Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss continues to disregard individual liberties.

Saxby Chambliss comes out on the record in support of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, as it already existed, as well as being strongly in favor of giving retroactive immunity to private companies that likely violated the law while being part of the TSP. The fact remains that these private companies provided access and information to the government without being provided a proper legal order for it.

Here is some of what Saxby Chambliss had to say on the floor of the Senate, in an attempt to send the concept of individual liberty down the river for good:

The committee concluded that granting civil liability relief to the telecommunications providers was not only warranted, but required to maintain the regular assistance our intelligence and law enforcement professionals seek from them and others in the private sector. It was clear in discussions within the committee that most of us were concerned about the harm the Government could face if it cannot rely on the private sector. Without this provision, the harm faced by the Government will become a reality.

The problem with this comment is that a properly obtained and properly served order requires compliance from these private companies. It is not optional for them to assist when provided with such a request. So, how exactly would this or any other program be harmed? The answer is that it would not be harmed at all, unless they hope to act outside of the law at some point in the future and need their telecom cronies to do them some favors when that time comes.

I cannot understate the importance of this assistance, not only for intelligence purposes but for law enforcement too. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General stated, ``Extending liability protection to such companies is imperative; failure to do so could limit future cooperation by such companies and put critical intelligence operations at risk. Moreover, litigation against companies believed to have assisted the Government risks the disclosure of highly classified information regarding extremely sensitive intelligence sources and methods.'' There is too much at stake for us to deny those who assist the Government the liability relief they need, and deserve, or to delay its implementation.

So, the argument goes something like this... These poor telecom companies, with their teams of lawyers, were not able to tell whether the TSP requests were legal or not and assumed they were. They will somehow find a way to wriggle out of compliance with proper requests in the future. Also, despite the strong possibility that TSP was illegal, we'd better give these companies protection in order to keep any secrets obtained under this illegal program from seeing the light of day. We are a nation of laws, Mr. Chambliss, and you can bet that it should extend to every entity in this nation, regardless of how important or secret you think it should be. Perhaps, if it was really so important, the government should have acted within the law and therefore been able to keep it secret. They chose to operate outside of the law, of their own free will, and there are always consequences out there for those who choose to do such things.

Further, regardless of the Government's program, our companies should not be held liable for assistance that they were assured was lawful. Let the Government carry the burden for its own actions.

This argument is absurd. If you just think about the IRS, for instance. If you call them and they provide a response about your tax status or preparation, it carries no weight and will not absolve you, the individual, for being responsible for a different interpretation brought to the table by an auditor later. The government is rarely willing to carry any burden for its actions. Besides, if a private company is being sued for breaking a law, it is clearly about an action they engaged in. If they believe simply being asked by the government to do something is sufficient cover for their actions, why can't they argue that in court? Saxby Chambliss continues to believe that the interests of government and big companies outweigh the interests of individuals.

I have worked in subpoena compliance for a communications company in the past and I know that the very first thing you are supposed to do is ascertain whether the subpoena, or other legal order, is actually legal before providing any information at all. It is an important aspect of doing business in this, or any other, country. You need to know what orders actually require a response, and those which have no legal power behind them. Big telecommunication companies in the United States have enough legal resources to rightfully determine what they must do regarding orders from the government. That this slipped by all of them does not indicate that they deserve extra special protection with some retroactive immunity. If we want to do that for anyone, let's extend it to everyone for everything. Let's go back 3 or 4 years and give everyone immunity for anything they may have done.