By far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11.

Notice how, in their formulation, immunity already exists and it's Dodd who is trying to change established law by taking it away.

not to read Glenn first thing on Monday morning. It's bad enough I'm back at work but then my mood is downgraded even further after reading about this bullshit.

This post goes a long way towards explaining why Chris Wallace wasn’t embarrassed about asking Bush about “all the concern in this country about protecting of rights of people who want to kill us" – Wallace, like so many others, have “internalized” the lies of the WSJ editorial page (as well as Fox News reporting) to the extent that they actually believe that “the left” is aiding and abetting the terrorists.

Once this mind set is accepted, the actual laws and all legal issues regarding the “war on terror” are, for them, no longer relevant. It is just another case of “the left” helping Osama.

The whores who produce the WSJ editorials are serving their new John with gusto.

Over at firedoglake (emptywheel: http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/02/10/dont-gag-ma-bell) is a post related to this topic. The claim by the Telcos that they cannot provide Congress with information on what they did because Bush has gagged them based on "state secrets". This brings up my question.

If the Telcos are "worried" about providing testimony to Congress OR the courts because of the "state secrets" nonsense, couldn't Congress simply immunize them for THAT rather than immunize them for illegal spying? I could get fully behind immunity for Telecoms if it were simply immunity from prosecution for providing Congress and/or the courts with all the required/desired information about what they did and when.

If Congress can immunize them for illegal acts in the past, can't they also give immunity for testimony in the future/present? How about lobbying Congress to give THAT immunity in place of immunity for illegal acts already committed? It would give them what Rockefeller and his minions claim they don't have right now: the ability to "defend themselves" AND it would give Congress all the information they desire regardless of Bush's wishes.

The persuasiveness of an argument can often be determined by the willingness of its advocates to confine themselves to the truth when making it.

I am not sure how well this would hold up in a Philosophy 101 course (in a "the Devil can quote Scripture for his own reasons" kind of way), but I certainly like it, and agree with it. Thanks, Glenn.

Oh, and thanks for ruining my Monday.

The story of this decade is the complete and utter failure by elites in government and media to do their jobs properly. What's so depressing about all of this is that there has been little accountability anywhere (see Kristol, Bill, New York Times for example) for the catastrophe they unleashed on the people of Iraq. For a group of people enamored with their own self-importance, they seem to have little concern for the consequences of what they do.

-Atrios 10:12

Glenn,

You were wondering how McCain's support for the war plays with voters who are not pro-war base. Steve Benen had a post about this a few weeks ago.

When anti-war voters back a pro-war candidate

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14379.html

The AP link there is stale.

Same article here:

http://www.examiner.com/a-1181297~Polls__Iraq_Angst_May_Be_Helping_McCain.html

If the Telcos are "worried" about providing testimony to Congress OR the courts because of the "state secrets" nonsense, couldn't Congress simply immunize them for THAT rather than immunize them for illegal spying? I could get fully behind immunity for Telecoms if it were simply immunity from prosecution for providing Congress and/or the courts with all the required/desired information about what they did and when.

This is a good point but there is an even easier fix. FISA ALREADY allows for even the most classified information to be submitted to a federal court in secret. Nothing prevents telecoms from submitting to the Court any information they beleive will exonerate them.

But even if there was some barrier preventing them from doing so -- as telecoms claim -- all Congress would have to do is fix that by amending FISA to provide that telecoms are free to submit any such evidence notwithstanding the assertion of the State Secrets Privilege. Congress can just explicitly authorize telecoms to use this evidence -- that's obviously a much more rational solution than barring lawsuits altogether on the ground that they are barred from using it.

This is precisely the goal of the left, which has failed to get Congress to ban such wiretaps directly but wants to use lawsuits to do so via the backdoor.

The latest previous case of this anti-litigation/anti-trial lawyer rhetoric I've seen was just last week:

http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/scitech/2008/02/08/D8UME4HO1_pro_owl_ruling/index.html

Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl to Stand

By ARTHUR H. ROTSTEIN Associated Press Writer

Feb 8th, 2008 | TUCSON, Ariz. -- A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8.6 million acres in four western states as critical habitat for an endangered owl will stand, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix upheld the designation of critical habitat in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico for the Mexican spotted owl despite an effort by the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association to overturn it.

Just under 4 million acres of habitat affected by the ruling is situated in Arizona, mostly in the northern part of the state. Also included is 2.2 million acres in Utah, 2.1 million acres in New Mexico and more than 322,000 acres in Colorado.

The designation is aimed at protecting the habitat from activities that remove forest cover, including logging, cattle grazing, urban sprawl or power lines, said Noah Greenwald, a conservation biologist for the Center for Biological Diversity, which intervened on behalf of Fish and Wildlife.

"We were disappointed, obviously," said association spokesman C.B. "Doc" Lane. "It's pretty bad, actually, that all of the endangered species stuff is done by litigation now. It isn't done rationally. But I suppose that's the way it has to be.

"The Mexican spotted owl habitat was established very hurriedly last time because of a court ruling, and we had to respond." He said association officials have not decided yet whether they will appeal Bolton's Feb. 1 ruling.

"This was a complete victory for the Mexican spotted owl," Matt Kenna (Ken-AY), attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center, which represented the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.

"The Mexican spotted owl will continue to get the habitat protection it needs to survive and recover," Greenwald added. "To save endangered species, we have to protect the places they call home."

All the cattle growers' arguments were rejected, he said.

A critical habitat designation requires federal agencies to make certain that projects which fall under their purview do not imperil endangered species or negatively change their most vital habitat.

"The environmental community has figured out that when an agency doesn't do something — crossing the T's or dotting the I's — they can always win in court," Lane said. "So that's the way it's functioning now."

But Greenwald said the ruling means the spotted owl, listed as endangered in 1992, has a chance at recovery.

"Critical habitat provides an absolutely essential tool to save the owl and the forest habitats it depends on," Greenwald said.

Having critical habitat will ensure that U.S. Forest Service logging does not limit the bird's recovery or drive it into extinction, the center said.

In a published study, it found that the likelihood of a troubled species' status improving more than doubled with critical habitat.

The 2 boldface passages basically add up to the same point as Glenn makes about telecom immunity, and the cattleman even admits it: an agency that doesn't consistently do its job got a push from a lawsuit filed by some bunch of owl-lovers, and it did its job. This is what the EFF seeks---enforcement of existing law.

Note: "Why can't we do these things rationally?" means "Why can't we solve this with money? I propose that whichever side has the most money, wins."