Durbin: No Immunity For Telecoms ‘Until We Understand What The Program Has Been About’
Durbin: No Immunity For Telecoms ‘Until We Understand What The Program Has Been About’
This week, the House introduced FISA reform legislation that refused to grant immunity to telecommunications companies for their participation in potentially illegal spying activities. President Bush immediately warned that he would veto the legislation if it did not surrender on the immunity provision.
Early reports suggested that the Senate was prepared to back down on the immunity provision. FireDogLake reported that the Senate version of the FISA bill “does contain immunity/amnesty for the telecom companies.”
But this weekend on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) spoke out forcefully against granting unconditional immunity to the telecom companies for potentially illegal acts:
I’m not for blanket immunity until we understand what the program has been about. The day will come, maybe in my lifetime or later, when we’ll finally figure out what the Bush administration has been up to these years with this secret program.
I don’t want the embarrassment of history coming back saying what were they thinking of in Congress to give blanket immunity when they didn’t even know the circumstances.
“The administration says trust us,” Durbin argued. “It is hard to trust an administration which has failed to even tell Congress what the programs are about.” Watch it:
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) recently floated the possibility of filibustering the FISA legislation if it grants unconditional immunity to telecom companies. Glenn Greenwald has more.
Transcript:
HUNT: President Bush wants the legislation to protect phone companies that cooperated with domestic surveillance from lawsuits. This is after 9/11. Nancy Pelosi says the House bill will not grant such immunity. What will the Senate do on this?
DURBIN: Well, I can tell you the law is clear. If these telephone companies were involved in legal, lawful conduct, they are completely immunized. If the government asked them to help in the war on terror and it was legal, no questions asked.
But now we are dealing with the possible illegal conduct by these telephone companies. The possible disclosure of identities and information about Americans who were not even suspect but might have been caught up in some sort of web. And we want to make certain before we grant immunity that we are not going too far.
The administration says trust us. You know it is hard to trust an administration which has failed to even tell Congress what the programs are about all these years.
HUNT: I get the impression you are saying no blanket immunity then.
DURBIN: I’m not for blanket immunity until we understand what the program has been about. The day will come, maybe in my lifetime or later, when we’ll finally figure out what the Bush administration has been up to these years with this secret program. I don’t want the embarrassment of history coming back saying what were they thinking of in Congress to give blanket immunity when they didn’t even know the circumstances.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The Bush Administration is NOT TO BE TRUSTED, CANNOT BE TRUSTED!
How many times do you have to be lied to until you understand that?
October 13th, 2007 at 12:13 pmWow, could it be possible that the Democrats are growing a set? One can only hope. And Durbin makes perfect sense. Why should they grant blanket immunity when they don’t even know what went on. Now that it is certain that Bush was spying on us BEFORE 911, it is all the more important that we find out the extent of his crimes.
Hang in there Durbin, keep it going. It’s about time the Democrats stand up to this lawless administration.
Now, can’t you just kick Harry Reid to the curb and appoint someone with a set of balls to the Senate Majority Leader post.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI have no doubt that at least some telecoms have been deeply and knowingly involved in massive illegal spying on Americans. It is imperative for the sake of this country that they be held accountable.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:17 pmBUY QWEST STOCK!
October 13th, 2007 at 12:18 pmThey were the only telecom who stood up to the Bush Administration. I await the day when QWEST is available for customers across the country–they are truly patriotic.
No immunity? You wanna bet?
The Democratic Party will do whatever they need to do to help the GOP give cover to the criminal cabal and to further the corporate agenda. Does anybody still believe that BushCo could have so crippled the US without the help of the Democrats in government?
Wake up, America. The same people have bought and paid for almost all of our “leaders” in both the political parties.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pmOver at Atrios, there’s a WaPo article that claims bush apparently approached Qwest Feb of ‘01…six months BEFORE 9-11.
“Nacchio’s account, which places the NSA proposal at a meeting on Feb. 27, 2001, suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon. The Sept. 11 attacks have been cited by the government as the main impetus for its warrantless surveillance efforts.”
http://tinyurl.com/267hhw
If the Dems give them immunity, so help me…what am I saying, of course Pelosi and Reid will cave..that’s what they do. They’re afraid of the village idiot in the WH. So much for our ’savior’ Dems.
Viva la revolution…
October 13th, 2007 at 12:22 pmImmunity for the telecoms is NOT to protect the telecoms, rather it is to protect the Bush Admin from prosecution by the telecoms for using coercion to have the telecoms comply with the Bush Admin’s “Order” to hand over information. A big three cheers to those (there was at least one telecom company) who refused to comply.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pmWow, could it be possible that the Democrats are growing a set? One can only hope. And Durbin makes perfect sense. Why should they grant blanket immunity when they don’t even know what went on. Now that it is certain that Bush was spying on us BEFORE 911, it is all the more important that we find out the extent of his crimes.
Comment by bilbobaggin
It’s too bad the Traitor Dems didn’t think about this before they signed the unconstitutional Patriot Act.
AIPAC is holding ALL of them by their short hairs, thus Pelosi and company will give in to the Bush Mafia.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:30 pmI don’t think I’ll get my hope’s up on this one.
∞Ω
October 13th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWhat I find pathetic is that member of the majority party would feel the need to filibuster legislation like this. A responsible majority leadership would never allow it to be considered.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:37 pmNSA approached the telecoms months before 9-11.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Someone who truly values civil liberties would never say “Until we know what the program is about.” What possible justification would there be for granting immunity to telecoms for revealing information to the government that violates the privacy of every American who uses that service?
October 13th, 2007 at 12:46 pmfrom a political perspective, this is a perfect opportunity for democrats to punctuate the thorough phoniness of bush’s Wah On Terra. If he is willing to veto a bill providing intelligence gathering tools that his fascist administration claims are essential for protecting Americans from the Islamic bogeymen in order to protect his fat cat telecom crony executives from answering in court as to what they have been up to, well that pretty indisputably shreds his self-proclaimed terror fighting credentials (not that they were EVER real or deserved.)
October 13th, 2007 at 12:53 pm.
No immunity AT ALL. Period.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:55 pmThe truth will out. Keep digging. We need to know EXACTLY what Bushco was/is doing. No excuses for law breaking corporations or politicians….do the crime you do the time, as the right wingers are so fond of spouting.
October 13th, 2007 at 12:59 pmWhat possible legitimate excuse for granting immunity? I can think of none.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:03 pmWhy would they need immunity if that haven’t done anything wrong? We don’t need legislation allowing telecoms to assist the government in spying on use at will. If their actions were legal, they’ll have no problems. If they broke the law, let justice be done. No immunity!
October 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pmCan we depose Reid as Senate Majority Leader and put Durbin in there instead?
And I think Durbin gets it. Why ask for immunity? That gives the implicit idea that they’ve done something illegal, and even then, immunity is usually only done in cases where you’re trying to cut a smaller fry a deal to take down a bigger fry, not CYA after the fact. This stinks to high hell, and everyone knows it (except maybe the spineless Congressional Dem leadership).
October 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pmThe Dems WILL fold. They will worry about the “we don’t want to look soft on terrorism” BS. They are cowards. They will fold. It’s what they do. They are spineless. I find it interesting that the very liberal (the supposed spineless) are NOT the spineless ones. Did I say to watch the Dems that they will fold on this one?
October 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pmthis is GREAT NEWS, that someone is even stating OUT LOUD on tv that *THIS IS A PROBLEM*!
October 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pmSomeone who truly values civil liberties would never say “Until we know what the program is about.â€
Durbin is making the correct argument here. How can Congress justify giving blanket immunity, when they do not even know the extent of the crimes. Requesting all records is also asmart move, because that is evidence of such crimes if they occured.
What possible justification would there be for granting immunity to telecoms for revealing information to the government that violates the privacy of every American who uses that service?
None
Congress needs to wake TF-up, read the Constitution to see WTF it really says, then go to work and enforce said Constitution and restore Rule of Law to this country again. ( Pipe dream, I know… )
And if it takes Democrats filibustering to stop the Bush Lap Dogs from destroying our rights even more than they are, then I say go for it. Someone has to have the guts to stand up to these fascist enablers or this country is toast.
We are already being eyed by the rest of the world press like Germany of the 30s-40s was.
Torture, death squads, suspension of habeus corpus, suspension of due process, torture, war crimes, using incendiary bombs on civilians, and did I mention torture?
Don’t give blanket immunity to *&^%&$% anyone, for *&^%&$% anything. IMHO
October 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pmthis is GREAT NEWS, that someone is even stating OUT LOUD on tv that *THIS IS A PROBLEM*!
Comment by grover nerdkissed — October 13, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Seven years into this nightmare administration……it’s about time.
Durbin better brace himself for another smear campaign. Of course, he’s not a 12 year old child, so how bad could it be…?
October 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pmNo legal immunity for traitors; no legal immunity, retroactive or otherwise, for corporations that enable the Bush gangster regime to illegally spy on Americans. No immunity for those who infringe on our noble Bill of RIghts.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:15 pmthe dems will fold, not just because so many recieve funding from the telecoms, but because they understand that the telecoms own the media in america & thereby control the public discourse.
anyone opposing the immunity is going to get smeared in the media, not just by the usual suspects, but by the industry as a whole.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pmDurbin better brace himself for another smear campaign. Of course, he’s not a 12 year old child, so how bad could it be…?
Comment by Zooey — October 13, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Durbin’s a big boy.
He was smeared hard in 2005, when on the U.S. Senate floor he compared interrogation techniques used at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay, as reported by the FBI, with those utilized by such regimes as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the Khmer Rouge.
He is still fighting.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:25 pmWe all know how this is going to end…..Just like the patriot act insuring immunety for all of Bushco when they leave office…..Can not be prosacuted..These people still have not testafied or even answered the suponas…..They claimed they lost million’s of email’s, declare war on an innocent nation, break law’s that they all should be hung for and the dem’s alway’s roll over, that’s what enabeler’s do..I have no faith in this entire dictatorship…..There are only a handful of good people back there and the media along with the dem’s are stifeling their voice’s…Lier’s, thieve’s and spinless parasites…..Vote them all out or be prepaired to fight another revolution here……Blessings
October 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pmCan W grant a Presidential pardon to the Telcos?
October 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm“I’m not for blanket immunity until we understand what the program has been about. ”
******Spineless.The cavin is coming fast folks.
October 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pmDurbin knows, as we do, what the main thrust of the secret wire surveillance was all about. And it had zippo to do with fighting terrorism. It was used to spy on the enemies of this administration – Democrats and the media that might expose their crimes. Wire-tapping plus blackmail are very effective tools to keep the opposition in check.
Very simple test to this hypothesis….expose everything to the Democrats and let them prove thaqt no Americans were wire-tapped and that the program was used exclusively to track Al Qaeda. So why haven’t they done that?
We know they’ve politicized DoJ to further their Party agenda. We know they started this war to further their Party agenda. Why wouldn’t they spy on Americans to further this same agenda?
October 13th, 2007 at 2:08 pmIf this country wants to call itself a Democracy, it must enforce its laws with blind justice. This means white corporate elitists and powerful politicians who break laws must face consequences just as poor brown skinned pot smokers have. I won’t hold my breath.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pmI’m getting tired of feeling like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, so, I’m not getting my hopes up on the dems standing up to Bush.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pmi do have to say that this is the first time i have heard the issue of immunity for telecoms even mentioned on the teevee.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pmIt’s time for politicians who are being blackmailed by the wiretapped info to fall on their swords for this country and stand up to the administration. We the people should stand behing these dissenting politicians who get “exposed” so more of them will come forward and we find out why so many Democrats have gone along with this evil cabal.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:35 pmCan W grant a Presidential pardon to the Telcos?
Comment by WaltTheMan — October 13, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Sure he could
BUT
That grant of a pardon will NOT stop any lawsuits, future or ongoing, hitting the telecoms
And last I checked, there’s absolutely no Presidential privilege alone that can stop all lawsuits aimed at the telecoms
The real pressure needs to be put on both Obama and Clinton, seeing as how they’re both serving senators, and the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, they should be leading the charge to attack this possible cave-in, not staying mute until their votes won’t make a difference
October 13th, 2007 at 2:43 pmJust to further one point, that of a pardon not stopping any lawsuits, just look at Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, even though that rat bastard Libby was pardoned, he’s still getting his sleazy ass sued
October 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pmi do have to say that this is the first time i have heard the issue of immunity for telecoms even mentioned on the teevee.
Comment by grover nerdkissed — October 13, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Yeah, so much for the “liberual” media myth, uh?
October 13th, 2007 at 3:25 pmCan we depose Reid as Senate Majority Leader and put Durbin in there instead?
pppppuullleezzz. Reid is bad, but Durbin has been atrocious saying things that sound good only to follow up with total capitulation to bush and the cult of republicanism, over and over again. Durbin is a disaster worse than Reid. They both need to go when the opportunity arises.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:41 pm.
The Qwest accusations of pre-9/11 pressures to subvert the Constitution must be FULLY vetted and that can only be done while holding jeopardy over the heads of the telecoms as a carrot &/or stick to compel them to come clean about what Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Hayden were foisting off on them.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:42 pmFillibuster sounds good to me. Go Dodd Go.
October 13th, 2007 at 3:44 pmComment by ralph the wonder llama — October 13, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Correct. The Dems have the majority and could refuse to have this put on the floor. It’s up to Reid. No need to filibuster. The awful bill passed in August that this NEW bill is supposed to ‘fix” expires in Feb. Let it.
I think the reason the administration wants to have blanket immunity for the telecoms (even though they claim everything was legal) is to PREVENT the lawsuits from going forward. The discovery process during such suits would definitely begin to let the cat out of the bag, including exactly how early they were approached. There’s every indication it happened shortly after Bush took office, and months before 911.
Regarding a pardon. The pending lawsuits are all civil in nature, not criminal (yet). The Pres. only has pardon power in criminal cases “against the U.S.” But the goal is not to eventually pardon anyone after criminal CONVICTIONS, but to prevent information from coming out…period.
P.S. Libby wasn’t pardoned. His sentence was commuted.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:10 pmAm I being overly logical here or should not one know every detail of a program which one is being asked to make a decision about?? Guess in a dictatorship, that’s the MO; however, the last time I looked we are still calling ourselves a democracy – you know…of the people, by the people, and for the people…..yes, that kind of democracy.
What the hell does this infantile moron in think congress should do?? Rubber stamp something which is patently illegal and which they haven’t been briefed about? What the hell is going on here?
October 13th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI say that Congress should let this illegal bill run out in February and in the meantime, SUE THE ASSES OFF OF THEM ALL! No immunity for telecoms who knowingly broke the existing laws in this country just because Bush tried to bully them into it. Laws don’t work that way. Besides, QWEST wasn’t bullied by the dictator and stood their ground.
The telecoms who broke the law must now suffer the consequences of HUGE class action lawsuits.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:29 pm#38 You’re absolutely correct in your assertion that Bush began this illegal spying even before 911 – immediately upon taking office (what a joke) you know the oath of office….which goes something like….”I will agree to uphold the laws and constitution of this country”. Down with Bush. He’s nothing but a liar and a fraud.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:30 pmPeople who have the offending telecoms should unite and bring a humonguous class action suit against each and every lawbreaker for violation of their privacy and breach of the constitution of this country. Join in today and sue their butts off.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:32 pmWhat’s even more amazing to me is that if Bush began his bullying tactics with QWest six months before 911, how the hell did this lawbreaker get reelected to office? Where were the telecom companies when they should have been informing Congress that he was abusing the power of his office and violating the constitution??
No wonder he called it “just a piece of paper” and then tried to make toilet paper out of it. This guy is a devious as they come and twisting the laws and abusing power from day one.
He needs to be impeached immediately – and this country can’t wait one moment longer lest the citizens lose all respect for this government.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:34 pmDocRoc: Since QWEST did not bend over, they should be more than willing to provide all the lurid details. This all needs to be throughly investigated by congress and, if they fail the people on this “high crime” against the citizens of this country, they, too, will be ushered out of office.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:35 pmAnyone have the transcript or video clip of Bush lying to the people (time and date stamped) when he said that his spy program was only being used on foreign communications? If QWEST was asked to spy on citizens in 2001, then this would be more grounds for impeachment – lying to the people about a highly illegal violation of the laws of this country.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:38 pmEvery bill passed from now on will either be vetoed or ignored via signing statement. So why should unconstitutional legislation be even brought to a vote? Every time congress caves, Bush raises the stakes.
And who knows what they continue to do in secret? Everything has been classified and the courts are stacked to deny justice when all the evidence is classified.
Pelosi may have made a deal to not impeach at the beginning of the 110th congress, but when the goal posts have been moved again and again, any deal should be off. Why do they block the one action open to congress to get at the truth? Impeachment is the only answer.
October 13th, 2007 at 4:59 pmVeritas,
I’m working on a selection of quotes that I think you might find handy, along with their sources. Am putting them together now. Stand by…
October 13th, 2007 at 5:06 pmAnyone have the transcript or video clip of Bush lying to the people (time and date stamped) when he said that his spy program was only being used on foreign communications? If QWEST was asked to spy on citizens in 2001, then this would be more grounds for impeachment – lying to the people about a highly illegal violation of the laws of this country.
Comment by Veritas — October 13, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
This help? I believe there is also some video on a few of these links.
—————————-
“We know that a two-minute phone conversation between somebody linked to al Qaeda here and an operative overseas could lead directly to the loss of thousands of lives,” Bush said. “To save American lives, we must be able to act fast and to detect these conversations so we can prevent new attacks.”
Alberto Gonzales: “There were many people, many lawyers within the administration who advised the president that he had an inherent authority as commander in chief under the Constitution to engage in these kind of signal intelligence of our enemy.”
“My personal opinion is it was a shameful act, for someone to disclose this very important program in time of war,” Bush said. “The fact that we’re discussing this program is helping the enemy.”
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/19/nsa/index.html
—————————–
He also said that the electronic monitoring was limited to people with “known al Qaeda ties and/or affiliates.” Any domestic calls, the president said, would go through the secretive FISA court.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/index.html
———————————
Addressing privacy concerns prompted by the program, Hayden said, “We know we can only do our job if we have the trust of the American people.”
The general said, “We’re going after very specific communications that our professional judgment tells us we have reason to believe are those associated with people who want to kill Americans.”
The White House’s renewed defense of the program began Monday morning as spokesman Dan Bartlett told CNN it has “directly played a role in preventing attacks on our homeland” and protections are in place to prevent its abuse.
“There are multiple checks and balances to make sure what we’re doing is targeting … international phone calls of terrorists, not the conversations between two families coordinating a family vacation,” Bartlett said. “We have very strict laws, very strict oversight. This is a targeted program, and I think most of the American people would be very angry if they thought we weren’t doing just this.”
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/23/nsa.strategy/index.html
October 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pmAnd this:
Bush: “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/01/nsa.spying/index.html
October 13th, 2007 at 5:24 pmHonk if you’re rational.
That immunity is even on the table boggles the mind.
Dems saying, “No, maybe . . but just let me in on your little secret and I’m all on boad” deserves a gigantic vomit.
Spying on Americans is illegal. (PERIOD)
Squeamishness on the part of our elected representatives borders on treason. Kick these dems to the curb.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:41 pm(Sorry if this is a repost: the first one did not go through)
All:
With apologies to Keith Olbermann, I wanted to post something of a Special Comment of my own regarding the warrantless wiretapping
program. Sometimes I get so damned pissed off I’ve just got to get things off my chest. I cross-posted this earlier today at Crooks
and Liars, in response to a reader there who was defending the Dems giving immunity to the telcos. His take on it was this:
It’s not an offer of immunity — it’s a demand for the facts, dressed up as a dangling carrot.
I responded with this; apologies for its length:
Sure it’s dangling a carrot, but in the end the telcos don’t get punished if it’s found they broke the law. Bush is going to give Congress the details IF they grant immunity. He’s not going to give them the details, and then let them decide whether or not to grant immunity. What’s the point in exchanging immunity for program details when nothing can be done to the telcos if indeed they broke the law? Is this something you support, not punishing a company for breaking the law?
Given Bush’s love of Executive Privilege and the ease with which he screams national security every time he doesn’t want someone snooping around, what’s to stop him from suddenly deciding that
he’s not, after all, going to share details of the telcos’ involvement in the program?
Bottom line, Bush is hiding because he knows the law was broken. If the spying program was perfectly legal, and Bush and all his legal advisers can guarantee that the program, and the telcos, followed the law, then he has nothing to hide and there is no need to grant immunity. We get the same argument from the Rightwingers: “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, then why be concerned if the government
is listening to your calls?”
Bush knows it was not legal because he has blocked any and all attempts to find out the details of the program. The Office of
Professional Responsibility, an arm of the DOJ, tried to investigate and find out what the lawyers’ positions were on the program.
(EDIT: they attempted to investigate whether DOJ lawyers acted improperly concerning their role in the President’s warrantless eavesdropping program). But what did Bush do? He personally blocked it, saying that he couldn’t grant security clearance to civilians. Yet when it came to investigating the leak of the program to the NYT, he had no problem whatsoever granting security clearance.
And regardless of the steps he’s taken to avoid any oversight, despite Bush’s statements that there was no discord in his administration whatsoever over the program, we have recently learned that he and Gonzo lied about that. We have been told by several members of the administration that the warrantless wiretapping program is a limited, targeted, program.
They have told us that it targets only known or suspected terrorists. We have been told by the Dir. of National Intelligence that it takes 200 hours to assemble a warrant, and apparently that is why Bush has bypassed the FISA court on international wiretaps; there’s not enough time to get a warrant, he tells us. But he has no problem, and time is of no concern, when he goes to the court for a warrant for domestic wiretapping. 200 hours to get a warrant? No problem.
No one from the administration has bothered to explain this discrepancy. Save one instance, no one in the press has bothered asking about it, either. In the one case, however, when Bush was asked to explain it, he avoided the question.
Finally, I’m sure you are well aware of the situation in which Qwest refused to turn over the phone records of their customers, citing
questions of legality. I believe it went something like this: Qwest asked the NSA for warrants, and the NSA refused. So, if this
program is limited and targeted, why didn’t the NSA work with Qwest to get the proper warrants? Why did the NSA simply turn and walk
away when it is supposedly in their interest to safeguard us from another terrorist attack?
Why do they need the records showing trillions of phone calls when this program is supposedly limited to known or suspected terrorists?
If you trust this government 100% to not abuse the information it collects about you, simply because the President says “trust me,”
October 13th, 2007 at 5:47 pmthen you are indeed a fool. The President and Vice President have deemed themselves untouchable by anyone else in government, which
means they can do any damned thing they want to and not be held liable. In typical Cheney style, they are essentially giving the
Congress a big “f you” when it comes to oversight. And since the Congress is representative of the people in this country, that
message is extended to you and me.
“Until we understand what the program has been about…”
October 13th, 2007 at 5:49 pmThat’s the qualifer. I heard Pelosi and Hoyer say pretty much the same thing. Does that mean when they understand–behind closed doors, of course–what it’s all been about, THEN they will grant immunity to telecoms? Of course, it does! This will make lawsuits damn near impossible.
This “people will think we’re soft terror” excuse is wearing a little thin. That’s bullsh*t. Democrats are complicit, in my opinion, because they want the next president to have these powers. Even though it’s against the Constitution. They’ll crap on us as easily as the Republicans do.
Someone on another site said: “If they go along with an expansion of illegal surveillance and grant immunity to telecoms, this could be the Democrat’s “Katrina Moment.” It will be for me.
#43 Veritas:
The telecoms are regulated by the FCC. Where were they? They were busily under the scrutiny of FCC Chair Powell, Colin’s son.
He was busy dismanteling the Fairness Doctrine, deciding that for Echostar, a Colorado startup, couldn’t buy Direct TV, because that would be an antitrust violation, and sanctioned Murdoch’s purchase of same (despite the fact that Murdoch owns Sky TV, largest communications enterprise in the world). Yes, Powell was busy consolidating control over media, thus the voice that you hear, while his cohorts were busy trying to get control of the telecoms.
So now, Murdoch owns Direct TV, the Wall Street Journal, et al, the FCC has been dismantled, Powell’s been disgraced, and those lousy syping telecoms are just about to get a free pass for illegal activity. Why should you care? Because if your business competes in the market place and uses the telephone to conduct business, if you ain’t on the Bush board, you’re likely screwed. . . . in the long run.
October 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pmActually, come to think of it, that’s probably why Nacchio refused to allow the phone tapping.
Joe’s not the most sympathetic guy so it never really made sense to me why he was so adamant in his refusal, and why the admin let him slide.
New thought . . . Joe and Dick were phone pals as they plotted evil . . . neither could afford the consequences of that disclosure. No executive privilege to hide behind, can’t erase phone traces like e-mails . . . interesting . . .
October 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pmWhat the hell is going on here?
Comment by Veritas — October 13, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Corporate Facism!!
October 13th, 2007 at 6:18 pmFillibuster sounds good to me. Go Dodd Go.
Comment by RUCerious — October 13, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Make mine an Impeachment Expresso!!! To Go Dodd Go!
October 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pmi don’t trust the bush/cheney presidency at all,
but then
neither do i trust senate whip dick durbin.
note this:
durbin did not say,
“there will be no blanket immunity for the telecos.”
he said,
“there will be no blanket immunity for the telecos UNTIL we understand , blah, blah, blah..”
look for durbin to weasel out of this public “pledge” in a short while.
durbin’s playing the LARRY CRAIG GAMBIT with the american public –
make public promises you do not intend to keep when you’re in hot water and the light of media attention is shining on you.
then, once the media’s attention has shifted and the pressure diminished,
renege on your promise.
October 13th, 2007 at 7:22 pmHow about the ‘immunity’ be contingent upon the telcos providing complete and full disclosure?
Anything short of that, or if future evidence surfaces that was not disclosed, the immunity is declared null and void.
As with criminal trials, sometimes this is necessary when you want to get the most complete story possible and you’re dealing with a ‘reluctant’ witness (or in this case companies).
Personally, I think companies like AT&T need to pay for their complicity (and Quest should be protected).
October 13th, 2007 at 8:38 pmBut I must say, something about this stinks. Isn’t it sad that we have become so skeptical of those in our own party? But unfortunately it comes from experience.
These are not feelings that our representatives should engender. We have a long way to go to fix what this government has become, but we must. To do that will take strong leaders, and the cards are stacked against that happening.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pmBack in 2003, before Joe got the boot, Dick kept coming to Denver . . . even got himself a landmark on the I-25 corridor -a sheet-sigh reading: “Dick’s Bunker.” Why was he here so often?
As soon as Joe left, so did Dick.
As Dick told Nixon, no memos. Once the admin wanted to tap phones, no phones. Just up close and personal.
Sue Joe. He’s beholden to no-one. Thru discovery, Joe will unveil Dick.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:07 pmI ran across the following and thought I would share it. As you can see, it came from someone who became one of the first Supreme Court Justices. It also shows how far this country has drifted away from the original intent of our Founding Fathers. This example would even include the famous 16 words in Bush’s State of the Union address to Congress.
******************************Â*****************
Is lying to Congress an impeachable offense? Let us consider the words of Founding Father and later Supreme Court Justice James Iredell at the North Carolina Constitutional Convention.
The topic was impeachable offenses:
“The President must certainly be punishable for giving false information to the Senate. He is to regulate all intercourse with foreign powers, and it is his duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, and by that means induced them to enter into measures injurious to their country, and which they would not have consented to had the true state of things been disclosed to them,”
This perfectly describes how false information was provided to Congress by Bush and Cheney in order to convince them to approve the use of military force in Iraq.
Now let us consider the second crime, going “outside the law in terms of the collection of information”. Pelosi was undoubtedly referring to Bush’s admitted violation of the FISA law against warrantless wiretaps. Bush cannot argue that he simply needed to wiretap terror suspects because the FISA law allows him to do that at any time and then seek approval from the FISA court within 72 hours. There is concern that Bush was actually gathering information on American citizens who were not criminals or terror suspects.
This violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
October 13th, 2007 at 9:09 pmThe more I think about it, it makes sense that Nacchio and Cheney were in cahoots.
While Qwest’s refusal appears noble, what if it is smoke and mirrors. Qwest was a tool for Bush’s underhanded ops. If Qwest were to reveal who called who, the admin could be in deep sh**. Cheney did spend an extraordinary amount of time in Denver during the time that Nacchio was being called upon to leave. He was so reluctant and Cheney was here during the entire time that he balked. What’s going on?
Probably nothing noble. No, just a matter of “We made a deal. We trusted the security of your phone systems. We traded security on the promise that you would skate on your insider trading/fraud trial in exchange for your assurance that you would not allow wire-tapping – letting you, and us, escape and smell like a rose.”
October 13th, 2007 at 9:36 pmWhat we want our Congress to say to Bush: “We’re not going to give you what you want if you don’t give us any information.”
What Bush expects Congress to say to him (and what Congress says all too often): “Baaaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaaaaa! Baaaaaaaaa!
Let’s get some non-sheep in those seats in November 2008.
October 13th, 2007 at 9:36 pm#54 DallasNE, excellent post.
The issue of Presidential powers will have to be decided in court. Hopefully not in front of anyone hand picked by the administration or it’s agents.
This royal presidency that we have been ’subject’ to recently must surely be struck down using the Constitution, but the urge of both parties to quietly keep as much power as possible for future presidents has to be checked.
If Bush is proven to have initiated illegal wiretapping prior to 9/11, that will destroy a large part of their argument.
So far they’ve been allowed to continue their refusal to submit relevant documents, and so thwart attempts to reveal illegal acts committed by them. They stacked the deck so much in their favor with the politicization of the justice dept. and others so well that only when honest men and women retake control of these areas of our government will anything get done.
It’s a daunting challenge. I wonder if our representatives have the courage and character to accomplish it.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pmWho could imagine that in America a president and his gang would use KGB-style procedures to spy on citizens?
October 13th, 2007 at 10:39 pmIt’s amazing how alike Bush and Stalin are becoming…
The article in the Washington Post today should be required reading for the Senators.
October 13th, 2007 at 10:41 pmDunno whether it will help but start harassing your senators about this and tell everyone you know to do the same….I figure the more heat they get about this the less likely they will be able to pull it off…
October 13th, 2007 at 11:03 pm#63 Pound the drum beat slowly . . .
October 13th, 2007 at 11:34 pmIf Bush wants to behave like a petulant four year old (exposing the world to his true emotional/mental age) by holding his breath until he turns blue if he doesn’t get his way, let him.
October 13th, 2007 at 11:38 pmWho could imagine that in America a president and his gang would use KGB-style procedures to spy on citizens?
It’s amazing how alike Bush and Stalin are becoming…
Comment by drtichy — October 13, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
stalin? … try PUTIN…
i always figured dubya was getting more than
October 14th, 2007 at 12:43 ama look into putie’s soul…
…
LTTEs and phone calls are good. Now go do the right thing.
Cheers,
October 14th, 2007 at 2:15 amThough I would love to see the congress hold firm on this issue, I know that the telecoms have too much money out there in campaign financing to let this just slip by.
Representatives will posture and preen over this, but when it comes down to the voting, I am afraid they will fold and then try to claim again that they “just din’t have the votes” once again.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:32 amgood letter, arne…
and i’d bet that JOSEPH W. ADAMS is a lonely guy in Berkeley…
October 14th, 2007 at 11:32 ami’m sure his ideas are, at least…
with respect to Sen. Durbin; NONE AT ALL , no immunity to those violating the laws respecting privacy, invasion there of, and, treason
it is about time we find out why the shooter started spying on people in the US 6 months before their glorious terrorist revolution. For those of you that are stupid as toast, it means they were spying and blackmailing their political opponents in an attempt to control the government from day one.
why do so many dems cave? because their dirty laundry is being hung out to dry. Not yet in the open air, but it’s ready to be shown to a eager press as soon as a dem shows spine.
now it is clear that was to create a fascist state. Wise the hell up my fellow American, democracy is gone, get used to it or take it back
October 14th, 2007 at 11:44 am#66 For a look at Pootie’s soul (or lack thereof), look at the bombing of a Moscow apartment complex in which many innocent Moscovites perished.
Pootie blamed it on the Chetchins and used it as a cause celebre to attack and destroy Chetchins.
No evidence was ever produced that Chetchins were responsible. No evidence was ever produced that the bombing was anything but an inside job designed to justify a devestating retalitory strike on an innocent people.
Hmmm.
Saudi’s strike the World Trade Center, cause celebre, we attack IRAQ??
Lessons Bush learned from Pootie.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:34 pmFor the story (early on):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/445529.stm
Yeltsin was the president, but Pootie was the spy chiel (aka, Russia’s version of Dick Cheney). 93 dead Russians and a suspected “terrorist” villian. No proof, but enough proof to launch an all out attack on Chetchins. (Spell Chetchin as you like.) In the aftermath, dead women, children and men. None armed. None in any way implicated.
Blackwater would have had a field day.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:04 am