The debate over telco immunity
In the legislative debate over the RESTORE Act, the administration is focusing much of its attention on immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in Bush's legally dubious schemes. Responding to an argument from Time's Joe Klein, Glenn explains how misguided this really is.
To Klein, telecoms did not act illegally. Not at all. They were simply victims of "the Bush Administration['s] refus[al] to update the law" to make the law consistent with what the telecoms were doing. That would be tantamount to a criminal defendant charged with embezzlement going into court and saying: "Your Honor, I didn't do anything wrong. Why should I be punished just because the Bush administration refused to update the law to make my criminal behavior legal?"
Such an "argument" would trigger judicial laughing fits and probably sanctions. But our Beltway elite is so desperate to defend telcoms (and, more importantly, to close off the sole remaining mechanism for investigating the administration's illegal warrantless eavesdropping and obtaining a judicial ruling as to its illegality) that they will twist themselves into the most inane positions in order to defend something as extraordinary as granting retroactive amnesty for lawbreaking telecoms....
[E]ven more unfathomable is the idea that the Congress would pass a law that has no purpose other than to protect from all legal consequences the largest and most powerful corporations in the event that they are found to have broken our nation's surveillance and privacy laws. What possible justification is there for any of that?
Christy has been working hard on this all week, and has more.
If anyone needs proof that justice is based on the size of your wallet, then this it.
These Democrats have proven their loyalty to big business, not the people who elected them. These are fake democrats who should be replaced.
Lot of after the fact ass covering going on in the white house these days. First it was blackwater and now this. "Oh what a tangled web we weave........"
The bush administration does all this shit and then when legalities come into play they have to try more crazy shit to cover the crazy shit they've already done. Glad I'm not in their shoes these days.
I am beginning to realize that everyone (all 3 branches) is in bed together. They have successfully hijacked the country. Let's all hold on and find out where it takes us. yaaay!
This proves that President Bush & his cronies are above the law & no one can stop them. I wonder how all the candidates for President feel about this. I bet they would all love to be like President Bush, above the law & not accountable to anyone.
Screw the telecoms. QWEST didn't bend over to be screwed into illegal activity by the Dictator In Chief. Those who did need to suffer the consequences.
Mark @ 5:
which is extremely frightening that none of the Congress seems to be attempting to reign in this abuse of power. Does this mean that they intend to allow it to proliferate when they come to power in 08? It would appear so.
In which case, I'd hate to be Bush or a member of his Crime Cabal then - it will be a case of "be careful what you ask for" when the Dems abuse the power against all of them.
Does this mean if the next president is a democrat, they too will be allowed to be above the law? Would the repubs stand for that?
There is only one reason you ask that someone be exempt from the law, that's because you know that person most likely broke the fu*king law.
Amen! The telcoms should be held completely accountable for their illegal acquiesence to Bushco's illegal spying -- which means our Congressional Dems will be grabbing their ankles any minute now.
I love Glenn's work-he has a brilliant analytical mind that allows him to eviscerate the slow moving and predictable MSM on a daily basis.
habukkuk @ 6:
LOL - you believe that?
What I want to know is... What 'debate'??? The way I hear its coming down, the telcos want out from under the criminal liability of their actions at the Bush administration behest... The repubs and Chimpy want to give the telcos this retroactive immunity for their own sordid reasons and the only real question is when and how the dems are going to cave on this one and still manage to save some kind of face.... That constitutes some kind of political maneuvering, but that is not really any kind of political debate on the legality of the act dammit... The repubs are using the turrist boogieman again to cowl the dems and as far as can be seen, looks to be working... a-gain............
If a 'real debate is/was held, it would involve pointed questions to the principal players directly in hearings about the legality of the actions at the time as it relates to what was on the books as law at the time! It would involve pointed questions and discussion of the legalities of the actions by the telcos and most significantly the legalities and constitutionality of the administrations direct input relating to these telcos actions against the American publics privacy and the legality of the admin rationale leading to those acts... And if they actually had 'that debate' someone high up should probably damn well end up going to prison or force a chimpy pardon which would generate its own damning storyline...
Might even reach a level of mendacity that achieves the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors...Not that this reality would matter... We've already seen congress blow off its responsibilities in that area repeatedly for several years now...
All that, 'IF', any real debate on those actions was happening.. And so far, near as I can tell... THAT AIN'T happening... So please, someone tell me what the debate is, and what the point of this so-called debate is suppose to be since it doesn't look like it's got anything 'real' to do with holding responsible parties accountable. Nor does is appear to be addressing any aspect of our nations now shredded personal privacy laws... Without any accountability for all this, how the hell does any of it address restoring American faith in its system (I no longer buy the storyline "we're the gub-mint, trust us", cause its Bush's gub-mint) and restoring the American populations belief that we have any control over our personal identity and business matters???
Am I a cynic? 'You betcha'...Do I disrust this situation totally? 'Darn tootin'.. And I didn't just wake up one day that way... George Bush's policies, behaviors and actions have bred this into me over the last seven years... Does that constitute another mission accomplished moment for the moron and chief????? You'll have to ask him, but don't expect an honest answer.....Bush I don't think would understand honesty if it was a physical presence and bitchslapped him up side the head repeatedly for the rest of his sorry ass days in the oval office..JD JD
Here's some on topic, and very true (it seems), comic relief: a blast from the past (if you're old enough).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9e3dTOJi0o
Off Topic: Why do you still link to Americablog? Aravosis is not a progressive and is not even for human rights for everybody. Just asking.
I guess Bush will say that the terrorists win if the telecom companies don't get immunity from liability for acts they did which, according to Bush, are perfectly legal and don't give rise to liability anyway. Is that what this Administration's arguments are in a nutshell? What ever happened to logic?
My 9 year old daughter refuses to eat her vegetables because, she says, if she is forced to do so, the terrorists win. Isn't it amazing the lessons our children are learning from the gobblegook the Administration spouts everyday?
Mark @ 5:
When people think they are above the law, believe me, the thing their fear MOST is a "bloodthirsty" mob!!!!!
Good rant, JD! And I agree with every word.
The Bush administration doesn't want these cases going to court because it will mean an endless parade of documents revealing other law breaking, by many many parties, being made public. If the Bush administration is proven to be crooks and liars, the terra-iss win. (So bow down in fear and obey!)
Casper46Says @17;
Thanks... I just wish my rants could actually do more than just provide some personal stress relief to me for the way I've seen this administration drag this country thru the mud these last seven years.............(sigh)... Good luck to us all... We really do need that good luck charm now days. Rational thought and sane ideas don't seem to be getting any traction anymore..............JD
It seems to me that Bush wants to sweep the clandestine wiretapping under the rug. I think before this issue is decided, there should be full disclosure of concessions already made to the telecoms in exchange for their cooperation. I'm not talking about disclosing any technical, classified material, but rather, policy decisions made in consideration of the telecoms cooperation, with an emphasis on the government and FCC in curtailing competition.
Since the Bush administration can hardly be relied upon to speak the truth, an investigation should be made to determine whether a quid pro quo arrangement was made in exchange for the wiretapping, the merger agreements, and the decision of the FCC to not allow regulated sharing of the "last mile" of copper, paid for by captive customers during the monopoly era.
If such an arrangement is discovered, perhaps then, any trading of stock relying on information not generally available to the public could then be checked out.
Our "democracy" is in fact, a choice between two corporate financed candidates because the government has restrained competition in broadcasting, driving up the costs of mass communications so that only corporate financed candidates can afford to get their message out. It seems to me that the end of "net neutrality" is an attempt to foist the broadcast model onto the internet. The government, after doing everything possible to restrain competition then says in regard to net neutrality, "let the marketplace decide" - maybe some more quid pro quo.
We need full disclosure of the concessions made to the telecoms already prior to further concessions. And I can't imaging that the cables were immune from wiretapping.
How about giving the telecoms immunity in exchange for them spilling their guts about how they got drawn into this mess?
How about giving the telecoms immunity in exchange for them spilling their guts about how they got drawn into this mess?
At the very least, I would also throw in net neutrality in exchange for the immunity.
WTF? Chimpy and others like him enjoy being the butt of jokes, being sneered at, laughed at, cussed out, looking stupid. Some where deep in the Caucasoid mountains there are cavemen saying, this shit can't be real.
Let's see, chimpy didn't break any laws in his life.
little idiot chimpy (after he seen deliberately breaking a vase ): Maw, I didn't break the vave! whaaaaaaaaaaaa (acting like the baby he is now)
pruney babs: That's ok son. From now on breaking vases is a sign good health; it's only bad when a darkie does it.
Please post your examples of this ridiculous plea.
When will 29% majority learn?
BTW is telcom owned by the Israelis? Didn't I read on this blog about them owning almost all telephone lines?
NoOneYouKnow @ 9:
That is my fear also..Dems bending over and grabbing their ankles. In the House Judiciary Committee yesterday the vote count(those actually attending and casting a vote) was 21 Ayes(All Dems) and 14 Nay(All Repigs) as to NOT permitting immunity from prosecution against the telecommunication industry. In reality, this Committee is comprised of 40 total members; 22 Dems, 17 Repigs and 1 vacancy, so the Dems are once again, as in other Committees, "in control". Since this Committee approved the authority to "go after the telecommunications for past "bad acts", I assume it now goes to the floor of the full Congress for a vote...That body has 435 members; of which 231 are Dems and 204 Repigs.
I am uncertain if when voted upon, it will require just a majority or if 2/3rds is required for passage. Then, if passed in House, it goes to the U.S. Senate. Again, the U.S. Senate Committee is comprised of more Dems than Repigs, so Dems are in control and if that Comm. approves, it then goes before the full U.S. Senate. Again, I am not sure if when voted upon it will require just a majority of the 100 seats(51 votes) or if a greater percentage is required.
Anyway, at least initially, the Dems have seemingly supported the concept that the tel industry should be held accountable and liable; but when "push comes to shove", we will once more get to see if they have any balls...or just more fun and games and talking.
[Edited for format-Sitemonitor]
a lesson for American citizens--you are nothing more than fodder for corporations
and bushco. it proves that as a human being, you have less importance to the
govt than a business entity. you pay the taxes for everything including corporate
welfare, while the multi-billion dollar corporations grow fat on your insipid indulgent
ignorance.
Telcom is responsible for their deeds, no matter how dirty they are. This is a typical kickback scheme; you wash my back and I'll wash yours. A crook in the second highest office. Only a racist, misogynist foundation can do that.
Bushfia makes Gotti blush.
Wake up people.
Might even reach a level of mendacity that achieves the impeachment standard of high crimes and misdemeanors...
Conspiracy and Wiretapping in violation of 18USC §1811 and 50USC §1809. (Felonies)
"What possible justification is there for any of that?"
Because, as some wise philosopher once said, "Money talks and bullshit walks".
What are you guys saying, that everything didn't change after 9/11?
patthemonkey @ 30:
Nothing changed in my life...well, other than digging a bomb shelter under my house,
stocking up on duct tape, and plastic and water and food, and running around 24/7
being scared shit-less all the time afraid that the "turrest" would be coming to get me,
and just waiting and waiting and watching each moment to see if the terrorist alert
went from orange to red(or whatever). Just joking...my life style has not change
one bit; other than hearing those strange clicking sounds on my phone when I talk
w/my daughter who resides in Berlin.
I am curious. Has there EVER been a law which has granted retroactive immunity to anyone? Maybe I'm just a country bumpkin from Oregon here, but this sounds like a back door pardon before the trial.
the telcos should be ashamed of themselves for turning our country into a neo East Germany
Peoples Front of Judea @ 32:
Not sure if ever done retroactively previously, but with bush and Repig party having the
telecommunication in their pockets(along w/other BIG industry lobbying groups), it just
makes sense for them to want to sweep the slate clean and ignore the "rule of law".
Money, money and more money...that's all that bunch of crooks think about; not that
our civil liberties have been repeatly violated.
"immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in Bush’s legally dubious schemes."
Which is ALL the major telecoms, Qwest included.
Since that has not happened, this is a straw dog argument.
Too bad it's not Glenn's first.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. I wonder what the fu@k that means
Nobody@28;
Thanks, now I know which two specific laws these cretins are violating in our names this time... And we know which two laws congress is ignoring in this case that could and should be part of the articles of impeachment, which we all know congress is too spineless to draw up and present in their chambers, even with 2/3rd of the nations general population behind them...........Pa-the-tic............JD
roxnev @ 35:
It means STFU, get back to work, keep shopping, pay your taxes on time, and OBEY the state. Any questions?
Hasn't ***one noticed that Congress seems to have close ties to those who break the law, just as long as they have deep pockets? We should recall or vote out of office *** Senator or Congressperson that votes to grant immunity after the fact.
Then, we should indict them for racketeering.
Patriot Scholar@39;
Works for me.....JD
"Thanks, now I know which two specific laws these cretins are violating in our names this time..."
An analysis of the case is here. I heard it from a Georgetown law professor on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, I think.
Paul in LA Says:
WTF are you talking about? Glenn said that the idea the Congress would pass such a law, not that they have, and that said law's only purpose would be to shield the telcos from prosecution in the event they were found to have broken the law, not that such a case has already played out. Straw"dog?" Not straw"man?" There's no "straw dog" in there anywhere. Are you are once again running to the defense of the Bush Dogs for some reason?
You sure you don't want to go back to the tired "it's the progressives fault" shtick you were trotting out when this FISA mess first reared it's head?
roxnev @ 36:
Not what you think, apparently.
The Court has held repeatedly that REDUCING punishments ex post facto is legal. What Congress cannot do is INCREASE punishments after the fact.
Not-the-idiot Bill @ 42: Glenn said that the idea the Congress would pass such a law, not that they have,"
It is phrased ambiguously, and for sure some people reading that will think that Congress did such a thing already. Indeed, the original NYT and WaPo hit pieces on the House Dems sugggested that they had rolled over for Bush -- something that categorically did NOT happen.
"and that said law's only purpose would be to shield the telcos from prosecution in the event they were found to have broken the law,"
The point of House Dems suggesting that they would be open to considering immunity provided they are briefed with the withheld facts is actually just good politics. It's not an offer of immunity -- it's a demand for the facts, dressed up as a dangling carrot.
"Straw"dog?" Not straw"man?"
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position...It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy, scarecrow argument, or wooden dummy argument." -- wikipedia
The Chinese practice of burning straw dogs as sacrifices is the mixed metaphor, sorry. They aren't real dogs, they are fakes.
"Are you are once again running to the defense of the Bush Dogs for some reason?"
When did YOU stop beating your wife?
"You sure you don't want to go back to the tired "it's the progressives fault" shtick you were trotting out when this FISA mess first reared it's head?"
I'm on my best behavior, but I don't accept your characterization. This FISA RESTORE bill is a good law, even if the left does not want to accept the existence of the need to get bills passed, and the compromise nature of bill passage.
And, just to add some context, Glenn G. earlier stated as fact on Dem Now! that the Speaker and Senate ML did not go to YearlyKOS because Bush "ordered them not to," which is a flat out lie.
So when he then writes a paragraph that gives the impression of further events which have not (yet) occured, it goes along with those kinds of irresponsible statements. He primed the pump with his scurrilous attack on the Speaker and the SML, and has never apologized for stating falsehoods as fact.
This RESTORE bill is trash, simply less onerous trash than the GOP original bill.
Where does this come from? The "left" (by which I assume you mean sane, decent, upstanding, etc. people) doesn't accept the forced passage of unnecessary, badly compromised legislation that only serves to undermine our civil rights and broaden the already massive surveillance powers of a patently corrupt administration and you think that's a bad thing? Again, this mirrors your criticism of certain Dems you thought too progressive who opposed the original FISA bill along with the slightly less crappy Dem alternative. Gosh, it's not that this spineless batch of Dem enablers hasn't time and again disappointed and infuriated their base with their routine failure to effectively stand up to Bush on anything (they're even compromising on S-CHIP for #%&@'s sake), or that Pelosi and Reid seem allergic to anything resembling actual criminal proceedings (impeach Bush?...No...Cheney?...No...Gonzalez...No...Inherent Contempt charges for Meirs?...No...Anything being done about Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, Blackwater?...No), it's just that those on the "left" just aren't as level headed and mature as some and can't grasp how government works in the real world. This constitutes "best" behavior?
How do we know this is a lie and how does it relate to his take on the news that the Dems are apparently willing to cave on immunity for the big telcos? BTW, it is my current understanding that the push to withhold immunity until certain documentation is released is fading fast. The ACLU, it seems, does not share your enthusiasm for the RESTORE ACT or have any faith in the Dems to suddenly walk upright.
"I murdered my neighbor yesterday. But hey, It's not my fault that they hadn't yet changed the law making murder no longer a crime."
Thanks Joe Klein for such compelling logic. You certainly deserve to be published in a leading news magazine. With such intellect, how could mere mortals compete?
If the Dems. vote for immunity you will see people leaving the party big time. This would be the final nail in the Dems. Coffin speaking Politically.
Paul in LA @ 44:
Sure it's dangling a carrot, but in the end the telcos don't get punished if it's found they broke the law. Bush is going to give Congress the details IF they grant immunity. He's not going to give them the details, and then let them decide whether or not to grant immunity. What's the point in exchanging immunity for program details when nothing can be done to the telcos if indeed they broke the law? Is this something you support, not punishing a company for breaking the law? Given Bush's love of Executive Privilege and the ease with which he screams national security every time he doesn't want someone snooping around, what's to stop him from suddenly deciding that he's not, after all, going to share details of the telcos' involvement in the program?
Bottom line, Bush is hiding because he knows the law was broken. If the spying program was perfectly legal, and Bush and all his legal advisers can guarantee that the program, and the telcos, followed the law, then he has nothing to hide and there is no need to grant immunity. We get the same argument from the right: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then why be concerned if the government is listening to your calls?"
Bush knows it was not legal because he has blocked any and all attempts to find out the details of the program. The Office of Professional Responsibility, an arm of the DOJ, tried to investigate and find out what the lawyers' positions were on the program. But what did Bush do? He personally blocked it, saying that he couldn't grant security clearance to civilians. Yet when it came to investigating the leak of the program to the NYT, he had no problem whatsoever granting security clearance. And regardless of the steps he's taken to avoid any oversight, despite Bush's statements that there was no discord in his administration whatsoever over the program, we have recently learned that he and Gonzo lied about that.
We have been told by several members of the administration that the warrantless wiretapping program is a limited, targeted, program. They have told us that it targets only known or suspected terrorists. We have been told by the Dir. of National Intelligence that it takes 200 hours to assemble a warrant, and apparently that is why Bush has bypassed the FISA court on international wiretaps; there's not enough time to get a warrant, he tells us. But he has no problem, and time is of no concern, when he goes to the court for a warrant for domestic wiretapping. 200 hours to get a warrant? No problem. No one from the administration has bothered to explain this discrepancy. Save one instance, no one in the press has bothered asking about it, either. In the one case, however, when Bush was asked to explain it, he avoided the question.
Finally, I'm sure you are well aware of the situation in which Qwest refused to turn over the phone records of their customers, citing questions of legality. I believe it went something like this: Qwest asked the NSA for warrants, and the NSA refused. So, if this program is limited and targeted, why didn't the NSA work with Qwest to get the proper warrants? Why did the NSA simply turn and walk away when it is supposedly in their interest to safeguard us from another terrorist attack? Why do they need the records showing trillions of phone calls when this program is supposedly limited to known or suspected terrorists?
If you trust this government 100% to not abuse the information it collects about you, simply because the President says "trust me," then you are indeed a fool. The President and Vice President have deemed themselves untouchable by anyone else in government, which means they can do any damned thing they want to and not be held liable. In typical Cheney style, they are essentially giving the Congress a big "f*ck you" when it comes to oversight. And since the Congress is representative of the people in this country, that message is extended to you and me.
The telecoms knew they were acting illegally and chose to go ahead and do it. They are guilty and should be held accountable to the maximum extentof the law.
What about the companies that refused to play along? They called the bluff, stuck to their guns and did the right thing. You know what happened to them? Nothing. They said give us warrants and we'll oblige. The government, fearing judicial review, demurred.
The companies that did the wrong thing deserve punishment. The companies that showed the principles and courage to do the right thing should be rewarded.
If Congress once again prostitutes itself on the side of government criminals and the corrupt, they too should be held accountable in next year's elections. I'm ready to hold them to the standard of being the chief perps in this on-going nightmare, because at every critical juncture they could have stopped these things. When they weren't on the side of criminality, they've uniformly done nothing. Evil, criminality as a culture, whatever you want to call it can only happen in a vacuum - where people choose to do nothing. The president is a maladjusted, criminally insane sociopath. We know that. Congress enabled him, and have used up all of my good will. I'm no longer in a mood to forgive even their slightest failing, how much less another major betrayal.
Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid and all the "Democrats for Bush" seriously need to lose their jobs as election cycles allow.
Comments are closed on this entry