Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Isn't this an ex post facto law, and thus unconstitutional?
Some of the earlier moves are here:
http://pruningshears.squarespace.com/pruning-shears/2007/9/16/this-week-in-tyranny.html
There's no reason for anyone to be immune from breaking the law just because the president says so.
It looks like Speaker Pelosi was indeed a nightmare, but not a Republican nightmare like everyone thought. And while I'm at it--go to hell, Harry.
History will not be kind on any of the actors in this post-Millenial governmental travesty.
The Constitution only bans laws which render illegal acts which, at the time they were undertaken, were legal. It doesn't prohibit laws that do the opposite.
Great post, as always. I wonder when liberals will understand that Democrats sell them out not because they are too weak to resist, but because they actually agree with all the laws they pass, and wars they enable.
The only reason I can think of why the dems will allow this retroactive immunity for the phone companies pass is money. Campaign contributions and lobbyist pressure will get the phone companies the immunity they want. If those lawsuits were successful they could lose billions in judgements against them. It's all about the money.
Yet another clear-eyed observation that literally made me nauseated.
Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand-basket?
GG writes, "If Democrats do what the Times article suggests they are prepared to do, i.e. grant retroactive immunity to telecoms, that would compel dismissal of those lawsuits, which in turn would destroy what is perhaps the last chance for ever obtaining a judicial determination as to whether the President broke the law. What possible rationale would lead them even to consider such a thing?"
That's an easy one. The companies in question are politically powerful entities that make campaign contributions and can make even bigger ones if they want to. They can create real problems for their political enemies and give big help to their friends. Remember Who Runs Congress -- it ain't us, it's the lobbyists on K Street. And believe me, AT&T is gonna get whatever it wants.
... some Republican Congressdoofus was claiming that FISA was preventing monitoring, and that intercepts of foreign targets fell by two thirds (apparently because of the 'problem' of tapping foreign "targets" w/o a warrant because of the worry that they might be talking to someone in the U.S.)
But FISA never prevented any such taps. All they had to do was get a friggin' warrant.... Once they had that in hand, they could tap all that target's calls, regardless of who (or where) the person on the other end was. Just as in domestic Title III wiretaps, to tap you as a "target", they need a Title III warrants, but if they have that in hand for someone else, and 'in the course of business', the actual target calls you, your call may be recorded.
Same should apply for FISA. Get a warrant!!!
Cheers,
Our Work Is Not Done -- This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Typo there. Should be "alleged to have broken the law". "Assisting our nation" carries no legal sanctions. "Breaking the law" does.
Cheers,
GG,
I know this is a little unconventional, but I'm hoping you will read Clemons article and respond. I think it has a little too much air in it.
cliff
Before considering this blanket amnesty (let's use the correct word) to telecoms that cooperated with illegal surveillance, Congress should get some answers about why it is even needed.
Recall that the administration has claimed -- under legal theories never upheld by any court -- that the warrantless "Terrorist Surveillance Program" was really lawful after all. All along there has been, under existing law, 18 USC 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B), a provision by which the AG could certify legality to cooperating telecoms by providing:
a certification in writing ... that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,
Such a certification already would protect a company from any liability. Section 2511 goes on to say:
...No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter.
In the civil suits against the telecoms, the administration has interceded and claimed that the very existence (or not) of such a certification is a state secret that cannot even be disclosed to a judge! (Yet McConnell apparently can talk about the companies' cooperation to the El Paso Times.)
Some key unanswered questions are: Did the AG provide such certifications to the telecoms for some or all all that they did? If not, why not? If so, then why is the blanket amnesty even needed?
Remember, in addition to the publicly announced TSP as described by Bush, Gonzales and company, there also were other activities going on through March 2004. Whatever these activies were, they were so egregious that Comey, Ashcroft, Goldsmith, Mueller, Baker and other top DOJ officials were prepared to resign over them.
As an aside, do not underestimate the considerable lobbying clout of the telecommunications industry, which will not be at all transparent during this process.
What part of corporate control of government don't you understand?
I'm not very savvy in these matters, but isn't this exactly what Nader was talking about in 2000? The corporations/lobbies give these congresspeople their power. You can't get elected without spending millions of dollars, and until private citizens start outspending telecom companies, you won't see them prosecuted for their crimes.
Public Financing of Federal Elections Now!
P.S. Best blog ever. You're the reason I pay for Salon.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
