WE Blog

“Our government told them that their participation was necessary – and it was, and it still is — and that what we had asked them to do was legal.”

So why do we need to grant immunity for legal actions. Could it be someone is telling a whopper? Nah, that would never happen.

“But the potential consequences of inaction are scary.”

If the above statement is true, then how can Bush be accused of using scare tactics?

Reality is cold, stark and hard to swallow. Knowing there are dangerous people in the world that wish to do harm to the United States and its citizens is nothing new.

Putting one’s head in the sand and pretend it will go away is reckless and abandons common sense.

Will be interesting to see if Obama has a comment on this issue.

Again, it must be difficult for democrats to cry out against the war on terror - and yet keep supporting it.

Some of you will be shocked when the democrats vote to put America’s safety first and support this bill.

To help you out, the democrats will make it appear they were brought kickings and screaming to vote yes. We will hear speeches against republicans and the attack on our privacy. We will hear that this bill is not necessary.

But in the end, congress knows we must protect America. They will relent and vote yes.

Perhaps one of the anti-American conservatives here can explain how not being allowed to sue telecom companies is going to prevent a terrorist attack? When the Bush regime was illegally wiretapping phones before 9/11 it didn’t prevent an attack, but I guess we were able to sue telecom companies back then.

“The administration may be using some “overheated rhetoric” to obscure the facts and “scare tactics” to try to get its way…

But the potential consequences of inaction are scary.”

Can you say hook, line, and sinker Rhonda.

“The people who put this idiot in charge should be the ones to pay for his abuses.”

Do you mean the democrat congress?

Ralph Nader says that the kill ratio between Israelis and Palestinians is three hundred to one.

Now: Guess who the “terrorist” really might be?

But they keep telling that they are the victims and the media won’t discuss it { not allowed }.

You mean Ralph Nader?

If the telecoms did not break the law, then they don’t need immunity. If they did break the law, then it means that the Bush administration also broke the law by making an unlawful request to them. This is the real reason Bush is crying for immunity.
Rhonda states that “Bush makes a strong argument…” Are you kidding me? His argument is pathetic and makes no sense. Bush said “Our government told them (the telecoms) that what we asked them to do was legal.” So now they need immunity for doing something that was legal?
And Dana Perino’s comments at the WH press briefing yesterday were equally pathetic. She first stated that “Nobody broke the law.” Then later she said “I’m not a lawyer”, and couldn’t answer specific questions because it’s a complex issue. But somehow she was able to deliver the blanket judgement that nobody broke the law, even though there has been no investigation, and then claim they need immunity for not breaking the law. Wow!
Bush knows that this is his last chance to stop any investigation into possible lawbreaking by his administration concerning the warrantless wiretap issue. Rhonda, the priority here should be safeguarding the nation without violating our Constitution.

Now a “request” from the Federal Government is the same as a mandate from the Government in one respect.
Failure to comply may give you the same results, they will make your life a living hell.
The difference in this case if the FBI had came to them with a court order as they should have it would have covered the telecom from liability. But by passing the court it put the telecom end hanging in the wind.
Of course the problem the FBI had was they had no proof of anything to take to a court. So by requesting the spying instead of court ordering it. It allowed them open access and no restrictions to all communications. This might be understandable in the days following 9-11 since we did not know who, or how many maybe in the U.S.

But now seven years later, yet that is the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room and the real reason for the argument. The immunity is just to CYA for passed sins, as was pointed out up thread the were wiretapping without restrictions which violates several laws and the fourth and fifth Amendments to the Constitution.
The Administration knows that if the telecoms are forced to talk about it they will admit to having violated the law at the directive of the Government.

Back to the eight hundred pound gorilla, the Administration is still wanting to have the ability to do all encompassing spying within the U.S. The argument for it are as flimsies as water toilet paper, “If one terrorist calls from one foreign country to another terrorist in another foreign country and the call is routed through the United States. We have to be able to listen in without restrictions like a court order. Therefore we need to be able to listen in on all calls within the U.S.”. So why not simply write it into the law that if that is the case. Then it is exempt from FISA? They point to the U.S. Soldiers that were kidnapped in Iraq and only one’s fate is known. That when spying on communication started passing through the U.S. they had to stop. NOW if that was the case and the lack of detail information leads me to suspect the truth of the argument. The call was within Iraq, it was not through a international call from one country to another.
The outcome of the spying would have been within Iraq not the U.S. and besides remember that FISA allows for unwarranted spying within the U.S. for three days. There would have been no interruptions of the spying and certainly there is no judge that would have refuse a court order based on the circumstances.

Now lately it has gotten pretty desperate, the other night I watched one Congressman pointing to a incident before 9-11 when a FBI agent sent a memo to higher ups about him noticing what turn out later to be two of the hijackers. Taking flying lessons and should be watched and investigated, Which it turns out was ignored by his higher ups. But the Congressman tried to tie it into the Domestic spying as if it was the inability to openly wiretap within the U.S that caused it! Than there was Jeff Sessions this evening, well his ludicrous arguments were just too numerous to mention! It got to the point where I finally just shut the TV. off before he blamed the expiration of the law for starting the Civil War! The only thing that stopped with the expiration was the ability of the Government to spy on every American rather then just the Terrorists.

“Yeah Doug, let’s sue them…
Then when the Telecomm’s jack up your bill to cover the costs you can enjoy your hollow victory over the “anti-American” conservatives.”

So you’re saying they should be rewarded for violating the law?

Still recovering from a nasty virus (it’s killed 10 people locally in Tucson), but hey, k, is that you? The same ‘k’ from way back? The physicist?

Welcome, if you’re new, welcome back if yer not!

If what the telecoms did was LEGAL than why are they being SUED? The fact is that they allowed wiretaps without warrants and they know such things are highly illegal. We have a court called FISA which is set up do the government can obey the law and get warrants to tap the phones of American citizens. In fact they can order a tap and have 72 hours to get a warrant AFTER they do it! But Bush never sees the need to follow tha law. He thinks he should be able to tap any phone at anytime he pleases. The Congress is doing the right thing by standing up to Bush and saying NO to this.

Hey Rage! Ya missed the John Prine fest yesterday!

Rage, so what’s your point?

Hey Rage, same k from way back. I have been really busy with work and a little one that I haven’t had much chance to do anything. But playing my boy most definately makes up for it. I have recently been able to hit some blogs and this is a favorite topic of mine and I thought I would spit some of my venom. Nice to see a familiar name, I don’t recognize many on WEBlog anymore.

Has anyone heard the telecoms threaten to stop the wiretapping because the government did pay them? That’s great, they don’t give a rats ass about the Constitution unless they aren’t getting their payoff.

Rage, That was tongue in cheek, as you covered every possible point about Alfred E. Newman listening in on the “no” “no” phone and well done.

The problem is: If it doesn’t come out of “My Pet Goat” he doesn’t understand it.