Letters to the Editor
-
does not compute
If it's true that the telecoms were illegally listening in since early 2000, then why didn't they catch the 911 hijackers before they committed their crimes? Just who were they listening in on, if not the terrorists? Well, Mr. Rockerfeller, care to answer this before you trash the "rule of law?"
-
Fair?
Rockefeller's op-ed is the same kind of disingenuous jingosim we get all the time from the Bush Administration. The thrust of it is that the telecom companies are totally off the hook (get it?) if they were asked to do what they did by the Bush Administration. The Rockefeller legislation is flawed because, as pointed out, between Rockefeller's telecom amnesty porvision and the government's state secrets privilege, we will never know how and why FISA was violated. That is unacceptable. Maybe after all the facts are known, then one might decide amnesty of some kind is appropriate. I do think there is a question of fairness here: The Bush Adminstration no doubt scared the b'jeesus out of the telecoms, though I'm sure the government offered carrots too. On the other hand, not all the telecoms complied with the government's demands, a telling indication that there was some serious concern about what the Administration was requesting. They do have lots of lawyers. Too many unknowns right now. Whatever amnesty is appropriate for the telecoms, if any, simply cannot be determined without a much better factual record. Blanket, blind immunity is unacceptable and the Rockefeller bill must be defeated.
-
Turn computer off. okay. Tomorrow?
Dead Souls Day.
Skeletons Day too.
Holy boot soles!
Glenn got holes?
Holy socks, boot?
O, damn barn, heh.
-
Rockefeller Warns of 'Consequences' He Claims Have Already Occurred!!
In fairness to Jay Rockefeller, in defending his wealthy telco contributors, he pauses, briefly, to scold the Bush administration:
"Unfortunately, President Bush often chose the latter ('to devise new secret intelligence programs in uncharted legal waters') and the legitimacy and effectiveness of our efforts to fight terrorism were dramatically undermined.
"The President's warrantless surveillance program and his decision to go it alone - without input from Congress or the courts - have had a devastating consequence. One is that private companies which would normally comply with legitimate national security requests, now have incentive to say no."
But this "devastating consequence" that Rockefeller cites as already existent ("now have the incentive to say no") is also the (gasp!) unimaginable, FUTURE consequence he uses to justify telco immunity!
"And if we require them to face a mountain of legal lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future."
But Rockefeller has just claimed, one paragraph earlier, that such support has already been "dramatically undermined" and that this "devastating consequence" - the "incentive to say no" - has ALREADY occurred! Hoist upon his own petard, the Jay-ster, blithely continues:
"If American businesses...were to decide that it would be too risky to comply with legally certified requests, or to insist on verifying every request in court our intelligence collection would come to a screaming halt."
Riiiiight. The old screaming halt. Because, as we all know it's only the illegal, unverified, non-court-approved intelligence gathering that has any value whatsoever. Black ops or no ops, eh Jay? That's why torture has consistently yielded such an intelligence bonanza. Rockefeller's willingness to imply legal process is both too burdensome & insufficient to force compliance is doubly dishonest. If intelligence gathering requests were in fact legally certified by the courts & Congress, non-compliance would be neither "risky" or optional. Telcos wouldn't have any choice but to comply. They would be, as they should be, legally compelled to yield the data requested. Continuing in his 'Bush-bad-Telcos-innocent' vein, Rockefeller's noxious petard hoists him ever further higher:
"Even as we hold Government officials accountable for mistakes (oops! didn't mean to datamine you!) or wrongdoing, through the courts, (technically impossible) congressional investigations (provably ineffective) & the electoral process (conveniently imprecise) we must preserve the cooperation of private industry for the next President and for everyone who follows."
But Jay, you loveable old plutocrat, you've already claimed that such cooperation has already been "dramatically undermined" & that this "devastating consequence" has already occurred! It's unconvincing, at best, to claim that the sky has fallen & then to breathlessly warn that the same sky will fall, again. Technically speaking, it's hard to have it both ways. Furthermore, if the requests made by "the next President & everyone who follows" are LEGAL, corporate non-compliance really won't be an issue. If, however this Government's secretive, scaremongering overreach encourages corporate citizens toward greater scepticism about unsubstantiated legalities, impels them to seek court approved verification, particularly when trampling citizen rights, I can't help but feel, for almost everyone concerned, far from being a negative consequence, that's an overwhelming benefit.
-
PeteG60...
Glen - you should contact Hiatt to request that Washington Post publish your rebuttal.
Past observations make me think that they won't really do that, or that if they did, it would be ill-framed.
However, Dan Froomkin, who has a daily column on the Washington Post online edition, sometimes links to Glenn's work, and would be more likely to follow up on this, since it's an issue that has his attention, too.
He also has a pretty huge following of his own.
http://washingtonpost.com/whbriefing
-
9/11 was an inside job
and the Repubs and Dems will continue to cover-up this fact and at the same time, use 9/11 to justify whatever fascist policies they wish to put over on the people.
-
Buffalonian's modest proposal
You raise a really good point and it doesn’t require stooping to the GOP level. The argument that the leaders of this country who spend $500 billion in defense, which is equal to the rest of the world combined, $50 billion a year on intelligence has allowed this great country to become defined, turned on its head and held hostage, for four years, by a bunch of fundamentalist bullies. Because this administration is so weak, that rather than stand up to the fundamentalist bullies and control the situation they are cowering and scared and controlling us, because that they can do. With the greatest military and intelligence spending and resources in the world, what the administration can do is systematically violate our constitution, way of life, everyday freedoms and liberties, that is what they can do, but what they can’t do with all of that, and their bravado, is control the bullies. Breathtaking!
Jill Howell