The distinction between the New York Times editorial on FISA and the Washington Post’s is stark and telling. The Times wants Congress to keep warrants for surveillance and they do not advocate giving the telecommunications corporations retroactive immunity without disclosure of their activities. But even the New York Times is letting us down. This isn’t particularly strong language:
It may be possible to shield these companies from liability, since the government lied to them about the legality of its requests. But the law should allow suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr. Bush’s actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted since 9/11. And it should have an expiration date, which the White House does not want.
I’d like to know what the administration told these companies about the legality of warrantless surveillance. But the bigger problem is that the Times says this:
After 9/11, the Patriot Act made it even easier to conduct surveillance, especially in hot pursuit of terrorists.
But that was not good enough for the Bush team, which was determined to use the nation’s tragedy to grab ever more power for its vision of an imperial presidency. Mr. Bush ignored the FISA law and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept phone calls and e-mail between people abroad and people in the United States without a warrant, as long as “the target” was not in this country.
Actually, as the Washington Post reported yesterday, Bush ignored the FISA law and ordered the NSA to intercept domestic calls before 9/11 and before the Patriot Act. This is a KEY DISTINCTION because it undercuts the whole narrative we have been told since the day the New York Times reported, a year late, that the NSA was doing warrantless domestic surveillance. But the New York Times editorial board keeps hammering the old story line (and not only in the above quote):
…what Mr. Bush really wants is to avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he authorized after 9/11.
Actually, he authorized it before 9/11.
…the law should allow suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr. Bush’s actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted since 9/11.
No. It should require a full accounting to Congress of all surveillance conducted since January 20, 2001.
Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help Mr. Bush shred the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism.
No. Ever since, at latest, Feb. 27, 2001, we have watched the Mr. Bush shred the Constitution.
Get it right. Just goddamn get it right.
in redacted, previously sealed, documents that were released last wednesday, it’s very obvious that the illegal actives for which they want immunity may pre-date 9-11 by as much four years. they certainly imply that BushCo™ had, one would surmise, fairly detailed plans to continue, or increase, the data collection, and took steps after the election, prior to assuming office, to lay the ground work for their implementation.
look at the dates prior to jan 2001, perhaps, going all the way back to the clinton administration:
BushCo™ have pushed this way beyond what was required, and certainly have committed impeachable crimes, and in fact have admitted doing so.
the odds of this congress getting this right are so long as to be incalculable. l do not expect to see anything other than more hollow rhetoric followed by the complicit acquiescence because we didn’t have the votes excuse…there is a tremendous dearth of real leadership in this country.
greenwalds’ closing statement today pretty well sums up the position we now find ourselves in, vis-a-vis the isolation and seperation of the leadership from those it is supposed to serve:
lTMF’sA
What the Post reported yesterday is that this has been claimed by the former CEO of Qwest (and his attorneys), not that it is so.
That’s an important difference, especially when one bears in mind that the claim is being made as part of his case for the overturning of his conviction for insider trading.
I’m inclined to believe his claim, but it is, at this point, nothing but an accusation from a somewhat suspect source. The existence of such an accusation is all that has been established so far. (I don’t deny that the Times ought to have at least acknowledged the accusation as such, however.)
As long as you’re tossing around the admonition to “goddam get it right”.
I would hope that critics of the Times would be particularly attentive to the distinction between reporting “so-and-so says that p” and reporting “p”. Isn’t that just what’s at the heart of the complaint against Judith Miller, for example?
Fair enough, but the government doesn’t deny it, the company’s counsel deemed it illegal and advised against it (I assume they have documentation on that), and they did not get the ensuing contracts.
It’s possible that this guy is trying to throw a Hail Mary to save his ass. But it looks like he’s got enough of a case that he can back it up in court.
It may not be relevant to his defense, however.
i use 20 december 2000, the date of the heinous scotus decision that enabled the start of the almost 7-year rolling coup, as the principal marker for when our united states constitution came under the most critical sustained attack in the history of our democratic republic… also, i seriously doubt that domestic spying was initiated on 20 january 2001…
link
I love you, Booman, because you keep your finger on the stories that matter.
This stuff should scare the f’ing sh__ out of people.
On Saturday I went to get a haircut. It was crowded and I got home late so there was no time to prepare for what I had to do. The situation depended heavily on a cell phone with a dead battery and a mad dash up the highway at just under “you are under arrest” speeds.
A quick stop at a Radio Shack yielded the appropriate car charger and the day was saved.
My wife wanted me to “fix” the phone like I did before so I again removed the battery. It “reboots” the phone but like last time the battery was dead.
Honey, sorry but I am me, and that’s what happens when the NSA does that open mike thing!
Oh, I’m so glad you explained it to me.
She is going to harass me every time I log onto the net for a solid week!
No No No… The investigation needs to back BEFORE 911 – they were breaking many laws before 911, and THOSE NEED TO BE INVESTIGATED! GODDAMMIT! What is wrong with the democrats? Have they been compromised?
HAVE THEY BEEN COMPROMISED???