You're possibly right that Congress has the legal power to do this. It's not clear whether their declaration of amnesty really will immunize the phone companies, but it's likely enough that we're fighting against it. That's the whole point here, of course: If Congress clearly didn't have the power to retroactively give amnesty for lawbreaking, then this wouldn't be an important issue to lobby about.
So, grant that Congress is allowed to do this (aka this is "part of its duties").
Now, think about the effects. Remember what happened with Nixon. FISA was a response to the Nixon scandals. It placed a duty on phone companies not to comply with illegal request for information from the government, because the Church commission understood that without that, it would be very hard to enforce the law, since on the government side everything is secret, and it's hard to sue or prosecute anyone.
So imagine you're a phone company with a legal department that understands the FISA law, and the government comes asking you for information that you know you're not legally allowed to give them. For example, you're AT&T and the government asks you to build a special secret room where all of your data gets routed through and a copy is sent to the NSA. Obviously outside the law, and there's clearly no warrant from the FISA court, but they're the executive branch and they're pressuring you to do it. Do you comply?
If you know that if it ever gets found out, you're in for some serious liability, then you're much more likely to resist their pressure to break the law. That's what FISA was trying to accomplish.
But if this bill passes, that calculation changes. You understand that there are consequences for resisting the government (Qwest was punished for their refusal to collude). You also understand that the executive branch run amok will also be able to pressure Congress into immunizing you if this ever goes public, so there likely won't be any serious consequences. That means you're probably better off obeying government officials, than obeying the law.
That is the very definition of the difference between monarchy/dictatorship and "the rule of law".
no subject
So, grant that Congress is allowed to do this (aka this is "part of its duties").
Now, think about the effects. Remember what happened with Nixon. FISA was a response to the Nixon scandals. It placed a duty on phone companies not to comply with illegal request for information from the government, because the Church commission understood that without that, it would be very hard to enforce the law, since on the government side everything is secret, and it's hard to sue or prosecute anyone.
So imagine you're a phone company with a legal department that understands the FISA law, and the government comes asking you for information that you know you're not legally allowed to give them. For example, you're AT&T and the government asks you to build a special secret room where all of your data gets routed through and a copy is sent to the NSA. Obviously outside the law, and there's clearly no warrant from the FISA court, but they're the executive branch and they're pressuring you to do it. Do you comply?
If you know that if it ever gets found out, you're in for some serious liability, then you're much more likely to resist their pressure to break the law. That's what FISA was trying to accomplish.
But if this bill passes, that calculation changes. You understand that there are consequences for resisting the government (Qwest was punished for their refusal to collude). You also understand that the executive branch run amok will also be able to pressure Congress into immunizing you if this ever goes public, so there likely won't be any serious consequences. That means you're probably better off obeying government officials, than obeying the law.
That is the very definition of the difference between monarchy/dictatorship and "the rule of law".