You're willing to give your life in protest of call traffic patterns, and keyword searches? That seems like a waste to me, but to each his own. Heh.

“The critique can be expanded, emphasizing the amnesty issue all the way, to underline the hypocrisy of this particular conservative government, which has broken all records for spending and racking up debt, just like the conservative government of the beloved Ronnie.”

We do need to expand our critique and find a successful way of reaching middle income Americans who are not aware of this issue or its implications. Now that the economy is in serious trouble thanks to the Repugs who are only interested in supporting big money and war, if we want to reach these Americans we need to use Edward’s approach that the corporatists are out to get you. This is the kind of message we need to get across.

The telecoms and corporate America don’t give a damn about you or our government. They are interested in raking in your money period. Which is why they had no problem breaking the law even though their large, well paid legal departments, probably told them they were breaking the law. Now after making all that money, they want us to give them retroactive immunity for knowingly breaking the law. Don’t buy their excuse that the Bush Administration told them it was OK. Innocence of the law can never be an excuse for breaking the law otherwise everyone can break the law with impunity. It’s time to tell these corporations that they don’t run this country, THE PEOPLE DO.

I made sure to frame it not just as a privacy issue (as important as that is) but about the fundamental principle of the rule of law.

Shooters contribution reminds us of why this is important. There were law specifically written to criminalize certain activity. Those laws were written because of rampant abuse.

As I've written elsewhere:

"The administration has always had a responsibility to either uphold the law or push for a change in the law. To have them defy the law and then push for a change only after they have been in violation for years puts the entire notion of lawfulness at risk. If they can simply make it up as they go, then what can they NOT do?"

It isn't the privacy, its the lawbreaking.

If what they did weren't blatantly illegal, there would be no need for immunity.

Another point to make about the telecoms, raising the stakes just a smidgeon about patriotism and national loyalty, is: how and where do these outfits operate from anyway?

They're not all in Kansas City or Silicon Valley are they?

Everyone knows that our air reservations and telephone bills are being handled more and more by clerks or operators sitting in cozy offices in places like Finland and India.

People have some knowledge that executive operations for many corporations are now managed "offshore" as well. There are the anecdotes about companies essentially operating out of mailboxes in the Grand Caymans.

Are these telecom companies which are in possession of government eavesdropping contracts "secure"? Are they operating in the best interests of the American people? In the national security interests of the United States? Where is their "data" stored? Where are their mainframes located?

Why should they be given immunity without some deeper knowledge of how they operate in the global economy?

The White House goes to war (supposedly against terrorists)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/defense

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 22, 2008

Fact Sheet:
Congress Must Act Now to Keep a Critical Intelligence Gap Closed

10 Days And Counting – Congress Should Act Now To
Ensure Our Intelligence Community Has The Tools It Needs
To Protect Us From Foreign Terrorists

"The Protect America Act expires in just 10 days, yet after nearly six months of delay, Congress has still not taken the necessary action to keep our Nation safe. The terrorist threat we face does not expire on February 1. For the sake of our national security, Congress must act now to send the President a bill that keeps a critical intelligence gap permanently closed and provides meaningful liability protection for companies that may have assisted in efforts to defend America following the 9/11 attacks."
─ ─ White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, 1/22/08

[...] The Senate Intelligence Committee bill was crafted in a careful, bipartisan manner to protect our country against terrorists and other foreign threats while preserving the privacy of Americans.  This bill would:

1. 1. Put in place extensive privacy safeguards [...]

2. 2. Make America safer [...]

3. 3. Provide liability protection to companies alleged to have assisted the Nation with intelligence activities after the September 11 attacks.  This protection would only be extended if the companies were told the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.

The Administration has some concerns with the Senate Intelligence Committee bill, but it represents the best chance for a timely and bipartisan solution to help keep our Nation safe.  For example, the Administration opposes particular technical aspects of the so-called "Wyden Amendment," which would impose undue operational burdens on the Intelligence Community’s collection of foreign intelligence information on U.S. persons.  We look forward to working with Congress to address these concerns.

Liability Protection Is Critical To The Ongoing Effort To Protect The Nation From Another Catastrophic Attack

The Senate Intelligence Committee carefully studied this issue and found that without the limited retroactive liability protection discussed above, "the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests."  The Committee rightly determined that this lack of protection could result in a "possible reduction in intelligence" that is "unacceptable for the safety of our Nation."

[...] Requiring companies to second-guess the government's determinations would slow or eliminate critical intelligence collection and would place private parties in the impossible position of making legal determinations without access to the classified facts necessary to make such determinations.

Companies alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of September 11th should not face massive and costly litigation for helping protect our country.  Such litigation also risks the disclosure of highly classified information.

Failing to provide such protection sends an unfortunate message to every private party that may in the future consider whether to help the Nation.

# # #

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/defense

Emphasis not added by me - - sysprog.

The heavy use of bold-face is direct from the White House. (I guess they want to make it easy for everybody to see their bold-faced lies.)