Um, when it comes to country-level activities, such as espionage and catching official and self-avowed enemies of our country, who have publicly declared that they want to kill us all, whom do you suggest instead?

That’s a serious question, by the way – I dislike trusting government. I just haven’t heard a suggstd alternativ that wasn’t stark raving insane.

Public defense (as in, war and defending the country for foreigners) is one of the few government powers that libertarians will almost unanimously agree that the government SHOULD have… in fact, I’ve hard many libertarians say that it’s practically the ONLY thing the government should do.

This is hilarious. So I guess the new motto for libertarians is “In Government We Trust?”

I do oppose grants of immunity – immunity from suit means discovery cannot even occur. Which means it wouldn’t even be possible to learn what phone records were provided to the government.

Do you really expect that the identity of any and all foreign individuals be made available through the process of discovery in a lawsuit against the phone companies? Why don’t we just do our intelligence operations out in the open to alleviate your fears that you are being spied upon. I would suggest that you worry a little less about hypothetical threats against you by your government, and a little more about real threats from Islamic terrorists.

That is (and I could be wrong), the government could tap your phone for the rest of time, listen in, glean some information that allows them to catch a terrorist outside the country, and, as long as nothing is done TO YOU, you have no cause of action.

(The difficulty here is that we, with good reason, don’t trust the government not to use such information.)

Perhaps I am wrong on this, but that’s what I’ve picked up from following a few cases… somebody want to help me out?

Imagine a CEO testifying before Congress responding to every question, “I’ll have to get back to you once the lawyers make sure my telling you that won’t violate some statute and make us liable for Billions.”

So the government has said. Even if that’s true, I don’t trust the federal government with too much power – for good reason, I’d argue.

Again, the government should simply pass a law whereby it agrees to indemnify private telecom companies from suit – including bearing the private companies’ costs of complying with discovery orders. This ensures that guilty parties do not escape accountability, but prevents private companies from facing “strict liability for guessing wrong on the legality of a matter.”

I do not oppose protecting the good-faith deeds of people in the private sector. I do oppose grants of immunity – immunity from suit means discovery cannot even occur. Which means it wouldn’t even be possible to learn what phone records were provided to the government.

Then you are talking about qualified, not absolute, immunity. Which would require, at a minimum, some discovery to determine what the government told the phone companies, and whether they relied in good faith.