Tags for This Article:

Corruption (1565)  Surveillance (312)  Immunity (148)  Domestic Spying (128)  Federal Agency NSA (85)  Telecom Immunity (75)  Corporations- Telecoms (69)  Eavesdropping (29)  Senate Coverups (29)  Senate Crime (19) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
February 24, 2008 at 10:32:31

Our Senate has betrayed us

by Richard Clark     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com


Tell A Friend

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

Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writing about that which interests me most.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Spurl      Tag!RawSugar      Shadows Tag!      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
5 comments

Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

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 (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Sunday, February 24, 2008 at 11:19:01 AM
 


Concerned American Citizen
Mark WattersonConcerned American Citizen

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, 64 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 11:06:13 AM
 


Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

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 (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 9:29:30 PM
 


Several years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

Richard ClarkSeveral years after receiving my M.A. in social science (interdisciplinary studies) I was an instructor at S.F. State University for a year, but then went back to designing automated machinery, and then tech writing, in Silicon Valley. I've always been more interested in political economics and what's going on behind the scenes in politics, than in mechanical engineering, and because of that I've rarely worked more than 6 months a year, devoting much of the rest of the year to reading and writ...

to see more of bio, click on member name

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.

And why the hell wouldn’t he, after all? Without a reviewable record
of warrants, it’s not as if anyone can possibly find out — unless
somebody sues the telecoms, and specific, decidedly non-terrorist
surveillance targets are identified in the ensuing discovery process.
And that is why the Republicans are going apeshit over retroactive
immunity, not just to protect the telecoms, but to cover their own
asses. If it ever comes out that their secret, illegal domestic
wiretaps were not targeting al Qaeda, but Al Gore, the jig is finally
up. The entire “trust us, we’re hunting terrorists” rationale, as thin
as it always was, will lose any residual integrity, and the GOP may
never recover. And they know it.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13128

by Richard Clark (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 63 comments) on Friday, February 29, 2008 at 12:34:25 PM
 

 

5 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

 

 

 

 

Articles
Diaries Members
Products Events
Polls  
  

Articles Popularity:

Momentum Building For Bugliosi's Case Against George W. Bush For Murder
by Linda Milazzo

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream
by David Swanson

A Declaration of Independence from the Government of the United States
by Anonymous

The Perfect Storm from Hell
by Lord Stirling

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN GAS REACHES 7 DOLLARS A GALLON ?
by Allen L Roland

Fortis Prediction of US Bank Meltdown a Net Hoax: The Making of an Urban Legend
by Paul Haughey

POW/MIA Families Alleged McCain Assault: Senate Ethics Committee Failed to Investigate
by elliot cohen

Why were 'first responders' de-contaminated at the Pentagon?
by Len Hart

Ex Weapons Inspector: Iran Not Pursuing Nukes, But U.S. Will Attack Before '09
by Jason Leopold

Raw milk and the government/corporate effort to crush it
by Linn Cohen-Cole