The WaPo’s editorial board seems to believe congressional Dems on the right track with their “RESTORE Act,” unveiled this week, but sides with the Bush administration on a key sticking point.
There is one major area of disagreement between the administration and House Democrats where we think the administration has the better of the argument: the question of whether telecommunications companies that provided information to the government without court orders should be given retroactive immunity from being sued. House Democrats are understandably reluctant to grant that wholesale protection without understanding exactly what conduct they are shielding, and the administration has balked at providing such information. But the telecommunications providers seem to us to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment.
It’s a confusing argument. We know that the telecoms weren’t just motivated by “patriotism” during a “difficult” post-9/11 period, but were in fact cooperating with the NSA long before the 2001 terrorist attacks. We know this, of course, because the WaPo ran a front-page story on this just yesterday.
Indeed, this same front-page article suggests the telecoms that were playing ball with the NSA weren’t necessarily driven by national service, but rather the corporate desire to secure lucrative contracts that were in jeopardy unless the companies obliged administration requests.
So, what’s the argument here? That Congress should provide retroactive immunity to companies that cooperated in secret with the NSA to violate customers’ privacy rights, apparently in violation of the law, before a national emergency? That these companies should be entirely shielded from responsibility, before lawmakers even understand what exactly transpired?
This is what the WaPo finds persuasive?
The editorial board of the NYT is slightly more reasonable.
Mr. Bush says the law should give immunity to communications companies that gave data to the government over the last five years without a court order. He says they should not be punished for helping to protect America, but what Mr. Bush really wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.
It may be possible to shield these companies from liability, since the government lied to them about the legality of its requests. But the law should allow suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr. Bush’s actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted since 9/11. And it should have an expiration date, which the White House does not want.
Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help Mr. Bush shred the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism. We have seen Democrats acquiesce or retreat in fear. It is time for that to stop.
That’s good advice.