Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima provide a reasonably thorough and balanced account in today's Post of what the fight is about over immunity for telecommunications companies in the renewal of the law authorizing continued surveillance of terrorism suspects. Both sides' claims get a thorough and respectful airing in the balancing act between security and privacy -- with one big exception. The story starts out by framing the administration's concerns this way:
President Bush said last week that telecommunications companies that helped government wiretapping efforts need protection from "class-action plaintiff attorneys" who see a "financial gravy train" ahead.
But the rest of the story goes in a different direction, showing a struggle over disclosure of secrets. Are there money-hungry trial lawyers swarming all over this? How much could they reasonably expect to win if the dozens of suits pay out? What law authorizes financial damages? How many of the cases are brought by public-interest and advocacy groups, and what is their financial interest compared to for-profit lawyers? The story only touches on this implicitly, with an unexplored reference in the seventh graf to a Motley Rice partner working on the suit against Verizon. Motley Rice, as in mega-rich class action firm, which presumably cares about more than just the public interest, but is willing to take a big risk on whether Congress gives the president the retroactive immunity that he seeks. Time for a folo!
