CQ Politics: about those telecom lawsuits...

In Opponents of Immunity for Telecoms Seize on Spying Claims, CQ Politics reports:

Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce panel, citing new domestic spying claims, are urging careful examination of surveillance overhaul legislation that may delay progress on the measure.

Retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies being sued for helping with a government spying program is the major sticking point on legislation overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act currently in negotiations between the House and Senate.

In a letter to lawmakers Thursday, panel Chairman  John D. Dingell  of Michigan, and two subcommittee chairmen,  Edward J. Markey  of Massachusetts and  Bart Stupak of Michigan, said claims by the chief of security at an unnamed wireless carrier that the company may have given a government entity access to all of its customers’ communications, justified further delay in considering the legislation.

And the details, from the article:

Babak Pasdar, chief executive of a security firm who was hired to upgrade security at the unnamed telecommunications company, said he discovered a third-party security breach traced to a governmental office in Quantico, Va., home to a U.S Marine Corps base and the FBI Academy, the letter said.

Pasdar’s allegations are similar to those of Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician whose claims support a lawsuit against the company being advanced by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an internet privacy advocacy group.

Republicans have been pressing the White House-backed Senate version of the bill, which passed Feb. 12. The Senate version effectively authorizes warrantless surveillance with additional court oversight and grants retroactive immunity to private companies that cooperated.

The House version passed in November does not grant retroactive immunity and imposes tighter controls on surveillance. House leaders have refused to take up the Senate version, and the extent of the Bush administration’s surveillance initiatives has been a major concern in their decision.

That's the sort of activity from which the telecoms seek immunity. And yet one of Randy Demmer's supporters would have readers think otherwise in his monthly column in the Rochester Post Bulletin, The lawsuit business is out of control in the U.S.  Dr. Araoz equates the lawsuit brought against Randy Demmer in the mid-1990s (a case which was found to have little merit in other venues until filed--then settled out-of-court) with the troubles facing the telecoms:

But there are obstacles to change, namely trial lawyer special interests and politicians beholden to them.

For an example, look no further than our current U.S. Rep. Tim Walz. In August 2007, Walz voted for a bill to allow the U.S. government to wiretap foreign nationals making calls to the U.S. But when it came time to renew the legislation in February 2008, Walz voted against it.

Why? Because the most recent legislation protected telecommunications companies from frivolous lawsuits. And in case you're wondering, trial lawyers suing those telecommunications companies have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic causes.

Ah yes, Dr. Araoz: all lawsuits are equally suspect, and those who seek to protect civil rights in the courts are engaged in "frivolous lawsuits" no different than that filed against a NAPA store in Hayfield a decade ago. Nice smear if you can get away with it.  Look like others have already raised objections here and here.

Those who want to decide for themselves how "frivolous" the lawsuits are can read more here and here. We're wondering whether Dr. Araoz himself actually ever looked at any of them, or if standard-issue NRCC talking points were good enough.

In related news, today's Wall Street Journal looks at how NSA's Domestic Spying Grows  As Agency Sweeps Up Data:

. . .Congress now is hotly debating domestic spying powers under the main law governing U.S. surveillance aimed at foreign threats. An expansion of those powers expired last month and awaits renewal, which could be voted on in the House of Representatives this week. The biggest point of contention over the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is whether telecommunications and other companies should be made immune from liability for assisting government surveillance.

Largely missing from the public discussion is the role of the highly secretive NSA in analyzing that data, collected through little-known arrangements that can blur the lines between domestic and foreign intelligence gathering. Supporters say the NSA is serving as a key bulwark against foreign terrorists and that it would be reckless to constrain the agency's mission. The NSA says it is scrupulously following all applicable laws and that it keeps Congress fully informed of its activities. . . .

It's a must read for those interested in the discussion of setting boundaries for domestic spying and civil rights.

In her diary, FISA Fight: More Dem firepower against amnesty, McJoan at DailyKos has posted a pdf of the Dingell, arkey and Stupak letter.  Go read the details there. She concludes:

The Democrats lining up against telco amnesty continues to grow, from these three long-time, respected members to the newest Democratic Congressman, Bill Foster, to the group of Freshman Democrats who have been specifically targeted by the Republicans with robocalls and fearmongering.

This is not going to be an election year issue. The Republicans have done their worst against Democrats on the issue and it hasn't worked. There is no need to cave on telco amnesty.

We agree: constituents should call or email Congressman Walz and tell him to stand firm against telecom immunity.

Update: John Conyers, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, have launched a grassroot letter writing campaign at Fix FISA..  For those who use this tool to write letters to local newspaper in the First, we recommend that they write original letters, rather just copy talking points.  Care enough to write the editor? Then share your own insights.

 

Comments

[MinnesotaCentral]

Mr. Phillip Araoz is incorrect regarding lawyers involved in the FISA lawsuits. They were being brought by the NON-PROFIT Electronic Frontier Foundation, a consumer rights group … not by paid trial lawyers. Those lawyers do not get a percent of the take … they are on flat salary. There is no money to be gained.

That aside, as a point of comparison, how much did the Telecoms give to the Republicans ?

For the 2006, Gil Gutknecht’s second largest contributor was a telecom (Blue Earth Valley Communications) and overall, his eighth largest contributor with $29,200 were from Telecoms. That’s just in MN-01. Other monies were indirectly contributed to PAC which transferred monies to Gutknecht and other candidates.
Overall, the Telecoms/Utilities gave $4,788,127 to the Republican Party … sorta makes the $1.5million by trial lawyers look kinda small.