To imply that he was bought off is simply unfounded. Rockefeller was also quoted in the same NYT article you cited as being concerned about the NSA activity in 2005.
Yes. And after he [Rockefeller] became Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the telecoms increased their contributions to him. And suddenly he decided that telecoms deserved retroactive amnesty for the very lawbreaking he claimed to be concerned about in 2005.
They have no immunity or right to secrecy as does the government so the telecoms must either defy the AG and CIA in breach of a lawful duty under FISA or possibly get sued for vague allegations of government misconduct they are in position to control.
They didn’t have to “defy the AG and CIA in breach of a lawful duty under FISA.” All they had to do was refuse to co-operate with an unlawful request. Some telecoms did refuse, and good for them.
If the government gets a court order under FISA, the telecoms are bound by law to comply. The government defied FISA and demanded that the telecoms break the law by spying on Americans without warrants. Not only did the telecoms have no duty to comply, they had an affirmative duty to their country not to comply. “Get a warrant” was all they had to say.
If you are arguing that the feds were intentionally surveilling American citizens for a purpose unrelated to national security threats from terrorists, you should offer some proof.
The program is a secret and the government is anxious to keep it completely secret, including keeping it out of the courts at all costs. How can one offer “proof” in such a case?
But since the government did not follow the FISA law, it seems there should be a presumption against it. Do you have any proof that they were violating FISA for the purpose of “national security threats from terrorists?” If so, please provide it. The government has consistently refused to do so, instead assuming that we should trust that their lawbreaking was for a good cause. I don’t have conservatives’ total, childlike faith in the absolute goodness and rightness of government.
When the government abides by the law, I give them the benefit of the doubt. When they break the law, I assume there’s a bad reason for it.
So let me understand this. Even though the Senate bill was a bi-partisan compromise and even though a majority of the House was poised to accept that bill, Pelosi was right to block that vote to try to push through the more partisan Conyers’ RESTORE bill (which is the Senate bill with no telecom immunity and with unpopular, cumbersome procedures for monitoring bad guys).
Ah, so you admit that the RESTORE act includes the fix for foreign-to-foreign calls and that therefore the Democrats were not only willing to pass that fix, they already did.
Bush says that this fix was necessary to protect us all, yet he was willing to let the bill die because it didn’t include amnesty. So how is it the Democrats’ fault that we don’t have this fix? They passed it, and Bush rejected it because it didn’t include amnesty; therefore, Bush is the one who caused this horrible lapse in our intelligence capabilities that he keeps talking about.
If Bush seriously believed that this fix were necessary for national security, he would have accepted a simple compromise: the Senate bill without amnesty. Pelosi would likely have brought that to the floor and it would have passed. Then Bush could have pushed for amnesty in a separate bill. So why was he willing to jeopardize national security by tying it to retroactive amnesty?
And if we thus moved narrowly leftward away from the bi-partisan bill supported by the majority in the House and Senate, THAT would have been a noble compromise, the way it’s supposed to work??!!
When the Republicans ran the House, they frequently refused to bring up bills that were opposed by the vast majority of their caucus. And that’s not wrong. The Senate Amnesty bill would have passed the House with all Republicans and a small minority of Democrats. Pelosi simply did what her Republican predecessors did and said that they’re not going to pass a bill that the overwhelming majority of the majority party opposes. This is normal and not at all wrong. Again, “bipartisanship” for its own sake is pointless. A bill doesn’t become good because it’s supported by a minority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats, or vice-versa.
Again, we come down to the primary point: the PAA expired because Bush threatened to veto it and Republicans voted against an extension. Therefore, the reason the PAA is not in effect right now is that the Republicans wanted it to expire. So why do the Republicans, by their own argument, want to jeopardize America’s safety?
RollOver: “If the government gets a court order under FISA, the telecoms are bound by law to comply. The government defied FISA and demanded that the telecoms break the law by spying on Americans without warrants.”
That’s right.
Keep banging home that lie and your fellow kooks will allow you to remain in their club - maybe even elevate you to Grand PooBah of the BDS Know-Nothing Party.
Again, we come down to the primary point: the PAA expired because Bush threatened to veto it and Republicans voted against an extension. Therefore, the reason the PAA is not in effect right now is that the Republicans wanted it to expire. So why do the Republicans, by their own argument, want to jeopardize America’s safety?
Tolliver is speaking to motivations, as is cynic al. Tolliver’s thesis is based on flimsy circumstances (rockefeller for example) and requires a significant seasoning with BDS to be swallowed. Defending Ms pelosi must be a full time job.
The Democrat party leadership in the congress once again demonstrates that they are more than willing to subordinate EVERYTHING to their political ambitions.
Yes. And after he [Rockefeller] became Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, the telecoms increased their contributions to him. And suddenly he decided that telecoms deserved retroactive amnesty for the very lawbreaking he claimed to be concerned about in 2005.
Rockefeller has been Chairman or ranking member of that committee since the Clinton administration. There is no sudden influx of money. There is no sudden love of telecoms. Here is what he said about the bill:
Anger over the President’s warrantless surveillance is appropriate and the Administration should be held accountable. However, we should not hold the carriers hostage to years of litigation for stepping forward when the country asked for their help and providing assistance they believed to be legal and necessary. The fact is, if we lose cooperation from these or other private companies, our national security will suffer. Senate Rockefeller’s statement on FISA bill
Sounds like a staunch anti-Bush Democrat trying to make a common sense call on the role of telecoms. Either prove the silly accusation that the above is a lie and Rockefeller was paid off or drop it. Do the math or go away.
They didn’t have to “defy the AG and CIA in breach of a lawful duty under FISA.” All they had to do was refuse to co-operate with an unlawful request. Some telecoms did refuse, and good for them.
No. Under FISA the AG and the CIA do not need a warrant when they make their requests. The telecoms don’t get to ask about government motives. They have no way of knowing what may be illegal. They do not get to know about the probable cause. The whole point is that if the telecoms are forced to make blanket advance warrant requests even when (a) warrants are not required and (b) may be requested retroactively (about which the telecoms have no way of knowing) then the whole program fails. That is why a bi-partisan majority of Congress (even those not bribed by the telecoms as revealed by your detailed research) wants the telecoms to have immunity. What part of that are you not getting? Are you receiving money from the trial lawyers?
The program is a secret and the government is anxious to keep it completely secret, including keeping it out of the courts at all costs. How can one offer “proof” in such a case? . . . I don’t have conservatives’ total, childlike faith in the absolute goodness and rightness of government. …When the government abides by the law, I give them the benefit of the doubt. When they break the law, I assume there’s a bad reason for it.
You took an unwarranted, unfounded interpretation of the NYT article that Bush was not merely trying to find terrorists but intead knowingly tapping domestic calls unrelated to any search for terrorists for some other nefarious purpose(s). I asked for some proof of that implication. That is very, very different from federal agents not touching all procedural bases due to lack of resources, ambiguity in the law or sloppiness while in a hurry to locate bad guys.
Ah, so you admit that the RESTORE act includes the fix for foreign-to-foreign calls and that therefore the Democrats were not only willing to pass that fix, they already did.
If Bush seriously believed that this fix were necessary for national security, he would have accepted a simple compromise: the Senate bill without amnesty. Pelosi would likely have brought that to the floor and it would have passed. Then Bush could have pushed for amnesty in a separate bill. So why was he willing to jeopardize national security by tying it to retroactive amnesty?
1) “A simple compromise” is a remarkably stupid characterization of the issue. Without telecom immunity, the entire program fails. So according to you, Bush should have agreed to permit the trial bar to gut the program and I suppose also accept John Conyers more vague RESTORE bill in its entirely while we’re at it, so the bill that survives is still legally ambiguous and vulnerable to attack.
How is complete capitulation in favor of a bad bill a “simple compromise”?
2) RESTORE is not a fix. And I sure as hell never said it was. It does restate the obvious intent of Congress that the definition of “foreign” does not depend on wiring path but the location of the sender and receiver. RESTORE is fatally flawed because there is no immunity for telecoms. It is deliberately vague on required procedures so that liberals and lawyers can attack it later. It is not at all likely to have been accepted by a majority in both houses. The Kucinich full-mooners were opposed, the Blue Dogs and 100% of the House GOP wanted the Senate bill. Your account of the RESTORE bill and it’s likely outcome is fantasy.
3) Bush did not kill anything. There was no veto. The House failed to act on the Senate bill. The House failed to send anything else back to the Senate. Pelosi had choices. Her choice killed it. You don’t get to blame this on Bush.
Pelosi simply did what her Republican predecessors did and said that they’re not going to pass a bill that the overwhelming majority of the majority party opposes. This is normal and not at all wrong. Again, “bipartisanship” for its own sake is pointless. A bill doesn’t become good because it’s supported by a minority of Republicans and a majority of Democrats, or vice-versa.
So it was a minority partisan stunt after all. So Bush did not kill it. Pelosi did it but that was OK…Do you read your own stuff before you hit the “submit post” button?
The whole point is that if the telecoms are forced to make blanket advance warrant requests even when (a) warrants are not required and (b) may be requested retroactively (about which the telecoms have no way of knowing) then the whole program fails.
The telecoms most certainly did know that the government had gotten no court orders here. That’s why Qwest among others refused to participate.
All the government has to do is either show the court order or, within 72 hours, show that they got a retroactive court order. If 72 hours have passed and no such order has been obtained, then the telecom has a duty to assume that the spying is illegal under FISA.
There is no reason why “the program fails” if the government and the telecoms have to follow the law.
That is why a bi-partisan majority of Congress (even those not bribed by the telecoms as revealed by your detailed research) wants the telecoms to have immunity. What part of that are you not getting? Are you receiving money from the trial lawyers?
What is your obsession with trial lawyers? The main counsel in these lawsuits are non-profit organizations. Unlike the telecoms, who were paid well for their illegal spying, the lawyers in these lawsuits stand to make no money at all. Is it so hard for you to understand that lawyers might take a case for an important principle, like the principle that telecoms shouldn’t be illegally spying on random Americans?
You took an unwarranted, unfounded interpretation of the NYT article that Bush was not merely trying to find terrorists but intead knowingly tapping domestic calls unrelated to any search for terrorists for some other nefarious purpose(s). I asked for some proof of that implication.
And I asked for some proof that Bush was “merely trying to find terrorists.” We don’t know one way or the other. All we know is that the program spied on Americans in violation of U.S. law. Pardon me if I don’t ascribe benign motives to that in the absence of any other evidence.
If you have evidence that this program was aimed at “terrorists,” offer it. The government refuses to offer any such evidence, and I assume that this is because there is none.
1) “A simple compromise” is a remarkably stupid characterization of the issue. Without telecom immunity, the entire program fails.
So Bush was willing to give up the foreign-to-foreign fix that he claims to be super-important, just to get amnesty for the telecoms’ past lawbreaking. Aside from the fact that the program does not “fail” without amnesty (the telecoms are compelled to follow the law; amnesty simply rewards those who willingly choose to break the law), you’re admitting that Bush puts amnesty above the monitoring of foreign terrorists’ calls. That’s some kind of priority.
If Bush cares about America’s security, he should stop letting terrorists win in order to provide unnecessary amnesty for lawbreakers.
Bush did not kill anything. There was no veto. The House failed to act on the Senate bill. The House failed to send anything else back to the Senate. Pelosi had choices. Her choice killed it. You don’t get to blame this on Bush.
Again, there was a vote to extend the PAA. Bush said he’d veto it and nearly all Republicans voted against it.
You can argue that Pelosi made bad choices, but you cannot blame Pelosi for the fact that the PAA is not in operation right now. The Republicans killed the PAA extension.
. . . If you have evidence that this program was aimed at “terrorists,” offer it. The government refuses to offer any such evidence, and I assume that this is because there is none. . .
Radical Islamists are waging a war of subterfuge, sabotage, and terrorism against the United States and other Western nations. A major part of the defense against the Islamists is signals intelligence, which in this day and age must be obtained by intercepting and monitoring, by one means or another, international communications.
This necessarily must be conducted in strict secrecy, on an ongoing basis. It is ridiculous on its face to equate this kind of wartime intelligence gathering with wiretapping domestic criminals.
The military and the intelligence agencies must report regularly to the oversight committees in the Senate and House. These committees represent the people of the United States, and absent any evidence to the contrary, we must assume that they would not wink at spying on American citizens for purely political or other self-serving insidious motives.
In point of fact, despite the best efforts of the moonbat left to portray the Bush administration as some kind of neo-fascist dictatorship, there are no political prisoners shackled in government prisons; there are no jack-booted storm troopers beating in the doors of innocent citizens; there is no closing of newspaper offices and radio stations. In actuality, the NSA and CIA have been scrupulous at making sure that their intelligence gathering infringes upon no rights of American citizens, beyond what is absolutely necessary for computerized scanning of international communications.
Unlike this Tolliver and his ilk, most of us are damned grateful the Bush administration has taken the war to the enemy, and is doing its utmost to allow even Tolliver to sleep peaceably in his bed while the sleepless agents of the United States are waging silent war on his behalf.
And we are grateful to the telecom companies for helping out, and must immunize them forthwith against frivolous and mischievous malcontents who would compromise all of our freedom and safety by interfering with the war against the Islamists.
The telecoms most certainly did know that the government had gotten no court orders here. That’s why Qwest among others refused to participate. …..There is no reason why “the program fails” if the government and the telecoms have to follow the law.
Qwest is the only major telecom to refuse to supply call records to NSA. Not because it would be illegal but because they are unsure of their liability precisely because the law is unclear. Sounds to me like a damn good reason to provide the immunity that a majority of Congress wants to provide.
Requests to do data mining on call records do not require a warrant. But Qwest wanted cover that is currently not provided in the law.
The program does fail if the telecoms won’t or can’t provide the info. Even you must understand that.
If Qwest fears expensive lawsuits from people out to harass them a warrant still does not help. People like you would hold them liable if the warrant later proved to be defective. The telecoms would be inclined to litigate the warrant or otherwise limit or delay cooperation.
Toliver:
What is your obsession with trial lawyers? The main counsel in these lawsuits are non-profit organizations. Unlike the telecoms, who were paid well for their illegal spying, the lawyers in these lawsuits stand to make no money at all. Is it so hard for you to understand that lawyers might take a case for an important principle, like the principle that telecoms shouldn’t be illegally spying on random Americans?
“Stand to make no money at all?” Do you have any idea what the size of the fee requests will be if these suits succeed or obtain a settlement? Do you really think there are no for-profit lawyers involved in these suits?
If it’s all non-profit, and if the best solution is to fix the statute, then why has the plaintiff’s bar been lobbying so intently?
from the Robert Novak article: Big money is involved. Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiffs’ lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.
You trashed Jay Rockefeller for supposedly accepting money from the telecoms (I’m still waiting for your review of the campaign finance data links I provided) but when the highest rollers in the campaign game (the plaintiffs’ bar) are openly pushing on this issue you see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing.
And please tell us exactly how much the telecoms were paid for providing records and access to NSA, if anything.
Toliver:
If you have evidence that this program was aimed at “terrorists,” offer it. The government refuses to offer any such evidence, and I assume that this is because there is none.
The government has provided evidence of terrorist calls intercepted, people arrested and given this to Congress (IT’S IN THE NYT ARTICLE YOU CITED). But you are probably right: FISA, the PAA (and for that matter the whole 9/11 conspiracy) was an elaborate ruse to spy on Rosie O’Donnell. This is your weakest argument yet.
Your turn. Now provide the evidence that the program went after American non-terrorists for purposes unrelated to terrorism or else drop the Kos conspiracy crap.
Toliver:
So Bush was willing to give up the foreign-to-foreign fix that he claims to be super-important, just to get amnesty for the telecoms’ past lawbreaking. Aside from the fact that the program does not “fail” without amnesty (the telecoms are compelled to follow the law; amnesty simply rewards those who willingly choose to break the law), you’re admitting that Bush puts amnesty above the monitoring of foreign terrorists’ calls. That’s some kind of priority …
You can argue that Pelosi made bad choices, but you cannot blame Pelosi for the fact that the PAA is not in operation right now. The Republicans killed the PAA extension.
Leaving aside your continued confusion about “amnesty” as opposed to immunity, your utter failure to grasp the role of telecoms in FISA, the use of warrants, the difference between call records and active monitoring and your apparent indifference to the problems in the current law . . .
The House has known this law was about to expire for months. The Senate provided a bi-partisan fix.
Pelosi could have brought up that bill and passed it right away. She refused and instead tried to gin up another extension without enough support in her own party and without any certainty the Senate would go along.
She knew that this would result in a lapse of the FISA PAA amendments. She did it anyway. She and Steny Hoyer knew they were going to cause a lapse and did it anyway. They did not call George Bush to discuss a compromise. They did not meet with House minority leaders. They did not talk to the Senate bill handlers.
Your idiot theory is that Bush and a majority of Congress should have preemptively surrendered a hard-won bi-partisan fix of a necessary law in order to revert to an unacceptable status quo just to give enemies of the program more time to find ways to kill it. In particular, the Pelosi delay was expressly intended to support litigation that could be very lucrative to large Democratic donors but we should pretend that was not a factor.
But in your world, if Pelosi decided to hold the law hostage for narrow partisan or even corrupt reasons, it is still somehow not her fault. Bush should have known in advance she would be this irresponsible and simply given in before her inevitable bad behavior was manifest. Failing to do so makes it all his fault. Nice logic.
We need to keep those corporations safe from liberal trial lawyers!
Thanks for the sophomoric BS. While your playmates were busy making oh-so-witty videos, the grownups in the Senate put together a bill than balances the privacy and accountability concerns with the actual need to protect the country.
For non-morons, here is a link to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report accompanying the bill voted out on Feb 12. It explains why immunity is necessary. This was from a Committee with a Democratic majority. It was prepared by Democratic staff at the behest of a Democratic Chairman about a bill that passed with a bi-partisan margin of 68-29.
The extension of immunity in section 202 reflects the Committee’s determination that electronic communication service providers acted on a good faith belief that the President’s program, and their assistance, was lawful. The Committee’s decision to include liability relief for providers was based in significant part on its examination of the written communications from U.S. Government officials to certain providers. The Committee also considered the testimony of relevant participants in the program.
* * *
electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence purposes depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the Nation’s telecommunication system.
* * *
The historical context of requests or directives for assistance was also relevant to the Committee’s determination that electronic communication service providers acted in good faith. The Committee considered both the extraordinary nature of the time period following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the fact that the expressed purpose of the program was to `detect and prevent the next terrorist attack’ in making its assessment.
On the basis of the representations in the communications to providers, the Committee concluded that the providers, in the unique historical circumstances of the aftermath of September 11, 2001, had a good faith basis for responding to the requests for assistance they received. Section 202 makes no assessment about the legality of the President’s program. It simply recognizes that, in the specific historical circumstances here, if the private sector relied on written representations that high-level Government officials had assessed the program to be legal, they acted in good faith and should be entitled to protection from civil suit.
* * *
In determining whether to provide retroactive immunity, the Committee weighed the incentives such immunity would provide. As described above, electronic communication service providers play an important role in assisting intelligence officials in national security activities. Indeed, the intelligence community cannot obtain the intelligence it needs without assistance from these companies. Given the scope of the civil damages suits, and the current spotlight associated with providing any assistance to the intelligence community, the Committee was concerned that, without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful Government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation.
At the same time, the Committee recognized that providers play an essential role in ensuring that the Government complies with statutory requirements before collecting information that may impact the privacy interests of U.S. citizens. Because the Government necessarily seeks access to communications through the private sector, providers have the unparalleled ability to insist on receiving appropriate statutory documentation before agreeing to provide any assistance to the Government.
The Committee sought to maintain the balance between these factors by providing retroactive immunity that is limited in scope. The provision of retroactive immunity was intended to encourage electronic communication service providers who acted in good faith in the particular set of circumstances at issue to cooperate with the Government when provided with lawful requests in the future.
Wow, that Chimpy BusHitler really fooled them, huh? Because smart little twits like ‘frammis’ know that it’s really just a conspiracy to serve evil giant corporations. Couldn’t possibly be about anything else..
For non-morons, here is a link to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report accompanying the bill voted out on Feb 12. It explains why immunity is necessary. This was from a Committee with a Democratic majority. It was prepared by Democratic staff at the behest of a Democratic Chairman about a bill that passed with a bi-partisan margin of 68-29.
But this glorious bipartisan report says nothing about why amnesty is necessary. The closest it comes is saying that the telecoms broke the law “on a good faith belief that the President’s program, and their assistance, was lawful.” But since when do people get off the hook for a mistaken belief that their illegal actions are legal? Even non-lawyers know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
And that’s assuming that the telecoms really believed that the program was lawful, which I strongly doubt, given that they knew they were being asked to spy on Americans without warrants and that this is illegal.
They also cite “the extraordinary nature of the time period following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” Which would make more sense if the program was limited to the immediate period after the 9/11 attacks (and the anthrax attacks, another terrorist attack whose perpetrators Bush failed to catch) and the climate of fear and hysteria they created. But the illegal spying went on for years thereafter. This was not something done only in the immediate post-9/11 climate.
So the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a “bipartisan” report saying merely that corporations can buy their way to amnesty if the government asks them to break the law. That’s not the work of “grown-ups,” it’s the work of people who have no respect for the rule of law or the safety of Americans (since they offer no proof that this program protected us, the only “safety” at issue here is Americans’ right to be safe from illegal government spying). The fact that the Senate has a “bi-partisan” majority in favor of amnesty for corporate lawbreakers does not make it good. This was their big report and they can offer no reason for amnesty other than “if the government and corporations break the law, they can buy their way out of trouble.”
Wow, that Chimpy BusHitler really fooled them, huh?
Do actual left-wingers ever use terms like “Chimpy BushHitler?” It seems to be exclusively a term used by right-wingers, who don’t understand that Bush is not hated for “deranged” reasons but for actual reasons (like that thing about breaking the law to spy on Americans).
It’s also odd that you put so much faith in Jay Rockefeller, a man who, as the Weekly Standard pointed out, will say absolutely anything on national security issues depending on what he thinks is politically advantageous. There is no reason to believe anything Jay Rockefeller says, whether it’s congenial to the right or the left.
Do actual left-wingers ever use terms like “Chimpy BushHitler?”
Yes.
It seems to be exclusively a term used by right-wingers, who don’t understand that Bush is not hated for “deranged” reasons but for actual reasons (like that thing about breaking the law to spy on Americans).
Nice try at pretending to be an adult, when in fact, you are indeed deranged by Bush hate and squawking like a mad parrot over perceived, but imaginary harms committed by your political opponents!
Neither President Bush nor the telecoms are spying on Americans, illegally or otherwise.
I want this law renewed to protect me and mine in wartime!
Why oh why do we have to share the same name (although my family spells it properly!)?
It is important for the future of the country and the Democratic party that Bush leave office unable to claim that we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11. Bush’s success at protecting the USA undermines Democrat credibility and future policy. They must demonstrate that he is wrong and the press will assist them by blaming Bush after we are hit again.
If we are attacked again it insures the success of the Democrats for 2008 and future elections. That is what is most important to Reyes, Pelosi, Reid etc.
But this glorious bipartisan report says nothing about why amnesty is necessary. The closest it comes is saying that the telecoms broke the law “on a good faith belief that the President’s program, and their assistance, was lawful.” But since when do people get off the hook for a mistaken belief that their illegal actions are legal? Even non-lawyers know that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Actually, a reasonable good faith belief in the lawfulness of a request from the Executive Branch can be a complete defense in this instance especially since they were not permitted (on national security grounds) to inquire in detail about why particular records were sought.
And that’s assuming that the telecoms really believed that the program was lawful, which I strongly doubt, given that they knew they were being asked to spy on Americans without warrants and that this is illegal.
If you actually read the report you would discover that the Senate collected all the correspondence between the telecoms and the government to evaluate whether there was any reason for the telecoms to doubt the lawfulness of the requests made.
Reviewing documents and actually researching the matter is the grownup method as opposed to your method of just assuming wrongdoing once you seee political lines drawn, assuming knowledge and denying any or all facts to the contrary.
They also cite “the extraordinary nature of the time period following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” Which would make more sense if the program was limited to the immediate period after the 9/11 attacks (and the anthrax attacks, another terrorist attack whose perpetrators Bush failed to catch) and the climate of fear and hysteria they created. But the illegal spying went on for years thereafter. This was not something done only in the immediate post-9/11 climate.
Okay at exactly what point was it safe to stop looking for bad guys? Define “immediate period” and how it applies to FISA? Did Al Qaeda disband and not send everyone the memo?
The point of the Senate report here is that 9/11 created a sense of urgency among grownups to act to prevent another attack. Because the program was born out of that urgency, it would tend to make grownups tend to cooperate with and rely upon federal programs designed to cope with the threat and to rely on the government’s assurances that this urgency had the force of legal authority. The telecoms received legal opinions from the Attorney General, counsel for the CIA and others (but, of course, they did not solicit an opinion from Tolliver, a major oversight, no doubt.)
So the Senate Intelligence Committee issued a “bipartisan” report saying merely that corporations can buy their way to amnesty if the government asks them to break the law. That’s not the work of “grown-ups,” it’s the work of people who have no respect for the rule of law or the safety of Americans (since they offer no proof that this program protected us, the only “safety” at issue here is Americans’ right to be safe from illegal government spying). The fact that the Senate has a “bi-partisan” majority in favor of amnesty for corporate lawbreakers does not make it good. This was their big report and they can offer no reason for amnesty other than “if the government and corporations break the law, they can buy their way out of trouble.”
I missed the passage that says they can “buy their way”. Do you ever have a moment outside of that liberal cocoon or do you always interject little ideological fantasies into whatever you read? This was a silly passage even for you.
It’s also odd that you put so much faith in Jay Rockefeller, a man who, as the Weekly Standard pointed out, will say absolutely anything on national security issues depending on what he thinks is politically advantageous. There is no reason to believe anything Jay Rockefeller says, whether it’s congenial to the right or the left.
If a liberal partisan like Jay Rockefeller is willing to join with Republicans on a serious bill on a serious issue, it makes it more likely that his actions are substantive, not political. I don’t need to have faith in Rockefeller. He happens to be speaking for a majority position and for common sense. That such noble actions may be inconsistent with much else he does is rather beside the point.
As for the necessity of immunity, the report explains that in detail which you clearly did not read. Get back to us when you actually understand that part.
Cynick Al is doing an admirable job of eviscerating Tolliver’s arguments, but I am getting awfully tired of Tolliver and his ilk repeating the “spying on Americans” theme.
Since no one has any plausible claim to have been injured or any private secrets revealed by any government signals intelligence monitoring, erroneously called ‘spying’, one can conclude that this alleged ‘spying’ is only a rhetorical device intended to mislead the public into thinking that the Bush administration is somehow breaking the law.
The pretension that the purveyors of this device are defending anyone’s ‘civil rights’ is just preposterous. While the letter of the complex law regarding such intelligence operations can be debated, no one has been denied any rights whatsoever, nor is there any evidence that such government activity is in any way a threat to anyone’s civil rights, unless a person can be shown to be engaged in perpetrating an attack, in concert with foreign enemies, upon the United States or its allies.
In point of fact, the claim that the government is “spying on Americans” is a red herring designed to confuse and alienate the American people from the task of prosecuting the Long War on Islamism, and thereby to turn those who have been prosecuting it successfully out of office. To call those who use and abuse the phrase ‘turncoats’ would be too kind.
