 |
|
Add to My Group
|
July 7, 2008 at 15:42:25
Promoted to Headline (H3) on 7/7/08: by Dave Johnson Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
In the LA Times today, A Good-Enough Spy Law says, No, it started a few weeks after Bush took office -- a time when the Bush administration was ignoring the terrorist threat. So it was about something else, and was a high enough priority to plan out during the transition. (Can you say "political spying?") One telecom company, Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges. The combination of the telecoms letting Bush illegally spy on us BEFORE September 11, and the politicized Bush Justice Department punishing the company that refused -- refused because it was illegal -- is the reason so many of us are so adamant that Democrats should not be passing a law giving these companies immunity. The president can't spy on people without warrants, and the telecoms knew that. They knew it was illegal to spy on us without warrants but they went along with it. Why? Why didn't they ask the Bush administration to just get warrants? And why would Democrats vote to let them off the hook?
In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the White House directed telecommunications carriers to cooperate with its efforts to bolster intelligence gathering and surveillance -- the administration's effort to do a better job of "connecting the dots" to prevent terrorist attacks.
Don't forget that Watergate was about Republicans illegally wiretapping Democrats. Don 't think they don't do it.
[article cross-posted from Huffington Post]
http://seeingtheforest.com
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
| 4 comments |
|
Need to Fix the Root Problem
"Qwest, refused because it was flat-out illegal. The Bush administration punished them, blocked federal contracts, and in an early indicator of what was to come from the politicized Bush Justice Department, they prosecuted Qwest's CEO on trumped-up charges." Why is everyone concerned with punishing telecoms that did not want to end up like Quest? Why are people not calling for accountability by the Bush administration - impeachment? Email From Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) March 13th, 2008. What McCaskill says is logical, fair, and provides the needed solution. The email was before the last vote. McCaskill is a national co-chair for Obama's campaign. It is also the solution that Senator Obama recently said after being hit by his supporter, he plans to work for the real solution when he is President. We have to get him elected first. Please give him a break. http://www.joeandmotorboat.com/2008/03/13/my-email-from-claire-mccaskill "I just don’t think we should punish these companies for their good-faith reliance on government assurances that they were assisting in a legal effort to combat terrorism. If the government violated our surveillance laws by eavesdropping without the necessary warrants, then it is the Administration – not the telecoms – that needs to be held accountable. That’s why I supported Senator Specter’s (R-PA) amendment, which would have substituted the federal government in place of telecoms as the defendant in lawsuits, allowing existing legal actions to move forward in an appropriate manner. While this measure was rejected, the underlying legislation would still allow citizens to sue the government for past violations and telecoms for future violations of the new law. As your United States Senator, I remain determined to get to the bottom of any government misconduct." by Julie Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 12:32:50 AM  (0+)
|
|
Congress is criminal
This is just another of many examples that have been raping my Contitution for the last few years. This retroactive immunity for telecoms that have spied on us all illegally is just making something legal that is a crime. Does it get more criminal than legalizing crime? Just a couple more months and we can finally make some congressional heads roll. Then lets have them formally charged for thier crimes and prosecuted to the full extend of the laws they still haven't legalized. Let's throw Bush on the pile of convictions after all this too. It's not over when Bush leaves. We still need to hunt him down and have him and everyone who helped his crimes thrown in prison. Then there might finally be some American justice. by Davol (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jul 8, 2008 at 4:07:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Aye Aye Aye
Give it a break. Peopel are taking this terrorist nonsense WAY too seriously! by John Thomas (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 7:55:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Incorrect
Are you kidding me? I personally watched as Nachio drained Qwest and destroyed their stock. I was forced to watch him take my wife's retirement and drive it into the ground. People that worked for Qwest (US WEST) for 30+ years, and they lost EVERYTYHING!!! HOW DARE YOU write this mis-information! People lost their entire futures because of that man! He was GUILTY! Here is the TRUTH! READ IT! Don't get mis-informed! Whoever wrote this article should be ashamed! He ruined peoples lives... He cost my family dearly! Shame on you for what you are trying to do here. There should be some responsiblity on your behalf in writing such garbage! Washington, D.C., March 15, 2005 - The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Joseph P. Nacchio, former co-chairman and chief executive officer of Qwest Communications International Inc., and eight other former Qwest officers and employees with fraud and other violations of the federal securities laws. In three separate but related civil actions, the Commission alleges that, between 1999 and 2002, the Qwest defendants engaged in a multi-faceted fraudulent scheme designed to mislead the investing public about the company's revenue and growth. by Scott Holland (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008 at 8:12:21 AM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
