::::::::
In his article in the New York Times, John Ashcroft blathers on and on, trying to spin George Bush's illegal spying on US citizens and trying to justify granting immunity to Bush's co-conspirators in crime. He's trying to prevent the lawsuits against the carriers (telecoms) for illegal spying.
The reason Ashcroft is trying to prevent lawsuits against the telecoms for illegal spying is that if the telecoms go down, the people who told them to do it are complicit in the crime and just as guilty. That's George Bush, his administration and John Ashcroft. He's trying to cover his ass.
Ashcroft writes that the Senate bill would confer immunity, "if the carrier did do what the plaintiffs claim but based on explicit assurances from the highest levels of the government that the activities in question were authorized by the president and determined to be lawful."
The logical contradiction that Ashcroft makes here is that the carriers (telecom companies) knew full well that explicit assurances from the highest levels of the Bush administration are worthless. We had explicit assurances that Iraq had WMD, that Iraq was in possession of a nuclear bomb, that there were terrorists headquarters in Iraq, that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. None of those assurances were true. George Bush has a solid, unbroken record of never having said anthing that was true, about Iraq or anything else. How many times must Bush have to get caught in his lies before no one believes him?
The legal contradiction that Ashcroft makes here comes from Article 8 of the Nuremberg Conventions:
"The fact that the defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or a superior shall not free him from responsibility."
This means that if George Bush tells you to do something and that it's legal, you'd better look it up to see if it's legal, which it won't be. And, if you do it anyway, you're guilty of committing a crime, no matter who told you to do it.
Ashcroft goes on, in further defiance of the law: "Longstanding principles of law hold that an American corporation is entitled to rely on assurances of legality from officials responsible for government activities. The public officials in question might be right or wrong about the advisability or legality of what they are doing, but it is their responsibility, not the company's, to deal with the consequences if they are wrong."
Actually, long standing principles of law say exactly the opposite. In fact, a bunch of criminals were hung at Nuremberg for doing exactly what Ashcroft is recommending that the telecoms do. Doing what their government told them to do, even though it was obviously illegal.
Ashcroft asks: "By what principle of justice should anyone face potentially ruinous liability for cooperating with intelligence activities that are authorized by the president and whose legality has been reviewed and approved by our most senior legal officials?"
That principle of justice is Article 8 of the Nuremberg Conventions. Given George Bush's record of serial lying, the telecoms knew that if Bush and his senior legal officials approved of it, it was illegal.
Ashcroft, again, in defiance of logic: "As a practical matter, in circumstances involving classified intelligence activities, a corporation will typically not know enough about the underlying circumstances and operations to make informed judgments about legality."
The telecoms have the obligation to do due diligence, to know what the law is before spying on US citizens. The underlying circumstances here was that it was illegal.
It took me less than three minutes to look up the following:
U.S. Code, Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, Section 1809:
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally-
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
The statute goes on to say that the only defense to the above crimes is that the defendant had a court order or a warrant to conduct the spying. Bush and the telecoms had neither.
Ashcroft is trying to tell us that the large, well funded telecoms with lawyers on staff don't have the ability to make informed judgments about legality by merely looking up the law on the matter, as I, a private individual, was able to do.
I know for a fact that this law has been in effect since 1978, and I know for a fact that George Bush, John Ashcroft and the telecoms knew that it was in effect, and I know for a fact that George Bush, John Ashcroft and the telecoms are lying about it when they deny the existence of the law prohibiting what they have done.
Since we don't have a anyone of the stature, integrity and wisdom of Justice Robert Jackson, the US prosecutor at Nuremberg, I must abandon hope that they'll be hung for their crimes. About the best we can hope for is they'll get off with LWP, life without parole.
I know, you're thinking that's cynical. You bet it is. We need a lot more cynicism. No one naturally becomes cynical. Cynicism is imposed, it's the result of normal, honest people being screwed over too many times. We're justified at looking at everything the Republicans, George Bush and his administration do with absolute, total cynicism. The more the better. We're also in short supply on intolerance. We need more intolerance, of Republicans, of George Bush and his administration, The justification for intolerance is that what George Bush has done is intolerable. QED. We need more partisanship. The trouble our country is in right now is because of bi-partisanship, Democrats going along with Republicans. The best example of the disaster caused by bi-partisanship is the Iraq war and its continued funding by Democrats. The Democrats went along with the Republicans in 2003 and look what it got us. We gotta stop doing that. No more Republican anything.
The lesson we've learned is that you never believe anything George Bush and his Republicans say, you always figure, cynically, that they're doing it for selfish, dishonest reasons. And, you'll be right. You refuse to tolerate what they're doing for the same reason. And, in total partisanship, you never, ever cooperate with Bush and his Republicans on anything. As we know, if you do, you're going to get screwed over. Go read Ashcroft's self-serving article for proof.
You hear that noise? That's Republicans scraping the bottom of the barrel for another Republican ideologue to continue George Bush's destruction of our country. We can't have that. Remember, practice your cynicism, your intolerance and your partisanship. They're not natural, but just think about George Bush for a minute, and it'll come to you. They're the best weapons we have to end this disaster.
