Letters to the Editor
-
Guess they'll offshore their customer base if they're sued, eh?
Today there is significant debate about whether the underlying program -- the president's warrantless surveillance plan -- was legal or violated constitutional rights. That is an important debate, and those questions must be answered. -- Sen. Rockefeller
Which begs the question of why Congress is doing everything in its power to block the standard, legitimate avenues of inquiry into these matters. Sen. Rockefeller's only response to us, the confused & impetuous rabble, is more of the same. "Those questions" show no sign of being answered because of decisions made by Sen. Rockefeller and his colleagues. Rosenberg is correct -- the man should face a stiff primary challenge in '08.
Hope your home survived the fires Paul, and that disruptions to your life were minimal.
In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court. And if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future. -- Sen. Rockefeller
DO we risk "losing their support"? Given the business model the telecoms operate on this seems like an especially weak, disingenuous argument. The telecoms are highly regulated successors to Ma Bell. As Glenn noted in an earlier post, they are quasi-governmental organizations. They may be publicly traded 'private' corporations, but they depend on government contracts, governmentally granted rights-of-ways and public airwaves for every transaction and every penny they earn. Will they close up shop and move 'production' to China?
I'm 46. I remember when Ma Bell (legitimately) feared being nationalized; it was seen as a public utility on par with sewers and roads that should be run by and for the people. Now it's successors have the power to act against to national interest in times of crisis? How odd. -
A pipe dream
You and Chris Dodd jointly submit an Op-Ed to WaPo explaining why amnesty is a really bad idea. And WaPo publishes it. Like I said, a pipe dream. Maybe once they rejected it, you could publish it on Salon and his website and say this is what WaPo didn't want you to see. A thought.
-
errata
Now it's successors have the power to act against the national interest in times of crisis? How odd.
-
DanJaaquinOz
"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?"
Is Jay saying that the founders were a bunch of nincompoops who didn't know, or care much about, what the hell they were doing?
Is Jay also saying that the courts and the congress are really just for show, except, of course, for keeping 'the little people' in line?
-
Partners in the war on the Constitution
is more apt title for Rockefeller's OpEd.
Suing the telecoms is unfair...but people having their privacy rights violated "outside the law" is not. Where's the compensation proposal from Rockefeller on that?
Where's the compensation proposal for QWest, which didn't agree to knuckle. Oh that's right, Naccio is being sent away. Compensation accomplished.
What a weak-kneed piece of work this is. Telecom companies won't cooperate without warrants in the future if we dont give them this now? And that's a bad thing?
And really, the Intelligence committee has been looking at this issue for a year? I thought they just recently got a partial download of what they've been asking for.
Finally, I love how the AG gets to make the certifications that either a) they did or that b) they did not act under the color of legal governmental instructions, either works for immunity, but whether a) or b) was in fact the case is not disclosed in the certification. Now that is a fantastic dodge.
-
How unpatriotic are these telcoms?
Rockefeller says if we require them to face a mountain of lawsuits, we risk losing their support in the future.
Really. So these guys who are so patriotic that they (allegedly) broke the law to support the administration are at risk of not supporting the government in the future if they don't get immunity?
Doesn't that make them kind of tratorious?
-
I heard in the year of the Lord 1791. And "Lord" means we/me/you are too damn stupid to know which boot goes on what foot. Lord need redefined too, O, lordly have mercy upon USA.
In the year of 1791-
Shoe-man, Hiding, Bach, Meddlesome, Owen, Kosnonafford panties huh, and bad bastions of plutocrats did briefly (shorts reigns) hand around to stick noses out of smelling foxholes.
In the year of 1791-
There were magical flutes, stringed quartets (no strings attached, yep) virtuoso's and awe inspiring gold-2-ensembles pieces, and Magnificents.
Musical, awesome, and the
magnificent, spitual cantos.
I feel like a glass of Apple Jack cold cider. Bathwater got cold again.
-
Rockefeller
Glenn,
It is not at all surprising what old Jay is doing. Not surprising at all.
However, I wonder if you might not want to consider an article and/or interview with senator Dodd? After all, he has committed to filibuster this bill on top of the fact that he has put a "hold" on it it.
I would help, I think.
Reflect on it. In the meantime, thank you for your integrity and dedication to the rule of law.
-
sorry.
Many whores with wheeled behind luggage roll the dirt nighty into the Hyatt Regency hovel next door to the Capital Hill.
honest.
O, ask a poor spell person, a old Hatty, hiya, henna, or the hyenas watcher in Washington D.C., and any honest bellhop will tell the truth.
The Press know.
Eat a croissant.
O, ask a cabbie.
O, I get gabbier.
-
On "State Secrets" Privilege
There's an interesting little nugget about the most recent ruling on the state secrets privilege and I recently covered on my blog, the Democracy Cell Project. The pretinent part of the post is below, with a link to the entire post here:
Recently, US v. Reynolds has been challenged in court. Why? Because declassified documents obtained by the widows' heirs show that the Air Force lied in its affidavits. There were no issues of national security whatsoever in any Air Force documents relating to the crash. The reports, denied to the widows, did say however, that the aircraft was unsafe to fly. As a result, the widows' heirs petitioned the Supreme Court for a Writ of Error Coram Nobis to remedy fraud upon the court. In this case, Herring v. United States, the petitioners ask that the court vacate its original ruling.
Unsurprisingly, SCOTUS declined to grant certiorary. The petitioners then filed in federal district court. The Justice Department, under Ashcroft and then Gonzales, moved to dismiss. The case was argued on July 15, 2005, before the Circuit judges of the Third District of the United States. The appeal was denied on September 25, 2005, with the opinion being written by Circuit Judge Aldisert for the two person majority. The other judge in the majority was Samuel Anthony Alito. In 2006 Judge Samuel Anthony Alito became an Associate Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States.
To be clear, the petitioners did not seek to change the laws or ruling for which Reynolds has been foundational. But in thinking it over, is there a better metaphor for the way the Bush Administration views the rule of law than this? They are abusing a privilege, which is fundamentally based on a lie perpetrated by the government to avoid responsibility, in order to keep things secret from Congress.
The abuse of privilege by the privileged continues.