Emptywheel of The Next Hurrah cited this page of a Washington Post article without being able to dwell on the issue much (as she is traveling):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101501857_2.html?hpid=topnewsThe relevant part she quoted was:
"Both Verizon and AT&T suggested in their letters that they already enjoy legal immunity under existing laws. But AT&T said that when the lawsuits involve allegations of highly classified activity, the company cannot prove its immunity claims."
I wanted to draw attention to this and boil this down. Many have speculated that the purpose of telecom immunity is to stop such massive financial claims against the telecoms that they actually face bankruptcy. However, the above passage suggests that the telecoms are not at all afraid of this; they know for certain that they have a get-out-of-jail-free card. They're just telling Congress that they can't reveal their proof because that proof is a state secret, citing state secrets privilege.
Note that state secrets privilege is a judiciary created privilege applying to the branch of government the judiciary has authority over - the courts. There is no known precedent to using this privilege doctrine to deny information to Congress. But that's not the point.
The point is that telecom immunity has nothing to do with immunizing telecoms. It's to prevent them from having to defend themselves by producing the proof that they are immune...
...because that would be the proof that the Bush Administration itself was in violation of the law, and perhaps the Constitution as well.
That's why the administration considers telecom immunity to be non-negotiable.
This version makes a hell of a lot more sense, I think.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
