I admit that I am really not very worked up over whether or not the telecommunications corporations wind up getting immunity for cooperating with the president’s warrantless wiretapping. Most progressives feel differently…for example, Russ Feingold (press release):
“Once again the President is trying to use fear and exaggeration to intimidate Congress into granting the executive branch unchecked power that will put the rights of Americans at risk. As it works to fix the hastily passed Protect America Act, Congress should stand up to the administration’s fear-mongering and correct that legislation’s fundamental flaws, such as the utter failure to protect the privacy of Americans at home and abroad, and the complete lack of meaningful oversight. And it must reject the President’s demand for immunity for private entities that allegedly cooperated with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program while the President continues to hide his administration’s legal opinions justifying that program from Congress. Congress can and must produce a bill that provides the tools needed to pursue suspected terrorists aggressively while also protecting the rights of law-abiding Americans.”
The key here, for me, is the administration’s refusal to disclose all the details of the program to Congress (this can be done in closed session, or to just the Intelligence Committees and leadership) and the Office of Legal Counsel’s legal rationale for permitting the program. I don’t mind giving the telecommunications a mulligan for cooperating with the administration immediately after 9/11. But I can’t support granting that immunity in the absence of full-disclosure.
The House Judiciary committee voted out the FISA bill this afternoon and they did not provide immunity. The Republicans were howling about this injustice, but it is hard to have any sympathy so long as Congress is kept in the dark about what exactly the telecommunications companies were doing and what legal advice they were relying on.
However, if the Congress does get the information that they seek and the facts reveal that the administration has been truthful about the program involved…I don’t see a problem with immunizing the telcos.
I believe this is the position that the Dems should take on this matter. If the Dems pursue this strategy and the administration has been honest then we should see the telcos lobbying the administration to take the deal.
However, I’d be shocked if the administration has been honest. If the telcos were flagrantly violating citizen’s rights…citizens that were not suspected of terrorism…then there should be no immunity.
After the shock of 9/11 the telcos could be forgiven for cooperating with an over-aggressive administration. But there can be no forgiveness for wholesale violations of the fourth amendment that went well beyond security concerns.
should have waited….eh
thee bill does give immunity to them in the future, providing they comply with the law.
as for retro, it’s wrong…period. l think nadler [d ny] has the right take:
as for the administration being honest and disclosing information…there’s way too much water already gone under the bridge for that particular bit of ‘wishful thinking’ to have any credibility.
lTMF’sA
After the shock of 9/11 the telcos could be forgiven for cooperating with an over-aggressive administration.
Maybe you could forgive them, but I’m not feeling overly forgiving of any of the shit that happened after 9/11. People whose loyalty to Constitutional principles can be shaken by something as minor as a couple of terrorist attacks deserve to pay for their treason.
People keep forgetting that we were not invaded, and we were not subjected to attack at the hands of a nation-state. A dozen criminals hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. That’s it. If the Constitution isn’t rugged enough to withstand that, how can we hope to survive in the face of real threats when they emerge?
In the context of the 9/11 and anthrax attacks, the fear was that there were more cells in the United States. The President was justified to tell the government to do a full court press to try to ferret out any remaining cells. The issue is really why he did not go to Congress and seek permission to do some of these things under a sunset provision. Essentially, he could have said, “We need to move with lightning speed to do an assessment of the threat and I need expanded powers (for a limited time) until we know what we’re dealing with.”
He would have found Congress cooperative.
He didn’t do that. But if he had, these Telcos would have been protected. It’s not that I’m willing to look the other way on the telcos. It’s more that I want to use them as leverage to get to the truth, and I don’t think what they did was anything Congress wouldn’t have (temporarily) approved if asked. If their cooperation was abused, it wasn’t their responsibility to vet the targets. So, I just am not that upset about the telcos role here. It’s the administration that should be held accountable.
Covering someone’s ass from the beginning is short term thinking, from the perspective of the Adminsitration it would be much more effective to purposely have the telcos violate the law (or concern them that they have) and then have them over the barrel in order to ‘run’ them, a typical intelligence community tactic. These guys even suck at being evil. They only got 6 years of cooperation, until amnesty is passed at least.
A little parsing Boo? If they get…..! Stop it. You know that they won’t give up the info so you are safe? Puleeeeeeeze. These bastards won’t give up anything. The telecomunication folks are using the publics’ lines of communications. That is the bottom line. Working with anonimity, the fuckers don’t give a damn for the Constitution. If the admin needs to wiretap all they have to do is justify their need. They do NOT have to get PRIOR approval. I repeat- THEY DO NOT NEED PRIOR APPROVAL! Congress did it right. Nixon did it wrong and watergate motivated action. Comw on Boo. This is a theoretical Democracy. Enough with the bullshit!
My theory for the last 22 months has been that the reason nearly a dozen NSA employees leaked the program to the NYT’s is that they were spying on political opponents (essentially war protesters, Palestinian advocates, human rights activists, and the like) and the NSA has a strong culture against doing that.
My theory is that the story we’ve been told that this was a ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ is inaccurate. It relies on the term ‘terrorist’ being expanded to mean anyone that might undermine the war effort in Afghanistan or, later, in Iraq.
And, the legal basis for it was wholly inadequate, leading the entire leadership of the DOJ to threaten to resign if it was not stopped.
Under those circumstance, the administration CANNOT disclose what they were doing and survive…especially because they totally misled everyone about what they were doing.
That is precisely why the Dems should make disclosure the cost of passing the new FISA bill. But they can’t back down when the administration plays chicken and allows the bill to sunset rather than disclose their crimes.
So, my strategy is based on my desire for the truth and my desire to see these people behind bars.
try this theory out:
BushCo™ has already admitted that they acted illegally…see john dean, and any number of videos, web postings, etc regarding the issue…much as they admitted committing torture [war crimes], and were, ims, granted retro-active immunity by a lock step congress. but things have changed:
new congress in town, and some of them are quite serious about aggressive investigations and oversight…
70%+ of the american public clearly disgusted with the progress of the GWoT, vis a vis iraq…
majorities, or near majorities of the american public in favor of impeaching both the president and vice…etc., etc.
if the wheels come off now, they’re going down, hard, and the telecom lawsuits are the last loose nut holding the scam together.
tentative conclusion:
l’ve been mistaken regarding the target of admin’s ‘madman strategy’ re: iran; it’s not the iranians, or the world at large, it’s the democrats. chimpy & co will cut a deal to refrain from turning iran into a glass parking lot in exchange for immunity from exposure, impeachment, and war crimes tribunals.
new president and congress in 2009, decide that for the good of the country, and the healing that needs to occur, that these matters should be written off as excessive exuberance by an administration that received confusing information.
all parties kiss and make up…business continues, as usual.
makes as much sense as yours.
lTMF’sA
Kind of.
They admitted breaking the FISA law, but they had an explanation. They were only spying on al-Qaeda suspects abroad that were calling Domino’s for a double cheese in the United States.
Two potential problems.
They got caught breaking the law and they made up a politically survivable excuse. My suspicion is that the excuse was exactly that…the only available excuse that would allow them to survive.
If they tell the truth it’s a doubly whammy. It’s like banging the intern and then lying about it.
Do that, and you’re in deep doody.
deep doody…yeah, that’s as good a description as ant.
everybody associated with this is running scared and lawyering up:
running scared, and also running out of options and places to hide.
this is a major opportunity for the dems to take these people down, and they’re very likely to blow it, imo.
we shall see.
lTMF’sA
that’s like a hurricane surveilence program…you can’t watch just the hurricane…
this was a guilty until proved innocent type program…without the authorization to do so
Immunity can be offered at a later time…as part of a negotiation for cooperation, for instance.
No wonder Bush et al want it so badly; once the telcos have it, there’s one less incentive with which to deal for cooperation in any investigation.
No immunity with out full disclosure!
This is pretty much my stance on the Telco’s also. I am willing to cut almost everyone SOME slack to about 2003. America pretty much suffered from mass hysteria.
However, I draw the line at lies to cause hysteria.
And no more slack since about late ’03. After that we knew better.
nalbar
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
Article 1 Section 9 Limits on Congress
U.S. Constitution