I don't know if anybody has noted this yet, but Bobby Inman, who is is referenced near the end of the Times article -- "Bobby R. Inman, a retired admiral and former N.S.A. director who has publicly criticized the agency’s domestic eavesdropping program, says he still supports immunity for the companies that cooperated," -- is a former member of the board of SBC, which became AT&T.

Right here at Salon.

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2007/12/16/D8TIM9A80_congress_democrats/index.html

I'm just astonished at what's going on in this country. How can Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, etc. do this? Just think what would have happened if these weak, unprincipled, corrupt, pygmies had been in power during Watergate -- God, what would have happened?

If immunity is granted for the telecoms, we might as well turn out the lights. We will no longer be a nation of laws and democracy will be a total illusion. It's hopeless.

My emails to Biden, Clinton, and Obama requesting they honor their pledge to support Dodd went out Friday - for all the good it apparently did. Apparently, support is a word they know how to find in a dictionary - but it is just a word, after all. I'm sick at the thought that not one of them seems available to stand with Dodd on this filibuster. Digby spun a lovely fantasy about the four of them shouldering this filibuster together, and the message it would send (http://tinyurl.com/2zgetu). Alas, it was only a fantasy. And, it tells me a lot about what these three folks really believe.

My donation to Dodd's campaign went out the same day.

I think Jane may leave her comment section, where folks can leave their thoughts for Dodd to read, open throughout the evening. As my thoughts gel, I'll write one to include. Many at FDL have suggested that Dodd might want to read a number of the essays you've posted here. Not sure what Salon's policies might be in that regard, but perhaps is a conversation you could have with Jane.

IF telecommunications companies have broken the law in acquiescing to illegal information requests by the government, do you think said companies should be subject to prosecution?

Your question prejudges guilt. How would one know if they have broken the law until prosecuted?

I believe the telecoms should be given immunity immediately, and then decide the issue of what the limits of their collaboration with Government should be, via legislation. Dragging all this through years of court battles while denying the country a primary source of intelligence is a waste on several levels. Worse, the outcome may not even address the legal limits of current technology.

The Republican, Democratic and Libertarian agenda seems to be to expand government through corporations, which are immune from the constitutional restrictions imposed on the government. The use of telecommunications industry by the federal government is a case in point. Accordingly, the constitution must be amended to protect the people from corporations, in addition to the government. The protections of the constitution are meaningless if they apply only to governments, but vanish should someone or their communications or medical records happen to find their way into a corporation.

[talesofunrest]: IF telecommunications companies have broken the law in acquiescing to illegal information requests by the government, do you think said companies should be subject to prosecution?

[Sh**ter]: Your question prejudges guilt.

Amnesty assumes guilt. If it wasn't illegal, then no amnesty is needed. Capece?

Sh**ter's too friggin' stoopid to pour the piss from his boots even if the instructions are written on the heel.

Cheers,

If Reid ignores Dodd's request for a hold, knowing that Dodd is threatening a filibuster, and then moves to cloture, isn't that an "I dare you" moment? Put up or shut up?

I'm not familiar with all the procedural arcana of the Senate, but aside, perhaps, from a senator's right to rise on a point of privilege - like Byrd getting up to lecture on the Constitution - isn't that it?

"Weren't the events of 9-11-2001 a political act?"

We know they were, on the part of the perpetrators.

As for the response of the government, we apparently never will. This is what makes the relentlessly repeated argument of the 28 percenters, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear," so infuriatingly self-discrediting. Not to them, of course, but to anyone else who can fog a mirror.

The baffling willingness of the Bushies to make themselves look guilty by stonewalling the 911 commission, including the pathetic and reluctantly accepted "compromise" of finally allowing Bush to appear, but not under oath and with Cheney along, only fuels the worst suspicions of the most radical conspiracy theorists.

They are so obviously hiding something and took a lot of criticism in so doing, that one can only assume the worst.

Why do that?

We can only wonder.

The eedjit in question has a new concept-of-the-day, which undoubtedly rolled off the righty ticker machine just recently.

Now we're all "playing judge, jury, and executioner," according to whatever wingnut he's channeling right now. He's like a toddler who's just learned a new word.

Wingnut, obsessing about due process of law.

It's enough to drive me to drink. More.

My question was, as you note, poorly worded. Thank you for responding to the ‘gist’ and stating your position on immunity.

Putting the specifics of your reasons for this position aside, do you feel your position on immunity is consistent the concept of ‘the rule of law?’

If I were President that fateful summer, with control over the FAA, I would have quietly notified the various security agencies, handed down a few security enhancements, and perhaps foreshortened my vacation somewhat.

Oh brother, another case of hindsight hubris. Which part of my reference to the FBI and FAA did you miss, and why would one shorten a vacation over a warning duplicated dozens of times over years?

Condi Rice's tendency to, uh, stretch the truth aside, flying planes into buildings was not only predicted, but guarded against at the G8 meetings in Genoa.

Have you noticed that Genoa isn't in the same hemisphere as the US?

Your excuses for administration in this case are (!) easily refuted right wing talking points. I suggest you get out more.

As I've said elsewhere, it's very easy to point fingers when all the facts are in. You seem to think predicting the future is expected, and that the knowledge of 9/11 today negated the need to cover untold other possibilities then.

Here's an experiment, predict who the next President will be and by what margin. If you're wrong, you're family dies. Piece of cake right? It's a small field of possibilities, certainly a lot smaller than every city in America and multiple avenues of attack in each one. In addition you have as much information about the possibilities as anyone else. Can I presume you know the answer today? Or should we wait for the election to be over before asking for your prediction. Heh.