Privacy laws vs. telecom immunity
Re “Focus on FISA,” editorial, Feb. 23
The Times misses the crucial issue animating the retroactive-immunity-for-telecoms debate: whether we are a nation of laws in times of peace and equally a nation of laws in times of war. The government and its supporters bellowed then, and taunt now, that those who advocate lawful conduct by government during emergencies are naive. This is the same argument that dictators use to justify their extralegal acts. Placing blind trust in a government that already has proved willing to violate the 4th Amendment is a precedent that nurtures future renegade acts by government against its citizens. This unnecessary violation of FISA law by some telecoms to aid and abet illegal spying was not part of a vague legalistic debate. It is not naive to believe that allowing these lawbreakers to go unpunished sets a precedent for future leaders. Naivete is believing that it can’t happen here.
Richard Brock
Laguna Niguel
--
The editorial rightly claims that “Congress has had plenty of time to replace the Protect America Act.” But you know full well that it’s really not Congress that has held up any such legislation; it’s the Republicans. You also say that the White House and Democrats are “fixated on retroactive immunity” -- but again, as for the Democrats, that’s only the case because Republicans are firmly against anything that would reflect poorly on the companies that assisted in the wiretapping. The editorial glosses over who’s really behind the roadblocks thrown up to protect the communications companies, and is a disservice to your readers.
Gene Olson
Carlsbad
--
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that The Times concludes “immunity is a sideshow. Congress and the White House should turn their attention to safeguarding Americans’ privacy.” That is, don’t worry about terrorists. The left-wing agenda comes first. And, just what and whose privacy is The Times so worried about?
Dick Ettington
Palos Verdes
--
President Bush says it’s imperative to pass this legislation to keep us safe. Apparently, it’s more crucial to keep the phone companies safe. Or maybe he’s keeping himself safe from yet another judge declaring he’s violated the Constitution he pledged to uphold.
Becca Esensten
Los Angeles