- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Hoyer is going to claim that this bill does not give amnesty to telecoms because it allows the issue to be settled by either the FISA court or a Federal court. Although the Bill's specific language is unknown to me at this time, I would be willing to bet that the language is of a nature that guarantees either the SA court or the Federal court will declare that the telecoms should receive amnesty. From what I've read, all they will have to do is provide a note from the administration claiming that their activities were legal and they're off the hook.
PRECISELY. They're denying they're giving immunity because they're going to stick to their claim that their "compromise" bill doesn't give immunity. It just tells the Federal Court to dismiss the suits IF they had written requests from the administration to do this and if the administration told them it was legal (which we already know happened).
They're dressing up their guaranteed amnesty in a form they can claim isn't amnesty. It's amnesty every bit as much as the Rockefeller/Cheney bill, as dismissal of the lawsuits is guaranteed.
The deceit on top of the bill itself makes it all the more infuriating.
