Letters to the Editor
-
a good litmus test
Seeing as there is absolutely no defensible reason to pass a law whose purpose is to immunize people who violated previous laws, support of telecom immunity makes for a good litmus test to judge legislators of either party, as well as pundits in the media. Anybody who comes out forcefully in defense of the telecoms is on the take. There is no defense plausible. What does a congressperson say to the voters: it was important for me to allow these companies to violate the law and listen to your private conversations?
This is the kind of issue that would kill in polling, if any polling institute had the interest in asking such a question. (The relative obtuseness of pollsters will have to wait for a later discussion.)
-
WaPo doesn't even know whether its newsroom was spied upon.
The news media's indifference toward illegal spying is extraordinarily dangerous to journalists.
-
Is it too late or too early to talk about mass Primary challenges vs incumbents?
Incumbent Democrats, that is. We don't dare allow even a single elephant candidate gain even a single seat at this point.
If and when this "amnesty" is signed into law, will the only remedy left be to turn out every supporter of it in both Houses? Is such a groundswell even possible in this day and age?
-
The Kremlin would have been green with envy
The Politburo and the KGB never had anything as remotely effective as this for identifying their enemies. What they did have was the Lubyanka, and the Siberian Gulag.
I wonder how long it will be -- if it hasn't begun already -- before Blackwater, et al., join the consortium as its enforcement arm. Another thought: the Internet is a wonderful tool for communication among the hoi polloi, and source for the raw material out of which antidotes to government propaganda can be constructed, but it also identifies dissidents of every kind, and on every issue, to those in the government who might want to do them harm.
It seems that there's virtually no chance that the next decade won't be one of those interesting times that the famous Chinese bon mot warned us about.
I hope we're ready.
-
Well, I wrote a letter....
But as all three of my representatives are card carrying members of the Republican Lemming Group, it's not likely to have much impact.
-
Nearly 500 NSL's from...
the Pentagon? NPR is reporting this morning that the ACLU has received heavily redacted documents showing that the Pentagon has filed nearly 500 NSL's since 2000. They have no domestic law enforcement responsibilities, yet they are spying at this level. Bruce Fein, in an interview with NPR for the story, asks whether nearly 500 Pentagon employees are suspected of collaborating with terrorists.
Definitely worth a listen:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15276516 -
Why isn't John Boehner (R-Oh)
out in front, leading the charge against illegal surveilance of private communications?
In 1996, Boehner sued a Democratic congressman Jim McDermitt (D) for leaking a private cellphone conversation Boehner had with then-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) over Gingrich's ethics violations.
It would seem that he would be extremely interested in this issue.
-
Is this what Ashcroft & Company said they'd resign over, en masse?
It certainly sounds like it.
Glenn, great piece. Keep it up.
-
Look for an ugly face
Unless we can humanize the debate by singling out a few individuals who were more responsible than others (and who benefited greatly by breaking the law), this outrage on the American public will remain too amorphous for the public/pundits to care.
-
You "Rule of Lawists" must really hate America
You really must not keep revealing information about important secret spying programs. Any open discussion about this matter is unpatriotic. Our revered President says it tells the terrorists, "Here's what we're going to do. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."
And if the President says so, it must be true.
Seriously, when will people wake up? And, oh yes, this post deserves a Pulitzer Prize.
-
@Whispers
I'm getting the same kind of sinking feeling that I got when Bush opted the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court - the only reason to do that was if he thought U.S. nationals (citizens and soldiers) would soon be charged for committing war crimes. I remember thinking: "but that would mean he wants to go to war without all the pesky laws - we'd never allow *that* to happen!"
-
And We Wonder Why We Don't
have "real" competition in phone, cell, cable, and Internet access. And to top that off, I bit I know what companies are going to be awarded the new spectrum allocations coming up.
-
need to consider the tech basis of digital privacy
This illustrates the new dimensions of our digital technology enabled world. Just as many of the problems come from that, we need to start addressing how solutions can be found based on that. For example by listening to folks like:
"The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Information Age" by Daniel Solove
Bruce Schneier http://www.schneier.com/
I sure wish I had more insight and time for research, but I think this is a fact.
PHIL :)
veyr@earthlink.net
-
Doing my part....
http://tinyurl.com/2y25bs
(scroll down).
Cheers,
-
Disturbing
Great post GG. However, what is most disturbing to me is that this illegal surveillance program was being created in February 2001. If the rationale for the program was supposedly 9/11 - then why was the program begun in February? If the program was created in February to stop potential terrorist attacks, then why did 9/11 happen? If we can have unlimited, warrantless spying and still have 9/11, then any argument that the program is necessary fails.
As pointed out, this should be a major scandal as the timing calls into question every supposed rationale Bush has ever asserted for the need for warrantless spying. Yet, I doubt we will hear the real questions asked.
Lastly, I have always tried not to slip into conspiracy-theory mode when looking at the behavior of the Bush administration. But when I read about stuff like this, it gets harder and harder.
-
eff.org server swamped
Can't get in. That's a good thing.
Good on ya GG.
-
FWIW
Edited down slightly from my original:
Concerning immunity provision for telecoms who participated in
warrantless surveillances, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said: "These
companies deserve our thanks. They do not deserve a flurry of
lawsuits seeking access to documents the disclosure of which
would harm our country."
If they violated the laws, they do not deserve thanks. They
deserve to be treated as the laws provide, like anyone else.
The administration has sought to prevent any examination of
what laws may have been violated by invoking a "state secrets"
privilege, frustrating legitimate lawsuits by people such as
Khalid el-Masri -- who was kidnapped, abused, and tortured by
the CIA (in a case of mistaken identity) -- and even reasonable
and legitimate inquiry by Congress to find out what has been
done with the warrantless spying.
Republicans like Smith are only seeking to prevent the extent
of law-breaking by the Bush administration from ever becoming
public, to prevent political damage to the administration and
Republican party. This is hardly a matter of "national security".
Cheers,