Letters to the Editor
-
Insulting is the correct word
As I read the piece I kept getting filled with this wonderment: does Reockeffeler think we are the Republican base? That any bullshit and lying must be accepted because he says so?
He does think we're stupid. He does think we can be manipulated. He does lie. He does not protect the constitution.
To think that Harry Reid has gone along with all this, swatting down the hold put on by Biden....
There is a long, long way to go. It's really pretty bad when a Democratic Senator treats citizens with such appalling contempt.
-
Rockefeller vs. Dodd debate
Since PBS News Hour would not allow a Greenwald vs. Rockefeller debate, the next best thing and something PBS would go for would be to substitute Dodd for Glenn. I think this op-ed piece is a perfect opportunity for Dodd to propose this. I could e-mail Dodd and recommend this, but Glenn it would have more impact if you contacted him.
We need some visibility prior to the time when the bill is debated and hopefully Dodd and other senators opposed to the bill will get some attention. If Dodd gets some M$M attention that would give you a chance Glenn to get some also.
-
Could someone please translate this?
The bill authorizes case-by-case review in the courts only when the attorney general certifies that a company's actions were based on assurances of legality, and the court is specifically required to determine whether the attorney general abused his discretion before immunity can be granted.
I can't make any sense of what Stupefeller is trying to say here. Does this mean that any actions by a telecom where no "determination" by the Attorney General was given to them is still fair game in court? Given the current Justice Department, however, who would think that there ever would be even a response to an inquiry to the Department on whether they authorized any particular action (secret information, you know)?
Also, there is the little issue of major portions of the Justice Department threatening to resign over just those "assurances of legality" that had been prepared. If Comey, Ashcroft, Mueller and corporate counsel for Qwest all knew that the "assurances of leagality" were worthless, it simply is impossible to believe as, the judge in the EFF case has already ruled, that any company here actually believed that what they were doing was legal.
Okay, so is Idiotfeller trying to say that when assurance was given to the companies, we still can evaluate, on a case-by-case basis if that assurance was legal? We don't have to do that because of the ruling above. We already know it was illegal and you can bet the farm that the same flawed memo was used for "assurance" to each of the telecoms.
This whole move for amnesty is meant to give cover to the telecocms, and as Glenn points out clearly, the government provocateurs who urged them into blatantly illegal acts that still have yet to be disclosed in their entirety. The only route I would see for immunity to civil fines would be for the first (and only the first) telecom to provide a complete accounting, in a closed session of the Senate Intelligence Committee, of exactly what actions were taken and what "assurance" was given.
-
The leading Democratic candidate has spoken
in her now-usual, ambiguous way. Asked about telecom immunity, Hillary Clinton has said,
"I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen it so I can't express an opinion about it. But I don't trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I'm going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently."
Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary ends up voting for amnesty. Then she'll rationalize her vote in some way. Just like the war, just like Kyl-Lieberman -- unless she keeps hearing from us.
Her contact information:
Phone: (202) 224-4451
General Fax: (202) 228-0282
-
Too bad democracy and open government are weak
The bottom line coming from Rockefeller and the rest of our government is clear: democracy and open government are too weak to deal with a handful of angry people with no army. They should be made to state explicitly not only that our founding fathers got it wrong by not accounting for blowback from international criminals, but that it's better to trash our founder's experiment than reexamine our foreign policy.
-
confused
“Unfortunately, immunity for communications companies has become a cause celebre for opponents of the surveillance program as a whole, and that has led to widespread confusion.” ~ Jay Rockefeller
Yes, I am confused. How do we ever find out what the administration was actually up to if we give these communications companies immunity?
Isn’t that why this as become “a cause celebre” for those who take lawbreaking seriously?
At no point does Rockefeller support his point that if we don’t give them immunity then “we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense.” How?
Which companies have said they will no longer comply with government subpoenas unless they’re given immunity?
Which telecom company says it is above the law and will no longer comply with the law if it doesn’t get immunity?
-
Immunity Now!?
Which telecom company says it is above the law and will no longer comply with the law if it doesn’t get immunity?
-- _zack
What Rocky is saying is that if the telecoms aren't granted immunity for breaking the law, the next time they're asked to break the law they might think twice about it. Therefore, they might choose to abide by the law, or, if they think they can get away with it, they might choose to bribe the government by asking for more and more money and more and more assurances of immunity.
Well, Rocky isn't actually saying that, that's just what he fears might happen. What he's actually saying is, "9/11, 9/11, 9/11! Immunity Now!"
-
Telecom immunity
Glenn,
Did I not read that the government initiated the entire debacle well before 11 September, 2001? If that is the case, then constant pronouncements about "9-11" are not relevant and should be highlighted as specious.