Cheney Pushes For Telecom Immunity: ‘We Haven’t Violated Anybody’s Civil Liberties’
Cheney Pushes For Telecom Immunity: ‘We Haven’t Violated Anybody’s Civil Liberties’
Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney appeared as a guest on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and used the opportunity to stump for retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that illegally spied on American citizens:
CHENEY: People who don’t want to — I guess want to leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big company that may have helped. Those companies helped specifically at our request, and they’ve done yeoman duty for the country, and this is the so-called terrorist surveillance program, one of the things it was called earlier. It’s just absolutely essential to know who in the United States is talking to Al-Qaeda. It’s a program that’s been very well managed. We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties. It’s in fact a good piece of legislation.
Listen to it:
In Cheney’s mind, breaking the law and engaging in illegal conduct apparently aren’t violations of civil liberties.
Telecoms should not be let off the hook because Dick Cheney says they did “yeoman duty for the country.” They chose to break the law and profited greatly from doing so. (At least one company refused to comply with the Bush administration’s request because it knew the actions were illegal.) As Glenn Greenwald explains, the proper course is to permit these companies to present to a court whatever evidence they relied on to justify their activities and let a judge decide:
If telecoms were really these poor, “helpless” victims unable to defend themselves, the solution isn’t to bar anyone from suing them even when they break the law. The solution, if that were really the concern, is simply to add a provision to FISA enabling them to submit that evidence in secret, the way classified evidence is submitted to federal courts all the time.
Matt Renner reports that Third Way, a non-profit “progressive” think tank, is taking Cheney’s side and working to pass retroactive immunity for the telecom companies.
UPDATE: Marcy Wheeler tracks Dick Cheney’s evolving language on FISA.
Transcript:
RUSH: I see here today an AP story that the House of Representatives has voted to delay the demise of the wiretap law by two weeks. So we’ve got a two-week extension on FISA. You know, we’re in the middle of a presidential election year, and a lot of people’s attention is focused on that, not on FISA and the efforts that you and the people in the administration are doing to continue to detect potential attacks. What’s the status, what’s the big deal about two weeks?
CHENEY: Well, the legislation is absolutely essential, of course. They passed a six-month extension last August, which expires on Friday, with the idea that they would finish up the legislation by Friday. They’ve had six months to work on it. One of the main things we need in there, for example, is retroactive liability protection for the companies that have worked with us and helped us prevent further attacks against the United States —
RUSH: Like the phone companies?
CHENEY: — the most controversial part. Right. And so far they haven’t been able to get it done. So what has been agreed to is to give them 15 more days to wrap it up and finish it up here. The president’s been holding their feet to the fire. They claim they can get it done in 15 more days, and the battle right now is focused on the Senate. The House has already passed a version of it, but we do badly need this legislation. It’s been essential in terms of protecting the country against further attacks, vital, one of the most vital things the president’s done since 9/11, and it would be a tragedy if this authority weren’t extended.
RUSH: The opposition in the Senate is primarily from Democrats, correct?
CHENEY: Correct. People who don’t want to — I guess want to leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big company that may have helped. Those companies helped specifically at our request, and they’ve done yeoman duty for the country, and this is the so-called terrorist surveillance program, one of the things it was called earlier. It’s just absolutely essential to know who in the United States is talking to Al-Qaeda. It’s a program that’s been very well managed. We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties. It’s in fact a good piece of legislation.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
FCUK YOU DICK.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:51 amThen why do the Telecom’s need immunity, huh Dick?
A∞Ω
January 31st, 2008 at 11:51 amIf nobody’s liberties have been violated, then why do the telecoms need immunity?
January 31st, 2008 at 11:51 amIf all this was ‘above board’ as you so claim Dickhead Cheney , how come at least one company refused to comply with the Shrub administration’s request ?
They didn’t want to profit like the other companies did ?
January 31st, 2008 at 11:54 amThat Dick is full of shite.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:54 amLets hope that was Dick’s last throw. LIAR.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:55 amApparently Dick refers to the general populace as “nobody”.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:55 amVPres. Cheney - “It’s a program that’s been very well managed. We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties.”
Prove it! Open your records!
Until you do, your word is as good as your face: saging from lack of foundation.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:56 amI don’t like Dick today. I didn’t like Dick yesterday. I don’t like Dick in a tree. I don’t like Dick in a bush. I don’t like Dick on a boat, or in a car. I don’t like Dick in the morning, or the evening. I don’t like Dick on vacation. I don’t like Dick on the subway. I like Dick dead.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:58 am“We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties.”
Well, that precludes any reason for granting immunity then, doesn’t it?
Cheney’s logic has more twists than a pretzel factory.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:58 amIn order to violate something, first you must acknowledge that that thing exists and/or understand what the hell it is.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:59 amAccording to the Vice-Criminal in Chief, his friends and associates are not criminals. This is not someone you’d want vouching for your character.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pmYou know how Limpball’s discovered Cheney was gay?
He said his dick tasted like sh*t.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:00 pmIf the telecoms haven’t done anything illegal, then there’s no need to grant them immunity.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pmMukasey’s stonewalling testimony is yet another example of how these bozo’s cannot be trusted. I truly loath these cretins.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pmThe # Priority of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government over the next 12 months is to keep George W. Bush out of JAIL.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm“We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties.”
Uh? You mean that just because you started spying on ALL Americans right after you got into office you didn’t violate anyones civil liberties?
Let’s just look at who you were spying on then, could they be…
Critics….Reporters…..Democrates…..Journalists…..protesters…..churches …..other repukes to keep them in line?
We know Dick, and we don’t like Dick, Dick is a dick, Dick is a War Criminal, please go away Dick, to prison Dick.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials ‘09
Buck Fush
January 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pmThis scumbag makes Agnew look like a saint. Why, why, why hasn’t this SOB been impeached?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:03 pmThe sad fact is; the Telecom’s will get their immunity.
A∞Ω
January 31st, 2008 at 12:04 pm“We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties.”
According to whom ?
A legitimate court ruling ?
If no laws were broken and no one’s civil liberties were violated , why aren’t all relevant files opened to be examined and perused so you and the entire administration could then be properly exonerated ?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:04 pmPrivacy is very important to Dick Cheney - HIS OWN - but everyone else … No so much.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:04 pm#1 - You took the words right out of my mouth—er, right off my keyboard.
Thanks. Well said.
~A
January 31st, 2008 at 12:05 pmIf these ba$tards at the top don’t have to obey the law, then the rest of us should also be free to do whatever the FU(K to them.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pmHow about breaking the law? What a joke.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:09 pmThe Dick will be spouting this phrase all the way to the Penn.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pm“We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties.â€
Hmm, I wonder if certain lawmakers feel that way. Just a theory but why have so many Congressional bills passed that should have failed?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pmDeny deny deny…
January 31st, 2008 at 12:11 pmFundamental, really~
That fat sack of putrid jowels is heading for a beatdown.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:14 pmMukasey is doing this, too. They are saying no laws have been broken and don’t see a problem.
On it’s face this is clearly wrong. For FISA and Torture they are saying white is black.
As for Telecom Immuntiy, everyone knows this is wrong and that they brke the law. Hell not even every Telecom wanted to participate in this is stank so badly.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pmCan you imagine the joy around the world if this vile excuse for a human were hung in the town square by his fat neck until dead?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pmCHENEY: Correct. People who don’t want to — I guess want to leave open the possibility that the trial lawyers can go after a big company that may have helped. Those companies helped specifically at our request, and they’ve done yeoman duty for the country, and this is the so-called terrorist surveillance program, one of the things it was called earlier. It’s just absolutely essential to know who in the United States is talking to Al-Qaeda. It’s a program that’s been very well managed. We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties. It’s in fact a good piece of legislation.
If you and the rest of the administration were so concerned with knowing all about al Qeada and who was talking to them and what not , why would a PDB warning of an imminent attack on the US in August of ‘01 be ignored completely ?
And yeah DICK ; it’s all about the unabashed love that everyone has for trial lawyers and that can “get” the big companies in a lawsuit.
Has nothing to do with actually obeying the law.
Does this moron actually believe his own mountain of bullshit ?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:17 pmIt’s too bad he’ll never go on a show hosted by someone who isn’t a lickspittle, and have to face real critical questioning of his behavior. How human feces like this guy EVER GET ANYWHERE I do not know, except that people in general are far too reticent to say things like “Excuse me? You’re being a[n] ______. And no you CAN’T have that.”
January 31st, 2008 at 12:19 pmDid Limpballs and Dickhead have a Viagra party afterwards ?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pmPray tell us, Mr. Cheney, exactly why do law-abiding telecommunication corporations need immunity from prosecution? If you haven’t been breaking the law, then you don’t need immunity. Ever a simpleton like Bush can understand that… Methinks that you speak with forked-tongue, Mr. Cheney…
January 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pmThe reason they need immunity is because of “trial lawyers”??? I don’t get it. If the lawyer doesn’t have any evidence or facts then he has no case. And, as mentioned, legal discovery can occur in a manner consistent with protecting sensitive government programs by letting a special master or judge review it beforehand in secret. I love it when Republicans starting throwing out the evil trial lawyer mantra. Republicans are the first ones to go running for their lives to a trial lawyer when they get into trouble.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:25 pmCheney is a LIAR and a TRAITOR to the USA.
REAL Americans know it, as does the REST OF THE WORLD.
When he DROPS DEAD, there will be GREAT CELEBRATION WORLDWIDE.
As when TRAITOR Bush DROPS DEAD.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pmOrwell was right, just his timetable was wrong…..
January 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pmCan’t violate what was eliminated.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:31 pmNo laws were broken because the law no longer applies to them.
Impeach, Indict, Waterboard
Contact Arlen and ask what he intends to do about the fact that yesterday when he asked Mukasey about the law that this administration broke, his response was, “well, I don’t think they are doing it anymore.”
Then demand IMPEACHMENT!
http://specter.senate.gov/ public/ index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Thanks.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:32 pmImpeach, Indict, Waterboard
Comment by rehbock — January 31, 2008 @ 12:31 pm
Execute. Finished it for ya.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:33 pmThis is so easy… If they didn’t do anything wrong, they wouldn’t need immunity.
Done.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pm“Third Way?” That sounds more like Unity 08 “let’s all get along by compromising some of our rights and sing by the campfire” more than progressive. Their website sure tries to sell the “progressive” line, but if they want to take legislate away part of the court system (which is what retroactive immunity does when enacted by Congress), they are NOT progressive. It started with Lieberman, but it won’t end there. Those with a conservative agenda are passing themselves off as “progressive” more and more. It’s just sickening. Must be the Post-Rove Republican strategy. “We’re the middle of the road party now! We loves us some Unity! Look at our Democrat (sic) support!”
January 31st, 2008 at 12:34 pmSetting aside my atheism and assuming for the sake of debate that God exists I ask again: if God is on BushCo’s side like they say why do they need an agency to help them spy?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm39 - RR- Arlen will talk a good game - but when it comes to action, he’ll cry and sob and boo-hoo - and then kiss Cheney’s ass.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm1984 is here.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pmLove the photo. Looks the the two were expelled from the same cloaca, then separated.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:43 pmLIAR. again….
January 31st, 2008 at 12:44 pmeven arlen specter knows they broke the law, dick.
i love saying that, DICK!
January 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pmbut hey, you can say whatever you want to limbaugh.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pmI always thought the platform for conservatives was LESS Government?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:46 pmWTF happened?
No wonder that base is “fractured”, right OxyContin breath?
cheney contradicts himself right here:
“retroactive liability protection”
in other words, the telecoms BROKE THE LAW, hence the “retroactive”.
DUH!
January 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pmcheney, you are the most EVIL man that has ever lived. ever.
there is no character, in any book, throughout history, who is more evil than you.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pmCheney: “Those companies helped specifically at our request”
Meaning: The Bush administration needs to insure telecom immunity
in order to insure their own immunity.
Deeper Meaning: There is REALLY something we, the people, need to know about here.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:48 pmFor some reason I have a feeling that there were/are other companies besides the “telecoms” that are involved in the collection and/or analyzing of the data that has been and is now being collected. These crooks are very careful in what they say in public and I just plain don’t trust them.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:49 pm. . . and your whole famn damily!
January 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pmCaption: America’s Most Wanted; #1 & #2
January 31st, 2008 at 12:53 pm- “You broke the law.”
-”No we didn’t we’re at war”
-”You broke the law concerning conduct during wartime.”
-”But the Telcos helped us when we needed them.”
-”so they broke the law, too.”
-”we didn’t break any laws.”
over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over
January 31st, 2008 at 12:53 pmIf no one broke the law, why do they need immunity?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pmnot just “immunity”, but “retroactive immunity,”
meaning: they broke the law before they changed the law to make sure they didn’t break it, later.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pmHere’s what I sent, feel free to cut and past as needed:
Dear Senator Specter:
Yesterday you asked the AG about the laws that this Administration has broken and his response was essentially, “well, I don’t think they are doing so any more.”
That response will go on record as the closest thing to an admission of guilt that we may ever get from this administration.
You know that they have broken the law. You know that they have trampled on our Civil Liberties. You know that the Telecom’s have aided them in doing so and that in turn they have broken the law as instructed to do so by this criminal administration.
The question is, what are you going to do about it?
If we are to remain viable as a nation, there is only one thing to do. Appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the depth and breadth of the crimes that this administration has committed and begin the process to impeach.
The AG is supposed to be the Attorney General of the United States of America not the head lawyer to the Administration.
It is long past time to hold this administration accountable and it’s obvious that this AG is going to stonewall just like the last one. While he continues to stonewall our country is being stolen from us.
Do The Right Thing!
IMPEACH!
Sincerely,
January 31st, 2008 at 1:00 pmyep, immunity the word is self evidence of a crime.
And one that is still being commited, mind you~
January 31st, 2008 at 1:02 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYn5hxeFt10
January 31st, 2008 at 1:02 pmI may tick off my fellow Progressives here, but I have a suggested solution to this mess. (I will preface, however, by stating I think the telecoms should get sued to high heaven. I just don’t think it will ever be allowed to happen.)
So … how’s about we grant these jackasses immunity, but in exchange, we include in the law that Net Neutrality must stick around, forever, never to be taken away?
I think this may be a good compromise given the probability of immunity being passed. We may as well gain something in the process.
Anyone think this is a good idea, or am I just nuts? [Well, I probably am, but I mean in reference to this issue only. :-) ]
January 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pmI’ve said it once, but I’m going to say it again:
If no one broke the law, why do they need immunity?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:04 pmYou know what they say…..Dick Cheney….before he dicks you !!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:05 pmNothing like 2 fat cowards, one a druggie, trying to lead a nation. THIS is what the knuckle-draggers have brought us to. I say we take it all back.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:06 pm44 - 39 - RR- Arlen will talk a good game - but when it comes to action, he’ll cry and sob and boo-hoo - and then kiss Cheney’s ass.
Comment by Leftside Annie — January 31, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
I Know. But at least if everyone else sends him something he’ll at least know that we are watching. And I won’t have been the only one to have done so.
I worked real hard to get rid of that scumbag Santorum last time around… you can bet that I will work just as hard to get rid of Specter this time around.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pmDeeper Meaning: There is REALLY something we, the people, need to know about here.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 31, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
The whole reason that Bush and Cheney want immunity for the telecom companies is because they don’t want any information resembling the truth to get out to the public, which would happen if a lawsuit ever made it to trial.
I don’t have any special desire to see the telecom companies hung out to dry by themselves. I figure they were probably threatened/intimidated into giving Cheney what he wanted — unless for some bizarre reason they figured on their own that it would be really cool to spy on Americans.
What I DO want to see is a lawsuit against the telecoms, just because a trial would reveal a fair amount of the slime under the rock.
If telecoms were to be granted immunity ON CONDITION that they sing like canaries, that would be OK, too.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pmIt isn’t about civil liberties, it is about Cheney and Bush and the Telecoms breaking existing law.
It’s that simple.
Remember the rule of law!
January 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pmDictionary definition of immunity: Law. exemption from criminal prosecution or legal liability or punishment on certain conditions.
Dictionary definition of retroactive: Operative with respect to past occurrences, as a statute; retrospective: a retroactive law.
To state the obvious — if the Telecom’s broke no laws, why the desperate tooth and nail fight to secure retroactive immunity?
The Telecom’s and the Bush administration’s position is basically — “We want immunity for crimes we did not perpetrate and we want it now!” Bullshit!!
No retroactive immunity. Impeach Bush/Cheney now instead.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:12 pmI figure they were probably threatened/intimidated into giving Cheney what he wanted…
Comment by missmolly — January 31, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Uh, were the presidents of the telecomms invited to “go hunting” w/ Deadeye?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:12 pmIf no one broke the law, why do they need immunity?
Comment by bobcat_grad — January 31, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
For the same reason that Richard Nixon got a “pardon” — even though he was never charged with any crime, let alone convicted of one. It’s all about redefining terms for political purposes.
Just as I thought Nixon should have been charged, tried, and convicted of something before getting pardoned, I think there has to be some establishment that a crime has been committed before anyone gets immunity from it.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:12 pmEXACTLY, missmolly.
I am ASTONISHED that Pres Botch has the F-in’ unmitigated gall to demand retroactive immunity for the telecomms here, all whilst claiming no crime has been committed.
It just goes to show what utter and total comtempt he has for the American populace, that he could dare present such a loony, irrational, and clearly self-serving proposition to us, and expect to get away w/ it.
Gee, Pres Botch. could this have anything to do w/ those nasty rumors you were already spying on Americans BEFORE 9/11?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pmIf telecoms were to be granted immunity ON CONDITION that they sing like canaries, that would be OK, too.
Comment by missmolly — January 31, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
I absolutely agree. Not good, but OK.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pmI figure they were probably threatened/intimidated into giving Cheney what he wanted…
Comment by missmolly
Yes, the Anthrax they mailed to Dems, critics, reporters, and the guy who posted the picture of the Bush twins drunk, sure did a good job of quieting down any and all dissent.
Buck Fush
January 31st, 2008 at 1:22 pmDear God,
I am an atheist, yeah I know, I know, we’ll deal with that when I meet my demise. Anyway, God, if you are listening, please somehow muster up the strength that when you see fit to give Dick Cheney another heart attack, please, PLEASE, make it a BIG one! Thank you. I’ll give you an Amen after the event.
P.S. Tell Mrs. God and the kids I said hello.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pmHe meant that the Telecom companies need flu shots for their employees.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pmI think Dick and Limpbaugh should have their own right wing radio show.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pmThey can call it the “Dick & Boil Show”. Two guys who “had better things to do” then fight in the Vietnam war for their country, even though they both were healthy enough to fight in the war they supported.
“At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religous or political ideas.”
ALDOUS HUXLEY
Kinda sums up this Administration in a nutshell
January 31st, 2008 at 1:37 pm“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.”
Harry S Truman (1884 - 1972), August 8, 1950
Or as Georgie that dick Cheney say, “BOO!”
January 31st, 2008 at 1:40 pmDick, how are those last throes of the insurgency working out? Are we on the last throes of the last throes of the last throes of the last throes yet?
January 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pmDear God,
I am an atheist is exactly what Bush/Cheney/Muskasey are doing.
A built in self-feeding ironic lie.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pmThe idiots in Washington apparently have never read the Constitutution.
Article I, Section 9 (that’s the one that puts limitations on what Congress can do) states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
“Ex post facto,” from the Latin, meaning “formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. Used especially of a law.”
Ergo, retroactive immunity for the telecoms is unconstitutional.
Not that Bush, Cheney, Congress or the Supreme Court give a damn. After all, the Constitution is “just a f**king piece of paper.”
January 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pmRoger that, good buddy.
The idiots in Washington apparently have never read the Constitutution.
Article I, Section 9 (that’s the one that puts limitations on what Congress can do) states: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.â€
“Ex post facto,†from the Latin, meaning “formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. Used especially of a law.â€
Ergo, retroactive immunity for the telecoms is unconstitutional.
Not that Bush, Cheney, Congress or the Supreme Court give a damn. After all, the Constitution is “just a f**king piece of paper.â€
Comment by lm945 — January 31, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
Over and over and over the Democrats and Republicans think we are not interested in our own goddamn government! And that we are not paying attention! And they they can say chopping babies heads off is legal when we know it is not!
January 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pmThe Telco’s should get immunity if they were doing something illegal the Government told them to do.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pmThe Government’s illegal acts are a separate violation of law that will probably never see the light of open court and should not be covered by the immunity of those they told to break the law.
telecoms and our officials don’t deserve to be above the law but people sneaking across our borders do? How is that?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pmHell let’s give every lawbreaker immunity then since it seems to be the american way.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:05 pmif ex facto applies to this law in the granting of immunity and it being unconstitutional then shouldn’t ex post facto immunity for every law in this country be subjected to the same scrutiny and set of standards.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:08 pmFor TrickyDick and his SidekickShrub this is merely a matter of making sure their butts are well covered for future lawsuits against them.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:09 pmGee, namaste, enjoy the sound of your own voice much?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:12 pmLooks like the behind closed doors debate on FISA between Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell has been fairly heated. McConnell made an offer to allow votes on SOME of the proposed ammendments but not the Dodd/Feingold ammendment. Reid argues that THIS ammendment is the heart of the issue and deserves a vote. It seems the Republicons are trying to placate Reid with sticks and carrots hoping he’ll fold on the immunity issue. Sounds like the Reps are afraid of an ACTUAL filibuster where they may have to state there reasoning for allowing immunity. They know damned well that if it comes to a filibuster and that if this needs to be argued in a public forum that they their argument doesn’t hold any water. For the life of me I don’t understand why Reid hasn’t allowed more filibusters to occur. By the use of cloture votes and behind the doors debating, these issues never see the true light of day. If they did, the nation would see just how lame the Republican arguements are. There is no logical justification for offering immunity. The Dems need to stand strong and keep stating that they will not forgo the Constitution by offering retroactive immunity just because the President wants it. George keeps drumming the point that Congress/the Dems are constantly wasting time, well Reid needs to point out the waste of time and money spent on an immunity ammendment when the President has constantly stated that NO LAWS WERE BROKEN.
More @ TPMMuckraker:
http://tpmmuckraker.com/
January 31st, 2008 at 2:17 pmThat one point just flabbergast me, Patriot…
How does Botch keep insisting no laws were broken yet demand - DEMAND - “retroactive immunity” for the telecomms?
Geez, George Orwell has to be spinnin’ like a top right now.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:20 pmMeet the New Dick….Same as the Old (Tricky) Dick.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:29 pmRe: retroactive immunity…
January 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pmDicky may eventually like lawyers. Especially the one the court appoints in the Hague. Or will he pull a Slobadan Melosevic?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:45 pmIf they have done no wrong, then why the urgent need for retroactive immunity?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:51 pm95 see 93
January 31st, 2008 at 2:53 pmIn answer to everyone asking “why do they need immunity if they did nothing wrong?” I thought Darth answered that question in the interview. If they have immunity, no one can sue them and the poor struggling telecom babies won’t have to fork over legal fees. That’s all it’s about: money. Bush is going to pardon the corporations and their officers before he leaves office if they don’t get their immunity from Congress, but that wouldn’t shield them from civil cases.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:04 pmi bet limpballs wet himself over having the big DICK as guest.
may they both suffer a slooooooww and painful death.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pmBush is going to pardon the corporations and their officers before he leaves office if they don’t get their immunity from Congress, but that wouldn’t shield them from civil cases.
Comment by gummitch — January 31, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Disgustingly enough, that was Feinstein’s rationale for immunity… she didn’t want the poor telecomms to be crippled by the legal costs. Damn the Constitution and the credibility of our government, Di… what we really need to be worried about here is the cost of breaking the law???? Sheesh.
Thank Gawd yer retiring, Di.
Yer time has come… and is gone… long, long, long gone. Buh-bye!!
January 31st, 2008 at 3:16 pm#89 If the shoe fits, you’re wearing it. The pregnant pause due to the highlighting of the obvious hypocrisy promotes speechlessness.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pmHuh?
Engage in double talk much?
I thought you were a troll there for a minute, but subsequent posts have persuaded me otherwise. Sorry about my original comment.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pmI am not a troll (whatever that means) and I am not a Republican. Just was passing by and thought I add two cents into a conversation which seemed contradictory to me. On one hand people are for not granting immunity to law breakers and on othr issues the same people are. Maybe I just don’t get it.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:25 pmso which is it here? What are we for and what are we against and why?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:26 pmExtremely confusing times we live in, namaste.
Yes, parts of the conversation are contradictory. I won’t take responsibility for what a lot of other posters here say, and I personally have had my own arguments w/ folks here more than once.
I’m not quite sure comparing the telecomm immunity issue to illegal immigration is quite valid. I suppose you could make the case that the law is the law, and all things should be equal before it, but the 2 situations are quite different. The illegal immigration mess has been decades in the making, and involves MILLIONS of people on both sides of the border.
A bad situation that’s only getting worse? Yes.
The telecomm thing is due to the actions of a few people at the top of the govt, and their counterparts at the corps they dealt w/. What’s that old saying, “One lawyer can steal more money w/ his briefcase and pen than all the armed gunmen in the world”? That seems appropriate here. This particular item - domestic spying - is just part and parcel of a boarder tendency towards blatantly criminal behavior on the part of the Brusch Admin.
Clearly illegal immigration has become a MAJOR problem for this country, and so far, we’re not getting any practical solutions here AT ALL. I think this is due in part to the fact that one of the real needs here is fixing the Mexican economy, and NO ONE wants to touch that one.
And yes, at one level, there is a certain degree of contradiction there, and I don’t defend all of it.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:37 pmJanuary 31st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
If no one’s civil liberties have been violated, then why is immunity even necessary?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm[Cheney]: It’s a program that’s been very well managed. We haven’t violated anybody’s civil liberties….
“… all your civil liberties are belong to us. Har-har-harrrggghggrrrrr……”
Cheers,
January 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pmIf you haven’t (truly) done anything wrong, you don’t need to ask for immunity. Right?
So the fact that you are asking for immunity makes me think you HAVE done something wrong. Maybe many somethings wrong.
And no, I don’t believe you anymore when you say, “Trust me, Uncle Dickey. You’ve burned me once too many times on that one.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pmbingo, curmudgeon. It’s because civil rights have been violated that they now want immunity. They’ve already outed themselves.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pmIt is not that they really care about the telecoms per se, or the legal fees, it is really about WHO they were spying on, like members of congress whose behavior in going along with the administration’s agenda has been so strange.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:33 pmThe Dickster doin’ what the Dickster does. Oh yeah, selling snake oil and running shell games. Ya think we should trust him…let’s, let’s trust him and believe him when he says our civil liberties haven’t been violated! Maybe not! I think he has a lot of nerve thinking he can substitute his word for the legally appropriate approach to this entire mess. Who the hell does he think he is!? I don’t think there is any way we could prove what they’ve done one way or the other if they keep sitting on the evidence, congress equivocates, and the law is irrelevant!! The only hope lawful folks have is their congress and the power of the purse and impeachment. Apparently our congress has no guts and therefore…we’ll have no case against the Dickster and his band of merry war criminals and lawbreakers.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:03 pmWhy is the telecom immunity the big issue in this Unconstitutional bill?
The bill is nothing more than a de facto repeal of the Fourth Amendment; allowing the federal government to eavesdrop on American citizens at will without probable cause and with no warrant. It gives the attorney general (instead of a judge) the power to determine the legality of wiretaps of US CITIZENS.
WHO CARES ABOUT TELECOM IMMUNITY - THE ENTIRE BILL NEEDS TO BE DEFEATED. It is an illegal bill, even if congress passes it - they are not allowed to amend the Constitution by legislation.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:48 pm“one of the most vital things the president’s done since 9/11″?
Dick? A 911-Truther?
–
February 1st, 2008 at 11:46 pmRaphael
GOP candidates on Iraq (video)
February 17th, 2008 at 2:59 pm