After the 4th of July break, the U.S. Senate will be voting on a telecommunications immunity bill - a bill that is designed to give some of the biggest telecommunications companies in the United States immunity for agreeing to allow phone taps at the source - the company switching equipment. Or, in other words, the deal grants law-breaking companies immunity for allowing the federal government to spy on Americans.
All that really protects America is the willingness of the three branches of government to follow, and uphold, the law. There is no greater oath than the promise to uphold and protect the laws of this country. Yet, remarkably, many lawmakers seem to be willing to cast aside an important law in exchange for some measure of political expediency - being "tough" on terrorism.
Whenever Congress passes law, it makes a promise. It is a promise to every American that government will honor that law. Congress wrote the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to protect us from authoritarian government. It was written to prevent what happened here. If any company breaks the law, the law should be honored by government. Enforcement is contract that the Congress makes with the American people when Congress passes a law to protect the public. Now, many legislators have broken that promise. They don't want to protect us. They want to protect telecommunications companies.
This immunity is a mistake for the partisans that support it. For the Democrats, this is not the path to a Democratic Presidency. If this law passes, the Democrats have broken a promise more dear than any promise not to raise taxes. For the Republicans, this is an alliance with wealth and power that caused many of the losses that Republicans experienced during the mid-term elections.
Those telecommunications companies have money. They can spend it on lawyers. When it came to the spying program, they did not spend the money to verify the program's legality. Telecommunications companies decided that it was better (and perhaps cheaper) to stand aside and watch. Now they are whining that they will have to pay lawyers to defend themselves. The telecommunications companies can afford to pay penalties for collaborating in an illegal spying program. They chose not to defend freedom. They preferred to break the law. Now, those companies may have to pay for it. Tough.
Some have claimed that telecommunications companies need this immunity so that next time, the telecommunications companies will cooperate. Next time, the telecommunications companies should not cooperate. Next time, they should think about the rights of their customers. Next time, they should fear the law. They will not if we let them off the hook before we even get started.
Any argument that this is soft-on-terror is false. Is the War on Terror so important that we will grant immunity to telecommunications companies for allowing a government agency to open our e-mail? To tap our phones? To listen to our conversations? Is respect for law unimportant? Are privacy rights for every American unnecessary? Phantom threats of spies, saboteurs, and terrorists does not justify illegal means of search and seizure. Trading away our personal autonomy won't make our lives less fearful - we will just trade a fear of terrorists for a fear of government. This is intolerable.
Spying on Americans without a search warrant doesn't fight the War on Terror; spying on us fights a War on American Freedom. Politicians need to get some backbone and fight for Americans. Telecommunications companies have money and the power to fight well enough for themselves.