 |
|
Add to My Group
|
February 24, 2008 at 10:32:31
by Richard Clark Page 1 of 1 page(s) 
|
|
 
|
This report is based on an article by Glenn Greenwald that can be found at: www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/12/amnesty_day/index.html Our U.S. Senate -- led by Jay Rockefeller, enabled by Harry Reid, and with the active support of at least 12 Democrats, in conjunction with an as-always lockstep GOP caucus -- voted to legalize warrantless spying on the telephone calls and emails of Americans. It also provided full retroactive amnesty to lawbreaking telecoms, thus forever putting an end to any efforts to investigate and obtain a judicial ruling regarding the Bush administration's years-long illegal spying programs aimed at Americans. The long, hard efforts by AT&T, Verizon and their all-star, bipartisan cast of lobbyists to grease the wheels of the Senate -- led by former Bush 41 Attorney General William Barr and former Clinton Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick -- will pay huge dividends, as such efforts invariably do within our current political-economic establishment. It's worth taking a step back and recalling that all of this is the result of the December, 2005 story by the New York Times which first reported that the Bush administration had been illegally spying on Americans for years without warrants of any kind. All sorts of "controversy" erupted from that story. Democrats everywhere expressed dramatic, unbridled outrage, vowing that this would not stand. James Risen and Eric Lichtblau were awarded Pulitzer Prizes for exposing this serious lawbreaking. All sorts of Committees were formed, papers written, speeches given, conferences convened, and editorials published to denounce this extreme abuse of presidential power. This was illegality and corruption at the highest level of government, on the grandest scale, and of the most transparent strain. And what was the outcome of all of that sturm und drang? What were the consequences for the President for having broken the law so deliberately and transparently? Absolutely nothing. To the contrary, the Senate enacted a bill which has two simple purposes: 
(1) to render retroactively legal the President's illegal spying program, by legalizing its crux: warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, and
(2) to stifle forever the sole remaining avenue for finding out what the Government did and obtain a judicial ruling as to its legality, i.e. our Senate stifled the lawsuits brought against the co-conspiring telecoms so as to cover up the crimes of the Bush Administration.
In other words, the only steps taken by our political class (upon exposure by the NYT of this profound lawbreaking) was to essentially endorse it and then suppress any and all efforts to investigate it and subject it to the rule of law.
The most extraordinary aspect of all of this isn't merely that the Democratic Senate failed to investigate or bring about accountability for the clearest and more brazen acts of lawbreaking in the Bush administration, although that is true. Far beyond that, they are eagerly and aggressively taking affirmative steps -- extraordinary steps -- to protect Bush officials who have clearly broken the law! While still knowing little or nothing about the extent to which Bushco might have broken the law, our Senate has legalized Bush's illegal spying programs and put an end to all pending investigations and efforts to uncover what happened.
How far we've fallen from the days of the Church Committee, which aggressively uncovered surveillance abuses and then drafted legislation to outlaw them and prevent them from ever occurring again. And it is, of course, precisely those post-Watergate laws which the Bush administration and their telecom conspirators purposely violated, and for which they are about to receive permanent, lawless protection.
What Harry Reid's Senate did is tantamount to the Church Committee (after discovering the decades of abuses of eavesdropping powers by various administrations) proceeding in response to write legislation to legalize unchecked surveillance, bar any subjects of the illegal eavesdropping from obtaining remedies in court, and then passing a bill with no purpose other than to provide retroactive immunity for the surveillance lawbreakers! That is precisely what Harry Reid's Senate -- in response to the NYT's 2005 revelations of clear surveillance lawbreaking by the administration -- has done.
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
No immunity for telecom companies
Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=JCpLDBUAAAC
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 |
|
|
|
|
| 5 comments |
|
Background info and further commentary
The Senate passed a version of the FISA law that granted the telecom companies immunity for allegedly breaking the law whenever it gave private data to the White House without a court warrant. The bill then went to the House, which essentially said “we're not just going to pass this blindly.” That version of the law then expired, which triggered a reversion to the previous version of the FISA law, which continued to enable the White House to monitor all communications -- as long as they obtained warrants from the FISA court, if only retroactively. However, the White House then tried to threaten the House, saying that the lives of countless Americans would be at risk unless the new version of the law was passed (a version that included the granting of immunity to the telecoms). If the House doesn't approve this bill as is, and thereby give telecommunications companies immunity, and do so right away, American lives will be in danger, said Bush. The House Democrats then voted overwhelmingly to extend the current law, that George Bush said is so necessary to protect us, by another 15 days, but in a form that did not include telecom immunity. Bush then replied that he would veto that version of the bill and that it was unacceptable because telecom immunity was not included in the bill. Essentially, Bush was saying that the only way he will allow Americans to be safe from a terrorist attack is if telecom companies are immediately provided with immunity (so that they are free, and will continue to be free, to continue breaking the law). Bush's claim that this is about protecting America therefore becomes preposterous, for his main concern is obviously about getting telecom immunity. So, why does Bush want the telecom companies to have immunity so badly? Most probably it is because he is afraid that any investigation into what the telecom companies did . . might very well reveal whose telephone and email records were being singled out, and for what reasons they were being listened to and read. In other words, it might very well be revealed that the Bush administration had particular interest in what various Democratic senators and congressmen were saying in their private phone calls and e-mails. The House leadership, like the Senate leadership, essentially said “we're happy to give you a continuation of the Protect America act, but without telecom immunity.” And the Republican leadership and the White House replied, no, we won't take it, we don't want it. And that made it very clear that this was really all about one thing, which was immunity for the telecoms. It was also essentially a recognition that the telecoms violated criminal statutes by colluding with the Bush administration in allowing warrantless searches of telephone conversations and Internet communications, and the White House was offering to the keep them from having to face a number of private civil suits. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 24, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM  (0+)
|
|
The Senate
I think the senate's logic goes something like this "We won't make an issue about any of the slightly creative things you may have done in the past and you don't touch any of those nice shiny buttons, OK". by kwalsh (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 275 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Feb 24, 2008 at 7:57:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Congress is part of the State, and the State is...the enemy.
Americans need to understand that neither the Senate nor the House is representing the American people. Congress is part of the organized crime synidate that has been running the U S Gov't for the past 100 years or so. So stop being disappointed when Congress passes legislation detrimental to our rights. It's what they...do... by Mark Watterson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 207 comments [133 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:06:13 AM (0+)
|
|
Accomplishments of the US Congress
While the measure passed by the Senate would provide retroactive lawsuit immunity to firms which cooperated with warrantless wiretaps, the House of Representatives opposed it. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022408Z.shtml Someone just said that the U.S. Congress accomplished nothing to benefit most people over the last century? It certainly accomplished quite a bit during Roosevelt's time. It also got voting rights for blacks and equal rights for women. Plus it made inroads on poverty during Johnson's reign. I'm sure that a good historian could go on for quite awhile listing all its accomplishments for Americans as a whole, over the past century. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:29:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Who is Bushco most likely eavesdropping on?
What thinking person can muster much doubt that Bushco is listening not just for terrorist chatter, but to anyone they want—political enemies, reporters, chicks they’re into—whomever. by Richard Clark (30 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 101 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 29, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM (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 |
