Why Do You Need Immunity If You Haven't Broken the Law?

Email Print posted by Cenk 10/13/2007 04:33:31 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
The Bush administration is desperately trying to get immunity for the telecom companies inserted into the next wiretapping bill. But let me ask a simple question - why would the telecom companies need immunity if they didn't break the law?

I'm not trying to be clever here. I'm asking a literal question. Isn't this an obvious admission that the administration did ask the large telecommunication companies to break the law for them? And if they did, why on God's green earth should we give them immunity without investigating what they did? In fact, shouldn't somebody be looking into doing the opposite - enforcing the law?

Has enforcing US law become so quaint and obsolete that when someone pretty much admits they broke the law and asks in essence for a preemptive pardon, no one looks into it? Do we have a Justice Department anymore? Isn't it comical that these guys ran on the "rule of law" and restoring dignity back into the White House?

Here's another ironic twist. We are all supposed to go along with warrantless wiretapping because "you don't have anything to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong." If I had a nickel for every time a conservative said that to me, I'd have at least $37.50. So, let me throw it back at them: If the telecom companies didn't do anything wrong, they don't have anything to worry about. Right? So, why would they need immunity from US law?

And, of course, in yet another ironic twist, it turns out the only person prosecuted so far is the one man who did not go along with the illegal wiretapping program, Joe Nacchio, the CEO of Qwest. He thought the program was inappropriate and illegal.

So, what did he get for trying to protect his customers? The government took away hundreds of million of dollars in federal contracts and then prosecuted him for relying on those contracts they had promised. This is a sick world where justice is turned on its head. Is anyone going to do anything about this?

So, now we come to the familiar territory where we discuss what the Democrats might do. I'll skip the usual rant on how little they have done so far to stand up for law and order and get to what's next.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) have both said they won't even consider giving immunity unless they see what it is they would be giving immunity for. This seems like the bare, bare minimum, but it's a very good first step. Credit where credit is due. They're doing the right thing here. Who in their right mind would give blanket immunity when they have no idea what they are giving immunity for or what purpose it would serve?

Second, how about we don't give immunity for breaking the law? How about we prosecute it instead?

There were top level people inside the Justice Department and the CIA who quit over how illegal the warrantless wiretapping, the torture memos and the detainee detention programs were and are. They are all described as hardliners or conservative stalwarts. How about we ask these people why they think these programs are so illegal? How about we listen to them and change the programs back so that they are legal again instead of encouraging further law breaking? I know, very radical.

President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that doesn't have an immunity clause. I'm sorry I couldn't hear you, Mr. 29%. Why would anyone listen to the most unpopular president of all time?

If he vetoes the bill, we go back to the old FISA law and he is responsible for not fixing the foreign-to-foreign loophole which the Democrats are more than happy to fix. I'm going to ask the Democrats for once to put the blame where it belongs - on the president - rather than take it on themselves for no reason.

Send him a bill that fixes the real problem and if he vetoes it, then say he is endangering national security, which he would be. And God forbid, if anything were to happen between the time he vetoed the bill and the time he accepts the new law, it's on his head. Is he willing to take that kind of gamble with the American people's security?

Watch Young Turks Videos Here

< Reaganomics Finally Trickles Down To Area Man | I Heart Lynne Cheney! (Stewart Sux) >
 Display:
Why Do You Need Immunity If You Haven't Broken the Law? | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Brady (none / 0)
Brady is now on pace to shatter Payton Manning's single season quarterback rating and his single season TD record. Right now if the pace countinues he will have 60 touchdowns this year. He has two interceptions so he should end up with 6-7 interceptions though.

by acroso on 10/14/2007 07:44:59 PM EST

bah (none / 0)
Freakin' Cheatriots.

I just wish Eli would start living up to the hype.

by jarett on 10/15/2007 05:41:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Brady (none / 0)
Brady is easy to like jsut like Farve is. I enjoyed watching T.O. get beat.

by acroso on 10/15/2007 04:43:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 0)

They did break the law.  The Bush administration will go down as the worst ever.  I pray every night that a democrat is elected in '08.

 for political commentary, visit:

http://www.politidose.com/

by josephpatrick on 10/14/2007 10:13:01 PM EST

If I haven't done anything wrong,... (none / 0)
then why are you watching me?

by etheberge on 10/14/2007 11:15:14 PM EST

Oh and for the technically inclined... (none / 0)

Here is a great link to technical details about the kind of setup the telcos have to feed all the traffic to the NSA.

This info comes from Mark Klein, a whistleblower from AT&T and a key witness in the EFF's lawsuit against AT&T.

http://www.wired.com/scienc e/discoveries/news/2006/05/ 70908 

http://blog.wired.com/27bst roke6/2007/06/att_spy_room_ do.html

That last article even has link to network diagrams and such. 

by etheberge on 10/14/2007 11:24:20 PM EST

History for Cenk. (none / 1)
I think the part you’re forgetting about is that we are currently a nation at war. That changes the rules regarding the government’s authority to intercept enemy communications.

Alberto Gonzales called Bush's program part of "a long tradition of wartime enemy surveillance -- a tradition that can be traced to George Washington, who made frequent and effective use of secret intelligence, including the interception of mail between the British and Americans.''

"And for as long as electronic communications have existed, the United States has conducted surveillance of those communications during wartime -- all without judicial warrant. In the Civil War, for example, telegraph wiretapping was common, and provided important intelligence for both sides. In World War I, President Wilson ordered the interception of all cable communications between the United States and Europe.

"The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt authorized the interception of all communications traffic into and out of the United States,'' Gonzales added.

by KenTX on 10/15/2007 12:07:23 AM EST

Well (none / 0)

Has there been a formal declaration of war? There may have been but I don't remember it.

And yes, we make legal mistakes as a country, we fix them, then we move on. We should not look back to Lincoln's days.

Oh that goddammed piece of paper. 

by z1p101 on 10/15/2007 12:22:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
reality check (none / 1)
“Has there been a formal declaration of war? There may have been but I don't remember it.”
Actually, there were two Congressional Resolutions that handed war powers to the President.
This is what Congressional Democrats understand that you and Cenk seem to be having problems getting your brains around. They see the chessboard 12 moves in advance, and they know how this story ends. Now, try to follow this concept:

During time of war, the president has the authority to eavesdrop on enemy communication without a warrant.

So who you gonna investigate? Who you gonna sue? Who you gonna prosecute?

Congressional Democrats understand these facts of life, and they know that fighting the Administration on this issue in an inherent loser.

This is why the don’t end the war or end the warrantless wiretaps or end the Gitmo detentions or end whatever it is that’s bugging you. Because with respect to the war against al Qaeda, the President is right, and the nutroots are wrong.

by KenTX on 10/15/2007 01:03:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
War powers (none / 1)

and a formal deceleration of war are two different things.

Don't take my word for it, ask your own congressman. 

by z1p101 on 10/15/2007 01:21:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You know what (none / 0)

Usually it is so easy to pick apart Ken's posts I just jump at the first one I see. Many times I miss the little jewels in them. So I read this again and found another.

"This is what Congressional Democrats understand that you and Cenk seem to be having problems getting your brains around. They see the chessboard 12 moves in advance, and they know how this story ends. Now, try to follow this concept:

During time of war, the president has the authority to eavesdrop on enemy communication without a warrant."
 
What the congressional democrats understand is that they do not have to do anything. They do not have to give the Republicans any ammo at all. Bush is doing all the work for them.
 
Now I can think of a good piece of the Republican base who would be apposed to wiretapping American citizens without a warrant and are now shopping for a new party. They would be known as Goldwater Conservatives. They think a lot like Libertarians. You know those people who's favorite politician of all time is Barry Goldwater.
 

by z1p101 on 10/15/2007 03:27:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Why Do You Need Immunity If You Haven't Broken the Law? | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: