Jay Rockefeller, Patrick Leahy, Silvestre Reyes and John Conyers in WaPo:
We are motivated to pass legislation governing surveillance because we believe this activity must be carefully regulated to protect Americans' constitutional rights. Companies that provide lawful assistance to the government in surveillance activities should be legally protected for doing so.
I find these two sentences next to one another disturbing. The proposition that "Companies that provide lawful assistance to the government in surveillance activities should be legally protected for doing so" is not a matter of dispute.
FISA law, as we know, already protects lawful assistance. And so this statement has no bearing on the question of protecting Americans' Constitutional rights.
With a capital "C", gentleman.
The Constitution. The one you've taken a solemn vow to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Let me lay it out for you sirs, once again:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This is the right in question when it comes to illegal searches, warrantless searches, which is what the legal "liability protection" is supposed to protect.
Got it?
So to recap:
- Warrantless Wiretapping is unconstitutional.
2) Retroactive liability protection is unconstitutional.*
- If you do not protect The Constitution, you are in traitorous deriliction of your sworn duty.
- Companies that provide unlawful assistance to the government in surveillance activities should be legally prosecuted for doing so.
*This was an argument from an earlier version of the diary -- we do learn from the comments, hm? Leaving it in for reference.