[Bondo]

I'm stirring the pot here, but when did Cato become a shill for corporate lobbyists?

Quote

The Senate bill would be an improvement, not least because it provides retroactive liability protection for telecom companies that allegedly assisted the government after 9/11

I might theoretically accept "in spite of the fact that it provides retroactive liability" protection. But even then "retroactive liability protection" is Orwellian doublespeak for retroactive immunity for crimes. At the very least the phone companies defrauded and compromised the privacy of their subscribers, cases that are now before the courts.

Mr Pilon happily throws away the rights of the American people as well as the rule of law and the principle of independent courts to further the cause of a big government surveillance state. Its bad enough that self described small government types are not particularly succeeding in reducing the size and scope of government, but now the rhetoric doesn't even match that goal.

And by the way, if this and related surveillance was soooo important, you'd think Bush would pay his phone bill.

Quote

But the FBI acknowledged a "a few instances" in which late phone bills led to surveillance disruptions.

It added, "These interruptions were temporary and in our assessment, none of those cases were significantly affected."

Oh... so you stopped spying because you screwed up, and magically, none of your cases were significantly affected? I guess this program isn't really so urgent if its not passed by the end of the week.

[Jason Vines]

The position Roger Pilon takes on this issue is not representative of Cato's other work on the subject.

[Jason Vines]

Cato adjunct scholar Timothy B. Lee has posted on the Cato-@-Liberty blog a strong dissent to Pilon's Wall Street Journal piece.

[Jason Vines]

Tom Palmer, a senior fellow at Cato, also objects to Roger Pilon's article.