The thing I don’t get about this whole FISA mess, to include the petulant walkout in Congress, the president’s multiple misleading statements (including another stammering and stuttering appearance just a few moments ago), Andy McCarthy’s apoplectic bag of gibberish, and the Powerline today, is why are they lying?
Why? The facts are clear:
For example, Richard Clarke, the former Chief National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Advisor to Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, has stated: ‘Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the president would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension with his veto pen. All surveillance currently occurring would continue even after legislative provisions lapsed because authorizations issued under the act are in effect up to a full year.’
“And, Kenneth Wainstein, the Assistant Attorney General for National Security recently said in an interview – according to the New York Times – that if the PAA expires, intelligence officials would still be able to continue eavesdropping on already approved targets for another year under the law.
“We must not fall prey to fear-mongers who claim that our intelligence community could ‘go dark.’ That is simply not true.
And, if it is so important, Bush could sign an extension. He chose not to do that. Kevin Drum also points out another option:
Look, if it’s that important, there’s a simple answer: pass the bill without telecom immunity. Then come back and introduce immunity in a separate bill. If you’ve got the votes for it, fine. If not, too bad. I’m against immunity myself — though hardly hellbent on the subject — but whichever way the vote went, in the meantime we’d have the FISA extension and surveillance could continue normally.
So we are in a 12 day recess, Bush does not have his bill, and yet, life still goes on. But back to my main question- “Why are they lying about it?” I just do not get it. Do they really see some sort of political gain? Or are we finally at the end of the rope, they can not win any arguments, so the minority party and this failed President have only lies and bullying tactics to show that they are somehow relevant?
*** Update ***
Xenos
To paraphrase Ambrose Bierce, lies and intimidation are not the last refuge of the scoundrel, they are the first refuge of the scoundrel. Bush and the congressional Republicans have been doing this so long it is
secondnature to them.They would not be capable of honesty and decency even if the opportunity to demonstrate it were to present itself.
JR
Lying becomes a habit after a while. Also, the rightwing traitors among us have become used to fabricating a false reality and having it be licked up by the willfully ignorant.
dslak
Because it’s always worked for them in the past. The better question is: Why didn’t the Democrats cave? Glenzilla has a bit to say about that today.
Napoleon
Because if these lawsuits go forward game is up on the Republicans when everything they have been up to comes out. IMO the fall out will be so bad for the party that in and of itself it will keep them out of power the next dozen years. That is why I find it so baffling that the Dems would even consider going along with the immunity. Even putting aside the fact that they should be against it because not only is it objectively the best policy, from a purely practical standpoint it is not in their interest to do so. BTW, if they don’t pass the immunity it leaves Bush with the only option of granting a blanket immunity, which would further sink the Reps in the fall.
demimondian
It’s a matter of creating a narrative. The Republican Party needs to recapture the “strong on national defense” narrative to win in November, and this is the issue on which they’ve chosen to make a stand. It’s a great choice — if they win, they seem strong and win a useful perk some of their supporters. If they lose — they seem strong and lose something that they really don’t care about (see “wiretaps terminated for failure to pay”.) Either way, they win.
Jen
Well, I was going to say something on topic, but am distracted by an ad for “BetOnIraq.com : Because Liberty Breeds Prosperity”
Aside from the obvious comment that you have *got* to get away from Cheetos Media, maybe this is why they lie? Because the 27% still with them don’t care about accuracy? Because they suffer absolutely no consequences whatsoever from simplistic and factually inaccurate statements (I mean, really, isn’t there a Pantload full of countries with liberty/anarchy but not prosperity?)
smiley
Did I mishear or did Bush just tie the shootings at NIU with the need to pass this legislation?
Xenos
My reading of the Democrats is the the Dem. Senators are desperate to get to a 60 member majority, and so went along with the immunity, knowing that Pelosi would spike it.
They are now somewhat protected from being demagogued on the issue, and the House is really not at risk since so many Republican congressmen are quitting that the Dems will expand their control no matter what.
I am probably giving them way too much credit, of course.
Robin G.
The good money’s on the latter.
Elvis Elvisberg
I agree with dslak. They’ve always been able to lie their way through everything else, so when the other side doesn’t just go along, it feels like they’re being immoral by violating a settled agreement. They like to get their way. It’s not like there’s some coherent, conservative program they’re trying to implement.
It’s not quite a lie, but one of the huge omissions in the debate over telecom immunity is that the existing FISA law already provides for immunity, if the company can show it was acting in good faith. On issue at hand, a district court judge (appointed by Bush, Sr.) held that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”
They violated the law. Which already provided telecoms with immunity if they did so in good faith. So now Bush says he’ll veto anything that doesn’t give them meritless, all-encompassing immunity.
Doug
Napoleon is correct. Being able to bounce the civil suits out of court is what they are after now. The president has said as much, that this is the key provision. It is not so much from a love of big business as what would be revealed in the suits that would be ugly. Whistleblowers have already said that the telecoms were piping everything through to the government. A civil suit would both confirm that and would get a judge to rule on the legality of what was done. If a judge were to rule strongly enough about how obviously and outrageously this practice was illegal, that could also affect the limited immunity that government officials are usually able to hide behind in the good faith discharge of their responsibilities.
Jen
I’m sure most people here know, but this is Greenwald’s hobbyhorse lately, and he is smacking down these “roving bands of paranoid right-wing bloggers”.
dslak
There’s a predominantly Muslim neighborhood just down the street from me. I thought that today was some kind of Islamic holiday. Now I know that they’re simply celebrating Congress’s failure to pass the Protect America Act.
Jen
I also like how, since appealing to the Democratic Congress on any meritorious argument doesn’t work at all, Greenwald tries to appeal to basic human psychology: Doesn’t it feel *good* to defy a deeply unpopular president? Kinda manly? Don’t you want more of those headlines instead of the ones about how you capitulated?
dslak
The old white guys who wrote the Constitution knew a bit about human psychology, as well. They expected that the seperation of powers would lead to contests among the branches of government, and that each branch would jealously protect its own powers.
Congress seems to have stopped caring so much about theirs sometime in the 20th century, and under Bush it has cared even less.
LiberalTarian
If the bill is really the Protect Cheney Act, people who’ve cast their lot with Cheney are going to ride this one right into the sea. What choice do they have?
Joe Bleau
Napoleon has it exactly correct. The real point to telecom immunity isn’t protection of the telecoms themselves (although it’s a nice by-product for those who see glory in the proto-fascist corporatist-government alliance pushed by the Repubs these last 40 years or so).
Rather, the point is that the Cheney administration asked/bullied these telecoms into supporting their dragnet (great term, by the way – the fact that this is such a lame and pointless tactic in true effective enforcement really should get more play). Now that they’ve been caught, they risk exposing the real extent of what it was that they’ve been doing. Does anyone really believe that their spying has been in good faith? Just why is a requirement for a warrant from a sympathetic court so freaking odious?
While it’s true that it requires a certain amount of partisan credulity to believe that the Cheney administration would screw over the country to protect AT&T’s profits, it takes far less to believe that they would screw over the country to protect their own guilty asses. In fact, it seems downright credible.
In short, they are lying because they are desperate. And the extent of that desperation probably provides a clue as to the the extent of the malfeasance that they are trying to cover up.
4tehlulz
U C?! ITZ TR00! TEH MUZZIE TERRISTS R SELLEBR8ING TEH L055 0f TEH P8REEUT ACT! EYE NO ITZ TROO CUZ 1 SAW I+ 0n TEH INTERBUTTZ!
/1NT3RW3BZ WEENNUTZ
DFH
Why are they lying?
Because what they have been engaged in doing, prior to 9/11 by the way, is patently and completely illegal. I’ll say it again: It is illegal. FISA works fine.
They didn’t think FISA applied to them. This is simply another cog in the machine, albeit an important one, being built by Cheney in some twisted, retroactive, revisionary experiment in rendering Congress moot. A return to the days when Nixon was exercising raw power. Something that Cheney found intoxicating and something that gave him a sense of well being. Like heroin, Cheney jones’ for it. And Bush? He didn’t think he was going to win in ’00 anyway. He never really wanted the gig. That’s why he farmed out the job to Cheney and took over going to funerals and mall openings in eastern Europe. As for congressional GOPers? They have no game plan other than the one that swept them into power in ’94. Didn’t that little potemkin, foot stomping display remind anyone else of the Contract For/On America? Just a little?
It’s what they do. They lie. Fear monger. Bully. And then lie some more. Their policies have failed so spectacularly and they have no ideas that aren’t obvious cookie cutter copies of the failure that is Conservatism, that they have no choice but to double down and stay at the table. Let’s not forget that a lot of members of congress would love a good lobbying job after their terms are up. Telecoms probably offer more money than the members skill deserve. What are the Boehners and the Blunts going to do after their congressional careers are over? Charity work? HA!
So they lie away. Belch platitudes about protecting America, freedom, “these colors don’t run”, blah, blah, blah. To abandon that now would be like trying to talk an aging, battle addled boxer to hang up the gloves. The money, at the end of the day, is too inviting.
I don’t know about you folks, but while “these colors” may not run, they sure have faded in the past 30 years.
Dennis - SGMM
I’d say that the reason that Tcom immunity is so important to Bush is because it will head off the lawsuits and thus the discovery they would engender. There have been rumors that the eavesdropping started in 2000, well before we were attacked. If that is discovered to be the fact then either the eavesdropping didn’t prevent anything or it was initiated for other, more troubling reasons.
The idea that telcos shouldn’t be punished for being patriotic is a red herring. Civil lawsuits involve broad discovery. Bushco is terrified that the discovery process will turn over too many rocks.
les
How about this? Lined up behind the telecoms are a large number of other corporations, equally guilty of abuses and illegality; and if Bushco can’t win this one, they start jumping ship and playing their own cya. Bye bye Darth.
empty
Follow the money. Check out the donations to various politicians – many more D’s than R’s in the top twenty. And if you think electing a democrat is going to change things take a look at the top two recipients. Four and a half million dollars aint chump change.
Dennis - SGMM
True but, Obama voted for the Dodd-Feingold Amendment, stripping telco immunity, while Clinton chose not to vote.
croatoan
Republicans are 0-2 in preventing terrorist attacks in the US (9/11 and anthrax) and 0-2 in punishing the people behind the attacks (at least until the 9/11 banana court trials).
Joe Bleau
Empty:
Yes, but: Both Obama and Clinton co-sponsored the last (failed) amendment to the Senate FISA bill that would have stripped retroactive immunity. And Obama even went one further and supported it with an actual *vote*.
Sure, you can be cynical and claim that it wasn’t really all that courageous, since failure was a foregone conclusion in the Senate anyway, so the big telecom overlords might have come to an understanding – but even that underscores an important point.
Namely: at least Democrats feel some pressure to *pretend* to have principles. That really should count for something.
LarryM
Do they really see some sort of political gain?
Yes. And sadly they are probably correct.
jojo
The reason life is going on is because Bush will just keep doing what he wants to regardless. Telecom immunity was just frosting on the cake for him, it has no bearing on whether he will return to using the original FISA law. He won’t.
zzyzx
The interview on NPR this morning was all about immunity. No matter what the question, McConnell brought it back there.
Punchy
Dennis nails this. It has very, very little to do with punishing the telecoms. It has everything to do with limiting/eliminating the discovery process associated with the lawsuits.
Cheney and his ilk have wantonly broken myriad laws, and they know it. Hell, they had guys like Bradbury, Addington, and Gonzo write “opinions” to “justify” these actions. These lawsuits threaten to uncover just a TON of illegal bullshit, and this is their way out.
Maybe Xenos is correct. The Senate knew the House would bury this, so voted not to pass it but to avoid the negative campaign commercials. Brilliant, if accurate.
ThymeZone
Yes John, it was pointed out last evening on some cable talkathon or another that the Republicans have deliberately chosen to pick fights over these things in order to keep their “tough on terror” stance in the public eye.
That’s it, it’s all about the theater. They intend to milk this thing for every potential vote this year. It is a crass, cynical and deliberate political manipulation. It keeps the opposition (Dems) occupied and fighting battles that, as you point out, really don’t matter, because the stupid people (their base) only sees the smoke, they don’t look for where the fire really is.
The entire FISA “controversy” is about manipulation of public opinion. All of it, one hundred percent.
Kirk Spencer
A simple “also” answer?
Civil remedy – a MINIMUM of $100 per day per person wrongfully placed under surveillance. Plus punitive damages. Not just from the telecoms, but from the individuals within government who made it happen.
Criminal remedy – the corporations themselves exempt, the officers and technicians, plus the aformentioned government individuals: Up to 5 years and and/or $10,000 per count.
6 and a half years. Over 2300 days. Over $230,000 PER PERSON, potentially of the entire United States. Over 300 million people in the United States.
300 million counts of wrongful use of surveillance under the FISA (section 1809).
We don’t need an “underlying conspiracy”. The bare surface issues are devastating.
The companies that did the tapping are potentially liable. The officers who authorized the tapping are potentially liable. The government individuals who knew of and authorized, aided, or abetted it are potentially liable. As a whole and individual, they’re looking at losing all their wealth and freedom – and in case of the corporations, their existence.
If you were facing that sort of wave of justice, what would you do to avoid it?
Dracula
Is this a done deal? The House is on recess starting today, so there’s no chance of it passing at 11:58 this evening, is there?
Cuz that would be the Dem M.O., true to form.
empty
Joe, yes I am cynical. But only about “leaders.” And I totally agree with your last point. It was the pressure that made the Democrats finally look around for principles. And if we are going to recover from the last eternity of filth it will be only if we apply pressure – constant and unremitting. Which is why cultish adoration of individuals gives me the creeps. Because once you have a elected an adored leader you can abdicate your own responsibility to press for change. After all the leader you elected is the embodiment of change. He or she will do what is best.
Trust us they said after a great tragedy and we did. And we are responsible for what they did in our name.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Very O/T, but worth warning about:
The Terrists Caused the Subprime Mess!!!1
I’m going to see if I can find the editors and mock them.
ThymeZone
The MO is to avoid the fight to the greatest possible extent.
As John pointed out, the actual measures just don’t matter that much one way or the other. The GOP is goading the Dems into a continuous fight on this to create the “soft on terror” doubt in the public mind. The Dems will do what is necessary to avoid the fight and avoid the effects of the tactic until November. It’s that simple.
When you recast the last two years in that light, it all makes perfect sense. This is the basis for all the theater surrounding this crap.
The reason why the public doesn’t see it is because a flaccid press doesn’t expose it. The press is so useless that even if a Dem sat down with a reporter and said, you know, the GOP is just making all this shit up to embarass us, the press would report THAT as weakness on the part of the Dems. Whining over a national security issue. Why don’t those weak Dems just stand up for their positions?
It’s a brilliant strategy for the GOP, really, if you can swallow the crass use of terror as a political device.
Obviously that ship sailed a long time ago.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
And to contribute to the conversation at hand, instead of just trolling with O/T links:
They aren’t lying. To lie means to know you’re airing false statements.
These people are FUCKING MORONS. Everyone in the right-wing apparatus is a reactive ninny, rowing their boat to and fro on top of a violent, stormy ocean, while boldly attempting to use celestial navigation despite the storm clouds. Yes, this is what the right wing has been reduced to.
They’re not lying. They don’t even know which way up is anymore, so how could they lie?
(Notice: the left wing isn’t that much better, and will probably get just as stupid within the next 10 years, after power makes them comfortable)
rawshark
Because if they told the truth they couldn’t get what they want.
If it was nescessary. If it was a good idea. You wouldn’t have to lie to sell it. They want FISA gone, not reformed, or changed, or anything. It wasn’t in existence when Cheney first was in the White House. He saw how it could be used. He wants it back.
ThymeZone
No Caidence, the right wing is disciplined and following their instructions. And if you watch carefully, the Dems are too. Each side is playing a game.
ON the GOP side, it’s not a matter of winning any more, it’s a matter of holding onto their base and limiting damage at the polls. They are basically playing the FISA board game in order to save a few seats in congress this year. They know they can’t win the White House.
They’ll continue with their themes and come back next year and start blaming everything that goes wrong in Iraq and Warrenterra on the Democrats.
The only thing that keeps from saying to John, why didn’t you see this sooner, is …. the knowledge that I didn’t see it sooner myself. Once you get the game, the entire last two years becomes crystal clear.
elf
We will not fear any longer.
We will not fear the international terrorists — we will thwart them.
We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety — we will call it what it is: terrorism.
We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government — we will name them.
And we will not fear George W. Bush.
Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.
(Kudos to KO)
The Other Steve
That doesn’t seem to be what the article is saying. It’s certainly not an accurate headline. Especially when he ends thusly…
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Can’t you just let me believe in my own inherent superiority to reactive right-wingers, instead of broadcasting thoughtful explanations that show them to be intelligent and aware? I don’t WANT them to be intelligent! I want them to be in eternal servitude to me!
You’re not helping!
Face
Potentially?
Bill Arnold
This is the complicated (and probably true) version. The simple version is that the Bush administration is demanding legislated civil amnesty for telephone companies. And few Americans can muster up much sympathy for telephone companies. (Excepting the millions of employees of said companies.)
Once that is clear, then the question of “why” is more poignant.
jrg
This needs to be stated over and over again.
The GOP’s response to Clinton going after Bin Laden before 9/11 “ZOMG the Clenis is trying to distract us from the Lewinsky affair!”. Bush’s response to pre-9/11 warnings (while on vacation): “OK, you covered your ass”.
WTF is the point of better intel if the GOP refuses to take action on the intel we already have?
The GOP has no interest in protecting the founding principles of this nation, and no interest in protecting Americans from terrorism. If they are given the ability to spy on Americans without a warrant, they will do exactly the same thing they did with the terrorism threat: exploit it for partisan political gain.
gypsy howell
It’s nice to think they actually beleive they oculd still get punished for this. Here I was thinking they firmly believed they were immune to prosecution.
Oh well — if immunity fails, it’s pardons for all!
LiberalTarian
9.11 was an inside job.
/easiest explantion
LiberalTarian
explanation. duh.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That seems to be exactly what he’s saying. Crux:
Ignore the Fed.
Ignore Wall Street.
Ignore mortgage lenders.
Ignore the brokers.
Ignore the borrowers.
What do you have left?? 9/11!!
If terrists hadn’t gotten lucky on 9/11, none of this would’ve happened!
THEREFORE: Obviously the terrists masterfully planned each and every step of our decline!
Xenos
The other, perhaps bigger shoe to drop is the prosecution of Qwest (Scott Horton, of course), the only major telecommunications company that did not go along with the pre-9/11 demand to impose system-wide wiretaps.
I imagine that Cheney, et al. really don’t want to face pre-trial discovery on that issue. That charge is beyond explosive, as it cost shareholders billions of dollars, and would involve any of a number of serious felony charges being taken up on DOJ and White House personnel.
If the shareholders of Qwest went to court and sought sanctions for spoliation of 5 million emails in direct violation of the law, the civil penalties could be a multiple of the the damages. Since the damages come out to…(sharpens pencil) $40 lost share value (check out “Q” at quote.yahoo.com) times 1.8 Billion shares… 72 Billion Dollars?
Subject to multiplication for spoliation and other sanctions?
Anyone want to join a class action case?
(ya, ya, so maybe there is an issue regarding sovereign immunity to deal with, but wow!)
Zifnab25
Either they’re fucking geniuses or they’re absolute morons. They’re either so smart that they can see their way out of the tidal wave we can expect in ’08 – and potentially in ’10 and ’12 until we get the reps we want – or they’re so dumb that they don’t see the wave at all.
I remember, way back in the day, when Congressmen would bend over backwards to play to their constituencies. You can still see the vestiges of it today, with the ridiculous “I Love Jesus” Acts that get floated every month or so. But at the height of an unpopular war, in a “change” election, when bucking the system wins you massive grassroots support, millions of internet donations, and the best chances anyone could ask for to win new or higher office, Democratic apathey is seconded in stupidity only by Republican destructive obstinance.
I know why they’re lying, in the short term. Telecomms are shelling out bouko bucks to make this Amnesty thing happen. Virtually everyone voting for this is on the take in one form or another – the Intelligence Committee got swamped with PAC money and contributions, key Congresscritters are being wined-and-dined in record numbers, etc – so the interests their are clear. But in the long term? Republicans are staring down the dark pit of irrelevance. Dems are standing on the brink of another 40 year uncontested majority. You’d think they would be looking past the next lobster diner at Chez Lobbyist Gratis.
LiberalTarian
Since Bush and Cheney are the most powerful terrorists ever, I would agree with this statement. The ruse has been that the American public was not the enemy. Why else would they need to spy on every person in the country?? Why else would they need to lie so much?
I don’t really believe that 9.11 was an inside job.
But I do think they thought one little attack would be terribly convenient, and as a result,
let it happendid not try very hard to stop it.Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Except there’s no motive for the current actors to do that now. The right-wing army right now isn’t likely to make the next term, so they’ll take whatever they can and leave the mess to the kids.
It’s exactly the same way they’re funding this war.
“I live in the greatest country in the world, and I should be rewarded for it! Here, grandkid, hold my huge debt while I stand on this cliff and bask in my Super American awesomeness!”
/”When you hold my debt for me, I look like I can afford a Mercedes!”
Kirk Spencer
Face – yes, “potentially”. Not everyone who touched this will be liable. Some will be obviously so, and some will be obviously exempt (technician Joe doesn’t usually handle the warrant, that’s the job of his boss. His boss just says, “Go put in the tap,” and that’s what happened this time. He’s going to be exempt.) The real FUN ones will be the maybe’s. The ones who might be liable and might not, depending on a host of things that’ll have to be determined by a lot of people — for some, a committee of 12 will have final say.
Face
I literally cringe at thinking about the thousands of Kentucky-style preemptive pardons Bush will certainly issue days before his scheduled departure.
ThymeZone
I probably should have been more clear with my first post on this, but the idea that the GOP is manufacturing these “fights” over terra issues to keep their “Dems soft on defense” theme in the limelight … didn’t come from some pundit’s imagination. It was a reporter saying that Republican insiders are telling him this, I’m pretty sure.
So it isn’t imaginary, it’s real. And …. they are so sure that this is a winning strategy that they will even talk about it knowing that it won’t make any difference. That’s how bold they are now, and how completely they have adapted to the use of terror and lies as political devices.
This is not conspiro-wacko material. It’s for real.
These people frankly did not think that anyone would catch on to the thing as John did in his top post here. And they also figured, correctly, that even if a few people did get it, it wouldn’t matter. And so far, it doesn’t.
I am pretty sure they made the same caculations on the Iraq war runup. They didn’t care if it all turned out to be fake. They just needed a little time to get away with it. The reason why they went over the top on Joe Wilson was because he blew their cover a little early. If he had waited a while, they’d have paid no attention to him.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
As a student of systems dynamics, lemme tell you: You’re very right, except for one missed consideration.
Try your best to figure out how Bush and Cheney did all of this evil subconsciously. For one thing, evil is never committed consciously (except by sociopaths, and sociopaths don’t handle offices very well). Also, most human activity is subconscious, even complicated things done by powerful men in important offices.
At this point in history we are very good at recognizing the reckless drive of certain persons toward totalitarian governments. Now is where we have to start learning how totalitarian impulses are couched in honest fear of The Enemy, and the honest desire to do Good.
Xenos
A President can’t pardon someone from civil lawsuits.
Sloegin
Atrios’s post has a very plausible ring to it. It isn’t about telecom immunity per se, as it is about covering legal and financial liability of members of the current Administration. Immunize the telecoms to block any path of attack on Republicans via that route.
The Republicans will go to the mat on this one, if only to stay healthy, wealthy, and out of legal jeopardy.
demimondian
Xenos — I wouldn’t be so sure of that. The executive clemency power is very broad.
empty
That explanation would make sense if this was a GOP (only) manufactured issue. But the issue would not necessarily be around if Harry Reid had not brought up the Intel committee bill (with immunity) as the base will instead of the Judiciary committee bill (without immunity). This in spite of pressure to bring up the Judiciary committee bill up from various prominent quarters. So why did Harry Reid buck the vocal electoral base and bring up the IC bill? I doubt it was to “manufacture” any kind of confrontation. I think a simpler explanation is needed.
Cyrus
Well, after Nixon, the Republican Party was out of power for six years, wasn’t it? If we assume that the current administration is twice as bad as Nixon’s, then a dozen years is consistent with precedent.
On the other hand, Nixon faced an adversarial press and Congress, even including at least a few members of his own party, and there was wide public support for impeaching him. That sure would be helpful now.
Perry Como
I’m really curious why the administration’s push for warrantless wiretapping pre-9/11 hasn’t been questioned more? It came out during the Qwest thing, but no one seems to care.
canuckistani
Impeach him now, before he can pardon anyone.
cleek
sounds like a Stereolab song
Tsulagi
Easy…CYA. As always, the party of personal responsibility wants a pass. Especially this president and administration. If a gutless little retard becomes scared secretly requesting private business, or any other entity, to violate existing federal law providing rights to citizens, then that’s okay.
If it later comes to light in the treasonous press, frame it as you were bold non-wetsuited men of action stamping out ticking time bombs. Your Malkinette patriot warriors will cheer.
One telco, Qwest, didn’t go along…
How very unpatriotic of Qwest. Reluctant to turn over millions of records of private citizens unless the administration got a secret court order from FISA, which rarely rejected an application, or a letter of authorization from the administration’s own Attorney General. Wow, what a freaking high bar Qwest set. But still, too high for this “honor and integrity” administration.
The reason The Tard and tarders in the administration want telco immunity is because if the telcos who knew they were violating federal law get tagged, they’ll be looking to share liability and detailing why it should be shared. And of course, the bold patriotic leaders in the party of personal responsibility and accountability wouldn’t want that.
If the Dems, in their seemingly never ending quest to roll over for this administration do so one more additional time on this, fuck them.
Don
I think you mean the HOUSE democrats, because the Senate rolled over without a fight and weren’t within a mile of removing the immunity clause.
ThymeZone
Then you might want to address your question to the Republicans, because the view I am giving came from them. They are the ones who basically are telling people off the record that this is part of an organized strategy to pick fights with Dems over terror issues and keep us on the ropes.
As to why Reid responded a certain way, I’m afraid he might be the only person who knows the answer to that.
Just realize that you are watching theater, written, produced and directed by machine politicians. Trying to understand the flow of events as if these things were somehow “real” issues is only going to keep you bamboozled.
If you were the GOP and looking for a foolproof way to keep your opponents dancing around a “terror” threat issue, could you find something more tractable than FISA? Could you find a better issue that is more widely misunderstood, that the press wouldn’t get right, that you could demagogue at every turn without fear of exposure?
Davebo
I think this from Shakespeares Sister sums it up nicely.
Punchy
Mitch McConny, with his Max Freak Out on, yo:
Since when is probable cause supposed to be such a fucking hinderance?
Svensker
I can understand why BushCo are lying. But why are McCarthy, Lopez, et al, lying? They’re not likely to suffer legal jeopardy if telecom lawsuits went forward. Are they stupid, or so wedded to the narrative that they are no longer able to see the truth?
Sent an e-mail to K-Lo yesterday asking her whether she was making false statements about FISA and the PAA out of ignorance or mendacity, but she has not responded. Odd.
ThymeZone
Which body are our presidential candidates in?
Napoleon
Of course in the early/mid-70s the Republican party had the wind at its back (See Kevin Phillips, the Emerging Republican Majority) whereas today the Dems have the wind at their backs (seperate and apart from issues involving the telcoms.
Xoebe
I just heard some asshole on the radio say how we needed the immunity act to protect the private partners in this mess.
OK, I can buy that. Seriously. The Feds ask you to do something crooked, but it’s in the best interest of the nation, all that. What are your options? You are a business. Go with the mob. Get them to cover it later. No big.
A moment later the same asshole says, the Senate made a determination that no crime had been committed by the Feds or the telcoms.
Uh, what?
So…we need a law to give immunity to people who don’t need it because they committed no crime?
Besides, doesn’t” “ex post facto” in The Constitution go both ways?
If these guys just didn’t lie for lying’s sake, I could believe them. I think Hollywood calls it “suspension of disbelief”.
If the right were movie directors, all movies would be “Battlefield Earth”. Or maybe “Manos, the Hands of Fate”.
Chris Andersen
They are lying because they are desperate. If they don’t get telecom immunity then they know that some of those companies will spill the beans rather than face long and costly lawsuits (I’m sure they have threatened as much to the administration). Telecom immunity is not about protecting the telecom companies. It’s about protecting the Bush administration.
And fear is the only weapon they have left to motivate people to do what they want.
Chris Andersen
BTW, someone mentioned above that Bush might just grant immunity to the telecoms through his pardon power. But, correct me if I am wrong, I believe that only comes to play in a criminal prosecution. The cases against AT&T, et al. are CIVIL lawsuits. I don’t believe Bush has the authority to grant immunity in civil matters (not that he might not try to carve out some kind of fake authority in that area).
scarshapedstar
Why? Gee, maybe because they’re worried that prosecutions / civil cases against the telcos might reveal that the Bush administration was quite complicit in the lawbreaking. Bush can’t claim “executive privilege” once those cases make it to court.
Joe Bleau
Option #1 – consult your vast and expensive legal department as to the legality of what is being requested. If they advise that said activity is indeed against the law, then you go forward knowing that if you go ahead and back the crooked horse anyway, and that horse doesn’t show, you’re very likely on the hook.
Seriously, amongst the plethora of things that piss me off about this particular imbroglio, maybe the most irksome is this notion that somehow the telecoms that complied with Darth Cheney were somehow acting in “good faith”. Even if we were, for the sake of argument, to restrict the notion of “good faith” as it applies to corporations as having nothing to do with principles, ethics, morality, and other such quaint relics of a simpler, more naive (and frankly mythical) time, and everything to do with a cold utilitarian calculus that restricts itself to matters of the maximization of shareholder value – even then, it’s just silly to think that these titans of industry didn’t realize that they were taking a risk by complying with the Administration. They gambled; they lost. Frankly, I couldn’t care less if their judgment was colored more by greed or by some hideous perversion of the idea of “patriotism” – it was still bad judgment. Bad faith.
They should pay. Or, at the very least, the matter should be adjudicated in the proper forum. To argue that they should be let off the hook because we kinda understand where they were coming from is beyond silly.
Rick Taylor
Because they can. The press isn’t going to call them on it; they reserve serious journalism for things like steroid abuse in baseball. So why shouldn’t they? One might as well ask why they kept saying they had hard definitive evidence of WMD in Iraq; if they got away with that, which they did, why would they draw the line anywhere else?
Xenos
Demi mentioned that the pardon power is awfully broad, so it just might. My guess is that a federal court assessing sanctions for destruction of evidence would be pardonable, even if the a civil penalty may not be.
I have heard of only one person who has argued for such broad reading of pardon powers: Fred Fielding (when representing the Nixon Administration)- wonder what he is up to now?
The kicker to this is that Fielding’s theories and arguments were based on the research and memos prepared by his chief aid. That aid was John Roberts, now the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. So good luck holding these people responsible if they try the pardon route. If it comes to it, either a new court packing scheme or just impeachment of Supreme Court justices may be necessary.
liberal
AFAICT from a google search, the presidential pardon power does not extend to civil cases, but rather only federal criminal cases. The Constitution itself says,
I can’t see how that would apply to a civil case; the google search made it seem like there might be complications in contempt cases, though.
Napoleon
I can’t imagine that he could issue a pardon in a contempt case. Contempt is a whole differant animal then criminal law. That is why someone like a Judith Miller or Matt Cooper can simply be held, essentially without charge or a trial, for what they did (or actually didn’t do) even though they weren’t even accused of an underlying crime. It is the court exercising the power of running its courtroom, not one of enforcing the criminal code.
Napoleon
a PS to my post.
Essentially the court, I think, would take a position similar (at least on the surface) that the Bush White House has with the unitary executive theory and how they have applied executive privilage. Basically that its an “internal” court matter (like what baliff they hire) and that the President has not right to butt in.
Xenos
Napoleon-
If you are talking about a contempt of congress, it is apparantly well established that a president can not issue a pardon. A contempt of court could be more complicated, as such a contempt could be either criminal or civil. The difference has more to do with notice and due process issues, and less to do with the penalty.
You get a paradox where the court can jail someone for contempt under civil contempt procedures and with no eligibility for a presidential pardon, but if the court jails someone using the criminal contempt process there would be eligibility for presidential pardons. Considering that the a criminal defendant has greater procedural rights, that seems like an absurd result to me.
What this situation calls for is a law student willing to read through the federal digest listings under Article II, Section 2. I would think that “offenses against the United States” would include civil offenses and fines assessed through administrative procedures, not just criminal offenses. I don’t know if the pardon power has ever been used that way, though.
HyperIon
i don’t know if that is a snarky & rhetorical question but….
he replaced Miers as Bush’s cousel in jan 2007
Jay C
“Why are they lying?”
Why not – it’s just become a reflex with them by this point. The Bush/Cheney Administration (and its Republican enablers) has spent the last seven years vigorously promoting its main goal of instituting a regime of unaccountable and unreviewable Executive power (for themselves, of course: we shouldn’t even dream that the GOP will back anything near these claims with a Democrat in the White House) – and simply had to shout “OMG! TERRORISTS! TEH TERRORISTS” to quash any opposition.
Unfortunately for them, it looks like Congress (well, the House, anyway) has finally had it with Bush’s “doing it all to protect us” BS. One can hope.
chopper
heh. also, a creature which spends half the year in hibernation.
SteveinSC
I agree with this. Power politics at its best. Even Bush is worn out with it and can hardly keep up the charade: the aborted threat to delay the trip to Africa. I think this round went to the Dems and Bush knows it. Small victory, but victory nonetheless against an unloved lame duck.
tim
Perhaps because an UNFORESEEN, truly UNIMAGINED ATTACK, worse than 9/11 is about to befall the United States, upon which event the Republicans will blame the Democrats and point at this stupid, false issue as the reason for it.
Conservatively Liberal
What happened to our country? We stood up against Russia in the cold war, we always handled things as they happened and did not live by a doctrine of preemption. What happened to turn us into the chicken shit nation that we are today? That is what has confused me about the right. They boast about how tough we are supposed to be, and in the next breath they are saying bilgewater crap like:
“Attack {insert country name here}! We must prevent them from {insert chicken shit worry here}, and if the DemocRats don’t do something we are all going to die horrible deaths! We are the only ones who will save you from this horrible threat of {insert big scary threat here}! The Defeatocrats want to coddle the enemy and give them all lawyers!”
I am sick and tired of this “WOLF! WOLF!” crap our country has fallen for. Big scary terrorists in Iran might get the bomb! So what. Big F’in deal. We could turn that country into a wasteland without a second thought. If they want to be stupid and have their nation wiped off the face of the earth, go for it.
People do stupid shit, people die. It is what life has become. Get used to it. I don’t go looking around for someone to kick the crap out of because I think that some day they might jump me. That is the current attitude of our country, and if I was any other country in the world, I would be worried about us. We have been on a stupid trip for too long now, and shit is starting to come back home to us. You don’t go around the world and let powerful, rich people and businesses screw other nations out of their natural resources and treasures, all the while using our military might to back them up.
We are one big f’ing mess and if we do not stop the stupid shit one day it will be too late. Heaven help us if that day comes.
Tax Analyst
Yeah, I read that ridiculous piece…then I e-mailed the author and told him he was an idiot. It’s pretty close to the most ludicrous explanation one could imagine for the Sub-Prime Mortgage fiasco. To call it “nonsense” insults ideas and theories that are truly worthless but at least have a tiny scintilla of logic, however flawed or poorly thought through, at their base.
Tim C
What I cannot understand is the universally poor reporting of this issue. Even NPR all week has been talking about how FISA will expire on Friday if the Congress doesn’t renew these provisions, when in fact, FISA continues whether or not the Congress takes any action. The provisions that are expiring are FISA-like, but they are not FISA.