home

National Security or National Nonsense?

If passing a FISA fix is "an urgent priority," as the president insisted today, one wonders why he won't agree to sign a temporary extension of the last fix that he thought was so "urgently" needed. As Harry Reid noted today, the president's refusal to sign any law that doesn't immunize telephone companies from their allegedly illegal behavior demonstrates the president's true priority ... and it isn't national security, as much as he tries to spin it that way.

If the final legislation does not include protection for the companies, a wave of lawsuits could reveal how the United States conducts surveillance “and give Al Qaeda and others a road map as to how to avoid surveillance,” Mr. Bush said.

Lawsuits might reveal that the administration conducted surveillance illegally, but that information is more harmful to the administration than it is helpful to Al Qaeda. As for a "road map," the president doesn't explain why classified information would miraculously become public simply because a lawsuit proceeds. Surely courts are positioned to balance the need to protect legitimate national secrets against the need to remedy violations of the law.

The president's back-up argument is that lawsuits are "unfair" to telcoms that were told by "government leaders" that "their assistance was legal and vital to national security." If such assurances were actually given (by whom exactly, we might wonder), and if telcoms had reason to believe the administration's interpretation of the law was reasonable, perhaps the telcoms would have a gripe. In the absence of litigation, however, none of those facts are established. And if the telcoms indeed acted legally, they have no need for immunity, a point stressed today by Senator Kennedy:

“If the telecommunications companies didn’t break the law, they do not need immunity,” the senator said. “If they broke the law, the American people deserve to know the size and scope of their lawbreaking. Adhering to the rule of law would not ‘aid our enemies’ — it would uphold the very principles we are fighting for. The President’s position has nothing to do with protecting Americans and everything to do with sweeping under the rug illegal activity by his administration and his corporate partners.”

Democrats in the House need to know that the public appreciates their effort to keep the broom out of the president's hands -- enough misconduct has been swept under the rug already. It's time for the truth to come out, and for both the president and the telcoms to learn that they are not above the law.

< Nader Picks Matt Gonzales as Running Mate | Sham "Reformers" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Anybody else getting a kick.... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:31:05 PM EST
    out of the tv commercials urging us all to call our reps and demand they pass the re-authorization the spying?

    I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

    saw one at the gym (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by tnthorpe on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 10:23:10 PM EST
    here on campus, and really, I laughed out loud then almost fell off of my exercycle.
    Who knows, will these scurrilous ads push Blue Dogs like Donnelly to vote for this garbage legislation?


    Parent
    Like Qwest's lawyers (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by po on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:49:41 PM EST
    I'm certain AT&T and Verizon's high-priced corporate lawyers told them it was illegal, but if either of these companies wanted to merge, get favorable legislation passed or be the beneficiaries of large undisclosed government contracts the better play was to sign up and play ball.

    Immunity is only necessary to keep the broad details from public view because if they were disclosed the public would be rather upset -- just like some members of the House who now are being alloweed access to the documents are.  

    TL Fundraiser In Progress (none / 0) (#7)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 08:51:47 PM EST
    ******************
    Don't mind me, I'm just tucking in here with a fund-raising suggestion:

    Let's all donate something tonight before we log out, no matter how big or small - according to our individual means.

    Heads up: I'll be posting this elsewhere tonight at TL.

    Parent

    National nonsense (none / 0) (#1)
    by JohnS on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    Over at Balkinization, Marty Lederman asks the question, and then answers it:

    If, in fact, our intelligence capabilities are now being degraded, why doesn't the President simply reauthorize the TSP itself, pursuant to his alleged AUMF and Article II powers?

    Answer: Because now the telecoms won't in a million years cooperate in such an extra-legal program. And that's a very good thing -- an underappreciated virtue of the controversy and litigation surrounding the TSP. Moreover, it further reveals the true reason the Bush Administration is willing to degrade our intelligence capabilities in the service of telecom immunity -- not because telecoms will be reluctant to accede to lawful orders (as statutes require them to do), but instead because the Administration does not want the telecoms ever again to hesitate when the Administration asks them to cooperate in surveillance that appears to be unlawful under FISA and other relevant laws.

    Innocent telcoms (none / 0) (#4)
    by rilkefan on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    might still want immunity to avoid the uncertainty of court action.

    The old FISA gave the telecoms (none / 0) (#5)
    by litigatormom on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    immunity if they complied with the lawful procedure. They would not be held responsible if they complied with an authorization that was fraudulently procured from the FISA court.

    The violations of FISA were so blatant here that the telecoms MUST have known that the Administration's position was crap -- at least, they must have known it if they had sentient lawyers. The government must have told them, don't worry, if this all blows up, we'll get you immunity, but we can't do it now because then people would know we're doing something dodgy.

    The reason the Administration says that telecoms won't help in the future is because the Administration wants to continue giving them dodgy orders. The telecoms HAVE to comply if they are presented with duly authorized orders. It's not a choice. It's only a choice when the Administration asks them to do something that isn't compatible with FISA, otherwise known as "illegal."

    Parent

    FISA (none / 0) (#6)
    by A2Z on Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST
    Any day is fish day and there are plenty of red herrings to meet the need. Telcons should not worry about losing money for breaking the law, The Roberts gang of five will see to that. First, the court will decide that plaintiffs have no standing to sue, since they can't prove damages, Assuming, against all accumulating eveidence, plaintiffs win the "grounds" issue, the court will not approve any monetary damages. Consider the Exxon-Valdiz fiasco.