Discussion

• Red Parrot :

  I'm in favor of everything this act is aiming to do, but I do question Working Asset's glee at the phrase "No retroactive immunity."

  I find that wording terrifying for what it implies and would hate to see it become commonplace in our society.

  Yeah, I get it. Your little schedenfraude moment is fun. But what about the next time when it applies to you? It's best to oppose that sort of language wherever it pops up, lest those in charge start getting used to it.

  We've already got Guantanamo. Let's not cheer in phase II of that plan just because it's aimed at our foes this one time.

  Posted on October 9, 2007 9:02 AM

• Justin Krebs :

  Red Parrot-

  Thanks for your comment. I wonder if you can go a little more into detail about your concern with the phrase "no retroactive immunity."

  More than simple schedenfraude, our feeling is that companies that broke the law and were complicit in enabling the Administration to illegally spy on the American people should be held accountable.

  It's not that we are changing a law and holding them accountable retroactively -- quite the opposite: we are saying that their strong lobbyist presence shouldn't allow them to change the law and forgive their actions.

  Guantanamo and the negation of habeas corpus seem to me to be examples of not bringing charges, not allowing the law to protect a fair process...and I think that letting big companies re-write laws to suit their misdeeds would be more in that spirit. What we cheer for is preventing that.

  Sounds like you have a different concern that I'm not hearing clearly -- I wonder if you would go a little further into what "no retroactive immunity" would mean in the wrong hands...how an irresponsible, power-grabbing Administration could abuse that latitude.

  Thanks for joining the conversation -- hoping to hear more.

  Posted on October 9, 2007 9:15 AM

• Red Parrot :

  Thanks for responding, Justin.

  I admit I don't fully understand everything that has been done by everyone and all the issues involved.

  But my confusion is kind of the point. It seems to me that lots of other folks don't understand either, leading me to believe that this is a complicated issue.

  That's really where my concerns rise. I get nervous when I see punishments being explained quicker and clearer than the crimes are. That's pretty much the main point of my first post.

  I FULLY ADMIT that this lack of understanding may be on my own part, in which case I'm just babbling to myself. I don't mean to impugn your writing, so don't take it that way. I'm just thinking out loud here.

  Please note that I understand what these companies literally did. I don't need that explained. I just have trouble figuring out what was and was not legal. This confusion was, of course, the administration's goal. So yes, I know I've been fooled, but just because they say it's one way I can't just go and assume that the 100% opposite is the truth.

  So bottom line, I don't really know, and combining that lack of knowledge with your post kind of got my worried. Keep up the reporting. Hopefully I'll learn something eventually, which is why I keep hanging around here.

  Posted on October 9, 2007 10:01 AM

• Justin Krebs :

  Red Parrot -

  We tossed your question around the Working Assets office (I didn't want to give you the half-explanation...which, honestly, is about as well as I'd do if I tried), and got a little more info for you from Maia...an actual lawyer:

  "Hi there - Working Assets' lawyer here to chime in. Phone companies are, by law, required to keep phone records and conversations private. Unless a court has issued a subpoena for your records, no governmental agency should be able to find out what numbers you're dialing, or who is calling you - and they should not be allowed to listen to your phone calls.

  Any phone company that just rolled over and let the NSA snoop into our phone records and conversations acted illegally, and undermined our basic Constitutional rights. That's why Working Assets participated in an ACLU lawsuit against the NSA - while some of our competitors turned over records without demanding the subpoenas required by law."

  Hope that helps out. Thanks for listening.
  

  Posted on October 9, 2007 11:11 AM