Don’t let phone firms off the hook
Re “When the CIA comes calling,” Nov. 15
Former CIA Director R. James Woolsey makes several disingenuous arguments for giving telecom companies immunity from lawsuits resulting from their decisions to turn over customer call logs and phone conversations to the federal government.
The most flawed is that without a promise of “protective legislation,” companies won’t cooperate to keep our country safe.
Telecom companies don’t need a special deal because they already have immunity from lawsuits over exposing their customers to wiretapping. It’s called a warrant. If the government obtains one, then phone companies that turn over records are following the law.
AT&T;, Verizon and other telecoms are facing lawsuits because they violated their customer agreements based on Bush administration assurances, rather than their 30 years of experience dealing with requests under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Yes, the government should be held accountable for spying on Americans without court oversight or congressional approval. But so should companies that decide to gamble with their customers’ trust, then hide behind the government’s promise of special protection.
Peter Eliasberg
American Civil Liberties
Union of Southern
California, Los Angeles
The author is co-lead counsel in a lawsuit against AT&T; and Verizon by the ACLU’s three California affiliates.
Woolsey attempts to obfuscate the issues in the “telecom immunity” case. One of America’s finest principles since its founding has been the rule of law. The president is not a sovereign and does not have the authority to waive this principle. Yes, we are at war, solely because the sovereign says so. That doesn’t justify ignoring the rule of law.
The issue never was whether this administration could wiretap communications from overseas. The issue was whether this administration could ignore the law, which simply required permission to wiretap, even retroactively, from a compliant special court. And Congress, always compliant at that time, would have passed any amendments the administration requested.
Woolsey argues that corporations should be absolved from liability for the actions requested by this administration. I would agree that the shareholders of these corporations should not pay for the actions of these corporate executives, but these corporate executives should be prosecuted. In part, this legislation is designed to head off such prosecutions and the prosecution of those government officials who requested such illegal action.
Robert Balzhiser
New York
Woolsey gives the distinct impression that President Bush’s requests to eavesdrop are OK because of the events of 9/11. Bush did not begin his requests of telecommunication companies after 9/11; he allegedly began them in his second month in the White House -- seven months before 9/11.
According to former Qwest Communications CEO Joseph Nacchio, the administration requested Qwest’s participation in an eavesdropping program. The company said no. As a result, Nacchio alleges, that company lost a $200-million contract with a government agency. Woolsey would do well to complete his research before giving Bush a pass for just one of his many high crimes against this country.
Charles Fernandez
Los Angeles
