« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
If you liked the Protect America Act -- President Bush's sweeping revision to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act signed into law in August -- you're going to love the soon-to-be-unveiled surveillance bill from the Senate intelligence committee. President Bush and Admiral Mike McConnell do, at least. A day after the White House made available to the committee "millions" of pages of material documenting how the telecommunications industry complied with warrantless requests for Americans' international communications after 9/11, the committee wrote into its bill a provision granting the industry retroactive immunity from customer lawsuits that the White House has long desired.
It's unclear what else the bill will contain. The House Democratic surveillance measure that Republicans blocked yesterday allowed for non-individualized court orders approving surveillance of targets "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. and possessing "foreign intelligence information," a provision that has divided civil libertarians. That measure is too restrictive to the Bush administration, which wants all foreign-directed surveillance outside the purview of the FISA Court, even in cases where foreigners call into the United States. Until the Senate bill is released today, it won't be clear whether there's a prior-review role for the court in foreign-directed surveillance.
But on the most contentious aspect of the debate -- retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies cooperating with the Bush administration -- the Senate has apparently justified the ACLU's worst fears. Here's what The Washington Post, citing congressional sources, reports about how the immunity will work:
The draft Senate bill has the support of the intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), and Bush's director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.Such a demonstration, which the bill says could be made in secret, would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants. Bush had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision.
The first question this raises: This "legal directive" is surely part of the pile of documents the Senate intelligence committee had access to about the legal foundations for the warrantless surveillance program. But its legal validity is unknown -- indeed, Jack Goldsmith, the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, called the legal basis for the program up until 2004 the "biggest mess" he'd ever encountered. Will the Court's "secret" review of telecom compliance with the directive include an assessment of the soundness of that directive? We'll see what the text of the bill says.
Second: McConnell has indicated his support to Congressional surveillance moves before, only to have Bush reverse him. Since the Senate bill apparently goes further than the Protect America Act in terms of telecom immunity, it's an open question whether the president thinks he can ultimately run the table on a full PAA-plus measure. McConnell's support may not be so ironclad if Bush thinks an even more administration-friendly measure can be introduced or added to the bill in a subsequent amendment.
Comments (61)
Gary Goldberg wrote on October 18, 2007 9:36 AM:And so the Democrats rolled over again.
I'm almost sorry I continue to vote for them. If we're going to end up with the same terrible policies and a Orwellian society regardless of whom we vote for, I'd rather knowlingly pick the abyss. Then at least we'll deserve the hatred future generations will have for us.
Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 9:37 AM:Why is Congress rushing forward on this? Hepting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepting_v._AT%26T) has been argued before the 9th Circuit. The issue is whether evidence of telecom wrongdoing in this affair will be excluded from lawsuits by the state secrets privilege. If the Court excludes the material, then the telecoms will have de facto immunity. Since other cases against the telecoms from all over the nation have been consolidated in the 9th Circuit, the Hepting case will control the outcome for essentially the entire country. Congress should not be pressured to resolve an issue that might not even exist.
mlaw230 wrote on October 18, 2007 9:47 AM:Mr. Ackerman: Perhaps you can address why such a Bill granting immunity for prior illegal conduct is not an Ex Post Facto Law, prohibited by the Constitution? Thanks
Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 18, 2007 9:51 AM:The issue is not so much what happened in the past, it's what will happen in the future. If immunity is granted, the telecoms will exercise no restraint when presented with dubious requests for information by anyone flashing a badge from a Cracker Jack box. They know in the end they will not be held accountable.
Restating Gary's Orwellian reference, the Senate (including the Dems) seems hell-bent on shoving Big Brother society down our throats.
Thanks a million for protecting our liberties, John D. Rockefeller IV, Democratic Senator.
anonymouse wrote on October 18, 2007 10:01 AM:Could someone possibly list the ways our democrat majority Congress has HELPED our democracy so far?
I voted for them because they kept telling me that they would put a stop to this travesty of justice the republican led congress has put us through.
Anyone else lose faith in their honesty?
Tosh wrote on October 18, 2007 10:09 AM:anonymous asks;
"Anyone else lose faith in their honesty?"
Oh yea.
Davis13 wrote on October 18, 2007 10:09 AM:What is the point? Why do we even have laws that are meant as checks and balances if the Democrats just roll over like wienies every GD time?
Why did I vote for these yellow-bellied cowards again?
steambomb wrote on October 18, 2007 10:10 AM:What is interesting here is the term "legal directive". If indeed the directive was with out warrant, is it not an illegal directive?
gypsy howell wrote on October 18, 2007 10:11 AM:Soooprise soooprise soooprise.
I almost wish some democratic party fundraiser would call me today. I need to vent.
Not one more f*&king dime to these useless weasels.
Maybe not one more f*&king vote.
But I guess that's what they're hoping for. Just think, if no one votes, these asswipes we pay to 'represent' us don't need to spend their precious time campaigning. They can spend all their time sucking lobbyists for cash.
Tosh wrote on October 18, 2007 10:11 AM:anonymouse asks;
"Anyone else lose faith in their honesty?"
Oh yea.
bwindrip wrote on October 18, 2007 10:12 AM:I warned you, Steny.
My "Give Hoyer the Heave-Ho" campaign starts the day this abomination passes.
Goober Pease wrote on October 18, 2007 10:14 AM:* mlaw230 wrote on October 18, 2007 9:47 AM:
* Mr. Ackerman: Perhaps you can address why such a Bill granting immunity for prior illegal conduct is not an Ex Post Facto Law, prohibited by the Constitution? Thanks
ALL amnesty laws are expostfactum laws, and therefore ALL amnesty laws call the rule of law into question, but it's ridiculous to say that an amnesty law is unconstitutional.
The "ex post facto" provisions of the Constitution don't apply to civil law, and don't apply to amnesty laws.
An expostfactum law is unconstitutional ONLY IF it criminalizes an act that was legal at the time the act was performed, or if it increases the criminal penalties after the fact.
That's not what's happening here. This is a travesty for the rule of law, but it's quite constitutional.
sj wrote on October 18, 2007 10:15 AM:Calder v. Bull, an early Supreme Court case, defined the meaning of ex post facto for U.S. constitutional purposes as "(1) Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. (2) Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. (3)Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. (4) Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
Basically, EPF only prohibits making something a crime which wasn't a crime when committed, increasing the punishment for a crime, or makes it easier to convict for a crime. Making something not a crime that was a crime isn't deemed to be covered.
Cap'n Happy wrote on October 18, 2007 10:15 AM:Bribery works.
Mr. Greenwald (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/18/rockefeller/index.html) lays it out fairly clearly.
We don't need any more Bushes. Maybe we don't need any more Rockefellers either.
gizmo wrote on October 18, 2007 10:16 AM:It's going to be a long time before the American public wakes up and realizes the 2 party political system is designed and built to wage war on the Constitution and the American people. It will be too late by then. So keep voting for democrats and republicans. There is no difference.
It's no accident that the USA has lower voter turnout than other democracies. Americans realize that voting is a meaningless joke. The 2 parties have locked up the system, and this news is a simple example of how bad it will get. Wiretapping on a whim is now the law of the land.
Bill of rights may not survive another 50 years.
One Party Rule wrote on October 18, 2007 10:18 AM:Bluster and histrionics notwithstanding, the Dems are as captive to the corporations as are the Repubs. The ex-Bell Telcos own Congress, the FCC, and most statehouses. Nothing will change this fact. Nothing.
And don't kid yourself that Google will act any differently once they've achieved lobbying parity. Ultimately the only solution is elimination of as much of the corporation-owned federal gov't as possible (e.g. FCC). Only then will K Street wither.
Legalize wrote on October 18, 2007 10:23 AM:They didn't cave. They wanted this just like the GOPers. The only difference is that the Dems have to appear to give a shit about the public in order to maintain the gag. The GOPers are unburdened by such pretense.
It's just good cop - bad cop. That's all it is.
litigatormom wrote on October 18, 2007 10:26 AM:Jesus H. Frakkin' Christ. That's all I can say, since my jaw fell of my head and crashed to the floor just before my head exploded.
Write to your Congressmen, your Senators. I can't think of what else to do, except weep.
Mimoemo wrote on October 18, 2007 10:27 AM:I second mlaw230's comment. Please address the Ex Post Facto Law angle.
It seems like all of Washington is engaged in a mad scramble to Cover Their A#$% for what has been going on.
How is it possible that this current crop of leaders are willing to surrender hard-won freedoms just because some terrorists managed to hit the jackpot ONCE?
I'm long past believing that they must know something that we don't. They used up that Get Out of Jail Free card back with the Iraq War.
PSP wrote on October 18, 2007 10:40 AM:"Why is Congress rushing forward on
this?"
I've read that the estimate statutory damages are in the billions.
How many grandmothers have their live savings in telephone company stock? How do you think they will vote when the Republicans tell them that democrats stopped the bill that would have kept the telecoms out of Chapter 11?
oldtree wrote on October 18, 2007 10:41 AM:Who will our independent candidate be?
the idea that any of the ones we have running now could be acceptable is laughable.
these are the same completely corrupt folks that are in the senate and could have filibustered, but did not.
no, none of our existing senators are against fascism quite enough to stand up and say so. They prefer sitting down and going on the ride.
America is gone. Each day we lose another few rights, have a few more laws passed that violate our constitution in such an egregious fashion that the sheer volume of them will allow hitler to be reborn.
Sadly, it appears that both of our existing "parties" are completely corrupt. One can no longer call it negligence. When will we agree that our government is just a criminal enterprise?
rumpole wrote on October 18, 2007 10:45 AM:Two words: primary challenger. A guy that does this needs to be kicked out of office. If his seat was more competitive, he could be kicked out.
Moreover, I have to believe that someone with a last name that is so storied with wealth would be vulnerable to a populism-based campaign, particularly on economic issues. (I have no idea what his voting record is, but I suspect that if it smacks of noblesse oblige, he might be vulnerable).
His constituents will hopefully set him straight. This is just depressing.
ProDem wrote on October 18, 2007 10:49 AM:Step right up, folks..the Democratic "Save the Constitution and We Care" Sideshow continues..Please pay the man at the door..Spineless Scumbags!!
foggylady wrote on October 18, 2007 10:55 AM:Excellent clear statement of issue via the Greenwald article cited above.
Ok, time for some facts.
How many/ which Dems on the Intel Comm. voted for the draft?
What are chances the draft bill will actually pass?
Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 11:05 AM:It does have a ways to go, if I remember correctly,
it is the House that has to initiate bills, so lots of input there.
Perhaps ( feeling optimistic again, who know why)
just perhaps if enuff folks scream loud enuff.....
This may be a GIANT CON and attempted cover up.
I was told by an informant that ALL communications were routed outside the USA to circumvent the law and the protections of the US Constitution.
Is the language being crafted to ensure that this immense crime will never see the light of the law?
shenacatro wrote on October 18, 2007 11:06 AM:Work from home jobs
linda wrote on October 18, 2007 11:14 AM:"Real Work At Home Job That Pays $150 - $2,000 a day. No scams just easy work that anyone can do from home. Work at home jobs that really pay."
come on, guys. just think of all the taxpayer money being saved on toilet paper as the senate and house can just use up all of those outdated sheets of paper the constitution is printed on to wipe their asses with.
Jane wrote on October 18, 2007 11:16 AM:Let President Bush pardon the telcoms. Don't legitimize their actons in this fashion.
I agree with all who seek to have primary challengers for legislators who vote for this.
benjoya wrote on October 18, 2007 11:18 AM:wow, a rockefeller who is easily bought. i'm shocked, shocked i tell you.
eat the rich.
centerfielder wrote on October 18, 2007 11:26 AM:Some people just can't keep their eye on the ball.
The telecoms had little choice but to comply given a GOP Congress (at the time) that was going to protect an out-of-control Executive Branch whose threats against the telecoms and their management would have been seen as very real and very unavoidable given the number of people the administration was disappearing or holding indefinitely without trial.
This is not the telecoms fault, much as I despise them, but the criminal acts of the Bush administration.
My only disappointment is that this cowardly Congress and the DOJ (who were after all complicit) will likely do nothing with the information being released, which should be served up as proof of governmental wrongdoing in vigorous and wide-ranging impeachment proceedings against those who pressured the telecoms to break the law.
That's what Mukasey should be asked: are you going to prosecute the individuals in the DOJ and administration that coerced the telecoms into violations of the law, under theories of official oppression, extortion, aiding and abetting, or any other theory anyone can come up with to hold these scumbags accountable.
jaded competitive telecom lawyer wrote on October 18, 2007 11:43 AM:If you don't like warrantless suveillance - use a competitive provider of phone service. Try a cable phone or other competitive alternative (Cavalier, Covad etc.). Support the companies that have been trying to provide competitive alternatives to these entrenched monopolists even while getting literally crushed by this current FCC's terrible anti-competitive decisions.
kis wrote on October 18, 2007 11:46 AM:I agree with centerfielder.
Despite how much this stinks, I actually think the telecoms had very little choice if they were presented with a presidential finding and no real case law covering the issue. Any challenge they would have had would have been blocked by an invocation of state secrets anyway.
I think its more important to stop this widespread wiretapping activity on a go forward basis, lay out clear distinctions of what is legal, and return all questionable situations to falling under judicial review of FISA.
What boggles my mind more is that the Rebulicans want this law on the books even with the prospect of Hillary at the controls. Unless its the immunity that they are realy after, figuring they can scale back the law later.
melior wrote on October 18, 2007 11:48 AM:Strong encryption.
P J Evans wrote on October 18, 2007 11:52 AM:gizmo @ 10:16a wrote
'Bill of rights may not survive another 50 years.'
It isn't going to survive another 50 *months*, the way these guys are 'defending' it.
(A couple of years ago there was a presumably-unserious piece in the LA Times, advocating that CA apply for membership in the EU. It sounds more and more like a really good idea.)
lambert strether wrote on October 18, 2007 11:55 AM:melior:
+1
and p2p architecture.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 18, 2007 11:56 AM:The monopolizing of the media just gets worse. In today's NYT:
The head of the Federal Communications Commission has circulated an ambitious plan to relax the decades-old media ownership rules, including repealing a rule that forbids a company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city.
lambert strether wrote on October 18, 2007 11:59 AM:Oh, and about the question:
"Why would the Republicans want to give Hillary such power?"
Because "continuity of government" issues might, er, take precedence?
JW wrote on October 18, 2007 12:20 PM:"When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where
they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."
Abraham Lincoln
Source: August 24, 1855 - Letter to Joshua Speed
I won't be moving, but should this amnesty become law I'll be damned if I'll ever vote democratic again. Ever.
midwestblue wrote on October 18, 2007 12:21 PM:Glenn Greenwald has been encouraging people to call Senator Dodd's campaign HQ and urging Dodd to place a hold on this bill. People have been calling his office, too. The lines are swamped. Dodd's been the only candidate who's come out against immunity for telecoms. Give him your support please.
windy_city_atty wrote on October 18, 2007 12:29 PM:No, the major telecoms do not have an excuse. They have their own legal departments. Like Quest, they could have done 2 minutes of research and realized that what the government wanted them to do was already ILLEGAL - and carried both civil and criminal penalties. This isnt a matter of novel legal claims and plausible deniability! Dont be fooled.
A legal "directive" isnt even legalese...its bullshit. A euphamism that means someone asked us to do it so we did. This is total CYA by the telecoms, because they know the statutes they did violate carry hefty fines given the extremely large number of violations - millions even. The only legal directive that applies in this situation is either a) A federal statute (like say FISA) b) a warrant signed by a judge. Not an administrative subpeana, not a letter from the NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA, NSC, etc...etc...
The Dems need to be called out on this latest example of having their backbone fed to them via their ever expanding vagina's. IMPEACH THEM ALL
Duckman GR wrote on October 18, 2007 1:08 PM:Rocky is weak and not very smart, needs to spend more time with the family.
The telco's don't have an excuse, I can't believe that people are defending them here.
A legal directive, WTF is that? A law? Is the government the boss of the Telco Corps now, or vice a versa? I mean, really, An Admiral gives legal directives to an E-2, a lawyer gives legal directives to an aide to file a legal document, but my boss doesn't give me legal directives, she just tries to tell me what to do, and I do or don't depending on my decision making, not because she freaking said so.
Christ, what a country America has become.
Ferruge wrote on October 18, 2007 1:12 PM:Maybe if these people could tell me how a 'legal directive' differs from an illegal one, then I could be on board. 'Cause right now, I see no distinction between the two.
oleeb wrote on October 18, 2007 1:16 PM:What about BEFORE 9/11? Reports this week indicate they were illegally spying on citizens long before the attacks?
Regardless, they broke the f****ng law. Prosecute ALL of them! Not just the telecom companies, but the administration officials who implemented the illegal policy.
Why the hell is this even under discussion? How far removed from reality are these God Damned Democrats? I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the whole lot of them--Democrats and Republicans need to be removed and replaced with people who believe in the Constitution and will protect and defend same. The Republicans are criminals and the Democrats are criminal cowards.
Sadman wrote on October 18, 2007 1:18 PM:Don't you all get it? They hate us for our freedoms. Once all our liberties are gone, we'll be safe!
Bonnie wrote on October 18, 2007 1:29 PM:Why should Congress stop now? They need to pass a bill that gives retroactive immunity to Al Capone, John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc.
parrot wrote on October 18, 2007 1:31 PM:Again, we see that absolute power is corrupting our system. Where is the country that once prided itself on following legal prescriptions for its problems? Where?
I'd also like to see discovery with these telcos exploring what their own legal departments had to say on these matters at the time.
Sheila Condit wrote on October 18, 2007 1:44 PM:oldtree asked
Prut wrote on October 18, 2007 1:44 PM:"Who will our independent candidate be?"
Stephen Colbert.
He's willing to admit he's a comedian.
Goddammitt!!
centerfielder wrote on October 18, 2007 1:53 PM:It doesn't matter whether the government's request/demand was legal or illegal or whether the telecoms believed them to be legal or illegal.
Even if the request/demand was illegal and the telecoms knew it, they could not challenge it in court nor could they be assured that any retaliation by the government could be addressed by the courts since the courts (with a GOP Congress's willing complicity) were deferring to claims of national security privilege that were preventing people from challenging these types of government actions.
ITBAS: It's the Bush administration stupid.
Keep your eye on the ball.
This administration has done many illegal things for which the victims have had no recourse and are still facing the consequences of compliant courts and a spineless Congress.
You are demanding the telecoms make themselves victims of these outrageous Executive Branch actions instead of focusing on the real problem: the Bush administration.
sherifffruitfly wrote on October 18, 2007 2:12 PM:And in true centrist-MSM fashion, TPM feels NO sense of embarrassment about their idiotic headline of two days ago - a marvelous piece of Snarlin' Arlen stenography.
Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 2:27 PM:"You are demanding the telecoms make themselves victims of these outrageous Executive Branch actions instead of focusing on the real problem: the Bush administration."
Lean on a corporation, it rats out the government (see Veco). Let the corporation go free, the government stonewalls.
mlaw230 wrote on October 18, 2007 2:50 PM:I am not at all certain that Bull reserves EPFL to the criminal realm.
It would also appear to me that the plaintiffs may have a property right in their civil claims against the telecoms under existing law, as well as a contractual right.
The Government could grant criminal amnesty, i.e. mitigate the punishment or even the definitions of crimes because crimes are deemed to be against the sovereign, but it would appear that amnesty on the civil side, if valid, would constitute a taking and a trial on Just Compensation.
Bill wrote on October 18, 2007 2:50 PM:I am at the point where if I were younger I would take up arms to overthrow this filthy abortion called government! It is tyrany again!
The stinking politicians need to be afraid for their lives!
Bill
windy_city_atty wrote on October 18, 2007 2:56 PM:Centerfielder-
The telecoms arent victims, there fucking co-conspirators!
They make the government happy by making incredibly incompetent legal decisions to go along with the government's goals and what do you know, same telecos get in return: 1) major hundred million dollar gov. contracts 2)a promise by gov. to make an attempt to de-regulate telecom industry 3) perhaps one or more seats on governmental committee's for said telecos major lobbyists or CEO's.
This is quid pro quo - if you think the telecos deserve a pass, you are f-ing insane. Educate yourself. Do you really think a billion dollar company with the sharpest and most powerful legal firms on retainer are just going to roll over and open themselves up to civil liability (to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars) without a promise of immunity?? Who is paying Rockefeller to pass this out of committee?
Jim H wrote on October 18, 2007 3:30 PM:Ah, but the Rock is up there today on C-Span with Amy Klobuchar, suggesting cell phone reform! Abolish "locking" phones to accounts? No. Abolish roaming charges? No. Abolish cancellation fees? Uh, no. Pro-rate them. Coincidentally, that is now the policy of AT&T. Brave reformers, continue!
I'm thinking maybe all that '70s-era paranoia about the Rockefellers had something to it.
Just Joe wrote on October 18, 2007 3:48 PM:I'm so depressed. There is just no stopping this republican rule even with a democratic majority. They cave on every important issue and then say yeah but we got the minimum wage law passed like it's a major victory...compared to what?
Sheila Condit wrote on October 18, 2007 5:53 PM:I have to watch my freedoms being destroyed in spite of the nation's majority saying no the elected officials find loopholes to keep doing it and none have the courage to stand up and stop it. With the passage of this bill our whole future security has just been turned over to government agencies (which will probably be outsourced to private entities). Using terrorism as an excuse to justify having the ability to access all of our private records, emails, financial records, medical records...everything. They can violate at will because they have amnesty, no accountability and no oversight. Rockefeller and others have just sold us down the river to protect their corporate interests. Though it may not seem it now this bill will lead to the surrender of all our property and privacy rights to the corporations.
My remark about Stephen Colbert wasn't a chaff, you know.
sj wrote on October 18, 2007 6:01 PM:This cabal in every branch of the Federal government that is now yanking our chains descends to such stunning depths as to make it all perhaps irretrievable.
I'm sick of the impotence I feel in the face of the hurricane.
All of the keyboard chatter amounts to so much wheel spinning.
I'm praying for Chris Dodd's well being, but what is the poor man going to do all by himself?
All of the legal logic and right minded thinking in these posts is just howling at the moon stuff while the werewolves chew up the villagers.
The 5th amendment (due process) would be the right place to go to challenge a grant of immunity rather than the EPF section. The argument would be made that the right to sue the telecoms is statutorily based and Congress is at liberty to repeal statutory rights at any time. I imagine Scalia, et.al, would view that argument favorably.
jf wrote on October 19, 2007 1:33 AM:To say that telecoms had no choice is about the dumbest thing I've heard about this issue. And the lack of any in depth outrage about this bill's evolution on the front page of TPM is extremely dissapointing.
Buddy Boudreau wrote on October 19, 2007 10:46 AM:I think it is time for cheney to take all federal politicans hunting but exchange his weapon for a AK47.
GrannyBgood wrote on October 21, 2007 10:45 AM:Anonymous wrote on October 18, 2007 11:05 AM:
This may be a GIANT CON and attempted cover up.
I was told by an informant that ALL communications were routed outside the USA to circumvent the law and the protections of the US Constitution.
Is the language being crafted to ensure that this immense crime will never see the light of the law?"
BINGO!
The Israelis have OWNED our Telecommunications infrastructure since JUST BEFORE 9/11!
This little-known but salient fact means that, just as when you call your Cable, ISP, etc. company and get someone on the line from India, technically ALL our calls could be going through, say Israel, so "Technically" they can all be considered "Foreign".
GOTCHA!