pittpizza
CAGiversary!
Today Congress is considering a bill that will give the big telephone companies (At&T, Ma Bell (they got the ill communication)) immunity for turning over phone conversations, emails, pictures, and various forms of other electronic media to the government without a warrant.
Now I want to be clear that I am not attempting to get into a Right to Privacy vs. Nat'l Security debate; if the thread goes there (which it likely will) that is fine. But what this really is about is ACCESSS TO COURTS! It is a fairly complex legal issue so let me flesh it out further.
Basically what this is about is the Government said to the phone companies (via the Bush administration) "Give us your records as part of our counter-terrorism efforts!" and the telephone companies said "Okey Dokey, here ya go!." Well later down the line, when people started complaining that this violated privacy rights (namely espoused under the 4th Amendment) the telephone companies defended by claiming "We were just following orders! We were simply doing what the government told us to do." Which sort of makes sense, but brings us to a different but related issue called a "Duty to Refuse."
A duty to refuse is basically a maxim that says "When the government orders you to turn over private information, you have a duty to refuse that request when it violates the law, the constitution, or rights to privacy." Simply claiming that "We were just following orders" is not enough when the orders were unconstitutional. This duty to refuse is a rule that would require the telephone companies to deny the government's request, and make the Government GO TO COURT to get a court order requiring the telephone company to turn over the information, or, perhaps more likely, ruling that the telephone company is not required to turn the information over until the government has provided this little thing called PROBABLE CAUSE. This law will take the matter out of the hands of the Courts, (thereby placing it wholly in the hands of the executive)and thereby remove a level of oversight that the Constituion and the founders of this country inteded for the judiciary to have. Courts have always (and always should) been the gatekeepers in making sure the Government's actions are kept in check, and kept in line with the confines of the US Const.
By passing this law, Congress is denying the public the ability to take these telephone companies to court for violating their duty to refuse. The counter argument is that this will help stop terrorism, and if you aren't a terrorist then you have nothing to hide anyway, and basically that nat'l security concerns trump individual civil liberties. IOW, safety is more important than liberty. Where do you stand?
Now I want to be clear that I am not attempting to get into a Right to Privacy vs. Nat'l Security debate; if the thread goes there (which it likely will) that is fine. But what this really is about is ACCESSS TO COURTS! It is a fairly complex legal issue so let me flesh it out further.
Basically what this is about is the Government said to the phone companies (via the Bush administration) "Give us your records as part of our counter-terrorism efforts!" and the telephone companies said "Okey Dokey, here ya go!." Well later down the line, when people started complaining that this violated privacy rights (namely espoused under the 4th Amendment) the telephone companies defended by claiming "We were just following orders! We were simply doing what the government told us to do." Which sort of makes sense, but brings us to a different but related issue called a "Duty to Refuse."
A duty to refuse is basically a maxim that says "When the government orders you to turn over private information, you have a duty to refuse that request when it violates the law, the constitution, or rights to privacy." Simply claiming that "We were just following orders" is not enough when the orders were unconstitutional. This duty to refuse is a rule that would require the telephone companies to deny the government's request, and make the Government GO TO COURT to get a court order requiring the telephone company to turn over the information, or, perhaps more likely, ruling that the telephone company is not required to turn the information over until the government has provided this little thing called PROBABLE CAUSE. This law will take the matter out of the hands of the Courts, (thereby placing it wholly in the hands of the executive)and thereby remove a level of oversight that the Constituion and the founders of this country inteded for the judiciary to have. Courts have always (and always should) been the gatekeepers in making sure the Government's actions are kept in check, and kept in line with the confines of the US Const.
By passing this law, Congress is denying the public the ability to take these telephone companies to court for violating their duty to refuse. The counter argument is that this will help stop terrorism, and if you aren't a terrorist then you have nothing to hide anyway, and basically that nat'l security concerns trump individual civil liberties. IOW, safety is more important than liberty. Where do you stand?
ing Checks & Balances system anymore?