An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
What the Heck Are These Guys Talking About?
President Bush claimed today that the failure of House Democrats to approve an extension of a controversial domestic surveillance wiretapping program means “our country is more in danger of an attack.” Vice President Cheney said he also is very concerned.
Since Bush’s unprecedented powers as president are not compromised, Cheney is above any law and Republicans could have voted an extension of the wiretap law beyond its already extended February 16 expiration date before they toodled off for a 12-day recess, how can the U.S. be more in danger? Please be specific.
14 Responses to “What the Heck Are These Guys Talking About?”
Simple. It isn't just the telecoms who face legal liability, but should they be granted immunity, neither they, nor the administration officials who asked for the data will likely face consequences.
And should the administration face liability, there's no telling what they might do to avoid it. And their actions may well put the country in great jeopardy .
Davebo:
Ah-so. The real danger is not from the global Islamic jihad but from litigious plaintiffs' lawyers. Is this what Shakespeare meant when he wrote, “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers”?
Translation, I don't know what I'm doing with terrorists, but I'm pretty sure I need the authority to do whatever I want when I want. Why do only 29% of freedom loving americans get that?
I hope the msm doesn't take his statement at face value. The sunset provisions in the current functioning FISA statutes enable intelligence gathering to continue for up to a year. Its only the disasterous PAA that is expiring.
Bush is more concerned with protecting the telcos than he is with protecting the American people.
I wrote an extensive post about this issue today. I quoted Glenn Greenwald at the beginning of my post because I thought he summed it all up best when he said: “Who would have guessed that after 235 years, the fate of America, its ability to survive as a Nation, would depend on giving license to AT&T and Verizon to break the law without being sued by their customers in court?”
The audacity necessary for the President to say we'll die unless we give telecoms a free ride is just staggering. Listening to Bush talk makes me ashamed to be an American.
Please be specific. OK.
Lets say a faction of al Queda split off from the existing organization and formed a new group by another name. There are loopholes in the existing FISA legislation regarding conversations passing through US switches that prevents the government from monitoring these conversations. The extensions of the PAA do not provide for the monitoring of any new terrorist organizations. Therefore, a group that splintered from the existing al Queda organization that calls itself by another name can operate with impunity because the existing extensions and statutes prevent the government from monitoring their communications.
By the way, what extension could house Republicans have voted on? I do not believe that the matter was brought to the floor. Please point out which piece of legislation the minority Republicans could have voted on to extend the expiring PAA.
PWT,
And everyone agrees, Republicans and Democrats alike, that the law should be amended to cover those cases. Bush is trying to force Congress to pass immunity for telecoms at the same time, and by his reckoning, putting us at risk because he doesn't want AT&T and Verizon to be held liable in court.
Bush is the one creating the crisis, he's the one putting the phone companies ahead of the American people.
I don't know PWT. That's actually a pretty vague reference to FISA loopholes that you say will render the government's surveillance impotent. Can you be more specific as to what loopholes in FISA are going to prevent the government from monitoring conversations under your proposed hypothetical?
In addition, even if I were to agree that the PAA was a vital component in the continued safety of our citizenry, why would Bush threaten to veto any version that DIDN'T include immunity for the telco's? If the primary focus of President Bush is to save American lives, why is he making telco immunity a required component? The entire reason this isn't passing through the House is that Democrats don't believe the telco's should receive immunity protections. Other than that, they'll give President Bush every other provision he is requesting. In other words, why is President Bush putting the telco's ahead of the safety of the US citizenry?
Darn, looks like Chris beat me to the same point I made…
Olberman had a “special comment” on the subject yesterday, which was absolutely accurate (if as usual, angry). Of course, sometimes anger is the proper response of those who care.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qorev98Io7Y
Reality check: this whole FISA nonsense is about legal ass protecting. Gov't spying on citizens was never discontinued on the death of J. Edgar Hoover, and the only reason it was made an issue after 9/11 was because the Prez wanted to show he was doing something. Now, he's trying to save it so his dick doesn't look like it was chopped off. But, one way or the other, the gov't will listen in on what it wants. I know, I worked 5 1/2 years in telecom.
I have a man-crush on Olbermann after that clip.
Sorta off topic, but looking at Bush and Cheney, did anyone else notice that they've folded their hands identically? I tried reproducing that pose and it was awkward. Is it a secret signal to ??? Like a secret flipping the bird. It certainly matches the puckered up faces. Maybe they were watching Olbermann.
jackie2p oh my God, you're right! And oh my God I've done it before! And I did it because I was ready to wring someone's neck for being difficult and stupid. Instead I nearly broke my fingers.