I thank the gentleman and I support the bill. I submit for the Record an op-ed by our friend and former colleague, the Honorable Lee Hamilton, cochair of the 9/11 Commission, regarding the issue of retroactive immunity. The op-ed fully…
I thank the gentleman and I support the bill.
I submit for the Record an op-ed by our friend and former colleague, the Honorable Lee Hamilton, cochair of the 9/11 Commission, regarding the issue of retroactive immunity. The op-ed fully expresses my concerns regarding this issue, and I wish for all Members to have the benefit of reviewing it.
[From the Baltimore Sun, Nov. 4, 2007]
Immunity for Wiretap Assistance Is Right Call
(By Lee H. Hamilton)
If the local fire company asked for your help putting out
neighbor's blaze, you would not force the firefighters to
justify their request. You would just help, right? That's
what the phone companies did when the Bush administration
asked them in secret for help with wiretaps to target al-
Qaida communications into and out of the country.
However, the president's warrantless wiretap program caused
a furor when it became public. The administration had
circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
raising many doubts about the legality and even
constitutionality of its wiretap program. The controversy
prompted class-action lawsuits against phone companies that
cooperated with the government.
The Senate Intelligence Committee has reported out a
bipartisan bill that would bring this wiretap program back
under the FISA statute and court review. It would ensure the
legality and robust congressional oversight so lacking in the
original program. It also would give the phone companies
immunity for their previous actions.
The committee made the right call. To the extent that
companies helped the government, they were acting out of a
sense of patriotic duty and in the belief that their actions
were legal. Dragging them through litigation would set a bad
precedent. It would deter companies and private citizens from
helping in future emergencies when there is uncertainty or
legal risk.
The help and cooperation of all our citizens are vital in
combating the threats we face today. Companies in various
sectors of the economy are going to have information that
could save the lives of thousands of Americans. When they
respond in an emergency, at the call of our highest elected
officials and on assurances that what they are doing is
legal, they must be treated fairly. To do otherwise would put
our security at risk.
This is particularly true of communications companies. They
are critical to our intelligence and ``early warning''
against terrorist attacks. The increasing complexity of
communications technology has made the voluntary cooperation
of these companies vital.
Government actions require public review. Actions by
private companies in response to government requests also
should place the burden of accountability on the government.
We should not expect private companies to second-guess the
propriety and legality of government requests. That is the
job of our public servants in the executive branch, the
legislators who oversee them, and ultimately the courts.
Unless Congress provides immunity, the clear message will
be that private citizens should help only when they are
certain that all the government's actions are legal. Given
today's threats, that is too high a standard. We should hold
public officials accountable for their actions--and hold
harmless private citizens and companies when they respond to
government requests to help protect us.