraph when you mention that it's 'technically unlawful', but maybe that's my fault. My inner voice has a sarcastic streak a mile wide. Too much Roger Zalazney.
I forgive you for inferring that word into my parenthetical comment, though I assure you it really wasn't there.
My point in that particular sentence was that although both actions are illegal, one was done furtively and individually, and the other at the direct request of an agent of the US government. The telecomms were "invited" to break the law, so to speak, but only in a very language-torturing way can you understand that Mexicans have an "invitation" to be here. Not that the law is any less broken, but... you see the distinction I was trying to draw.
Speaking of Zelazny, did I tell you I got a kid hooked on Amber?
Did you give them the first one free and then start charging them for it? A Corwin-pusher, you are. Soon they'll be writing everything first-person and you know where that leads...
Post a Comment