Today's proposal is further evidence that House Democrats are not only out of touch with the needs of the American people, but also with Senate Democrats, the White House and our intelligence community," he said in a written statement. "Their careless disregard for the concerns of our intelligence community simply proves the point that Democrats are weak on national security.
I can't say for certain that Smith believes the House Democrats are "weak on national security" just because they refuse to give blanket retroactive immunity for a few huge corporations. I do know, however, that Smith is pretty much echoing the Bush administration's opinion on the matter.
My first reaction to Bush's insistence on providing immunity was that he wanted to protect the telecom companies because they give a lot of money to the Republican party. But then I started thinking. (Dangerous, I know.) If these companies are found liable in civil cases, that may be enough to implicate Bush, whose orders they were following. Whether there would ever be legal action against Bush as a result, I can't see that being a risk that he would take. We've already seen him manipulate the system to protect himself in the Valerie Plame case, where he commuted Libby's sentence in order to prevent the convicted man from having to testify further.
But that's not what I was talking about when I mentioned the conservative media's whitewash. According to the same CNN story, the Senate version of the FISA bill "would give telecommunications companies legal immunity for agreeing to participate in the program after the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
I've noticed that it has become an accepted fact in the conservative media that Bush's illegal domestic wiretapping program started after 9/11. There is evidence, though, that the program began well in advance of Bush's so-called War On Terror. In fact, according to Wired Blog, one of the pending lawsuits claims:
The NSA program was initially conceived at least one year prior to 2001 but had been called off; it was reinstated within 11 days of the entry into office of defendant George W. Bush.
An ATT Solutions logbook reviewed by counsel confirms the Pioneer-Groundbreaker project start date of February 1, 2001.
And:
According to court documents unveiled this week, former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio clearly wanted to argue in court that the NSA retaliated against his company after he turned down a NSA request on February 27, 2001 that he thought was illegal.
So it starts to become clear why the Bush administration is so adamant about providing retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. If these, and other, suits are allowed to go forward, the most damning allegation against Bush may be proven; that he was illegally spying on Americans long before 9/11.
3 comments:
YAYYY a post I thought you were trapped under a pile of paper somewhere!! I really have no comment on this post other than where exactly do democrats stand on security?? It does appear soft and why shouldn't we listen to the phone calls of terrorists talking to terrorists?? and what does Bush gain and do you really think he gets off on spying on Americans, if so what does he gain???...be soft. :)N
It might be true Bush has personal motives as most politicians do. However, it seems a noble cause to listen in when a terrorist is talking on the phone. It is legal, however, and even Clinton and Carter used and defended similar programs (or were they simply being political too?)
The main reason, I think, that Bush wants to grant immunity is if he doesn't, then there would be no incentive for those companies to cooperate in the governments efforts to listen to terrorists ans stop their terrorist plots.
Likewise, this program has been very successful in stopping terrorists attacks on us, so why would anyone want to stop it?
That's my thinking on this topic, for what it's worth. Good thought provoking post.
Freadom,
The main problem with Bush's actions are that they were illegal. Salon.com has a nice article about it here. The gist of it is this:
"The president acted unnecessarily and, more significantly, in direct violation of a criminal law."
If you have evidence that Clinton or Carter ever broke the law while spying on American citizens, I'd like to see it.
You say, "this program has been very successful in stopping terrorists attacks on us..."
If Bush's spying program began when it is alleged to have, I'd have to say it did a pretty crappy job of preventing terrorist attacks on us.
And if we're going to give up all of the liberties that make this such a great and free nation, then what, exactly, are we fighting to protect?
Post a Comment