The Wiretap Deal

THE WIRETAP DEAL
[SOURCE: Wall Street Journal, AUTHOR: Editorial staff]
[Commentary] As the Bush Administration winds down, one of its main tasks is preserving Presidential war-fighting powers against poaching by a hostile Congress and expansive judiciary. On this score, last week's Senate "compromise" on warrantless wiretaps is at best a mixed achievement. In return for Congress's blessing to continue this surveillance, the White House is ceding some of its Constitutional authority to unelected, unaccountable judges. This is not to deny the real policy gains in the measure that was endorsed, in a bipartisan vote, by the Senate Intelligence Committee last week. Most important, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General will be able to approve overseas wiretaps without having to get a judge's approval in advance. We realize that, in practice, the FISA court will almost always rubber stamp the Administration's wiretap decisions. And if it doesn't, the government can appeal to a FISA appeals panel and ultimately to the Supreme Court. The White House may believe that these procedural compromises are worth making to stop Congress from trying to undermine intelligence-gathering that is crucial to keeping the country safe. Yet if the President won't protect the Presidency, who will? The Senate deal shows that Democrats realize Mr. Bush has the political whip hand on this issue, and the last thing they want going into an election year is to argue over limiting the U.S. ability to eavesdrop on al Qaeda. Mr. Bush should drive a harder bargain that protects the Constitution, as well as the public.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119301628320466605.html?mod=todays_us_opinion
(requires subscription)

* Immunity for Telecoms May Set Bad Precedent, Legal Scholars Say
As part of a surveillance package approved Thursday by the Senate intelligence committee, some telecommunications companies would be granted immunity from about 40 pending lawsuits that allege they violated Americans' privacy and constitutional rights by aiding a warrantless surveillance program instituted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Legal experts say the granting of such retroactive immunity by Congress is unusual, particularly in a case involving private companies. "It's particularly unusual in the case of the telecoms because you don't really know what you're immunizing," said Louis Fisher, a specialist in constitutional law with the Law Library of the Library of Congress. "You don't know what you're cleaning up." "The unfortunate reality is that once you've done it, once you immunize interrogators or phone companies, then it's easy to do it again in another context," said Retired Rear Adm. John Hutson. "It seems to me that as a general rule, retroactive immunity is not a good thing. . . . It's essentially letting Congress handle something that should be handled by the judiciary."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102101041.html

* Immunity demand for telecoms raises questions
[Commentary] As history shows, mass snooping can sweep up innocent citizens.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071022/edit22.art.htm

* Shield the phone companies
[Commentary] Telecom carriers that aided war on terror deserve lawsuit immunity.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20071022/oppose22.art.htm