« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
It's The Immunity, Stupid
Another day, another public declaration by President Bush that the Democrats are exposing the U.S. to another terrorist attack.
Meanwhile, reporters tried to get White House spokeswoman Dana Perino to explain how the White House simultaneously condemns the Democrats for letting the Protect America Act lapse when the law lapsed because the administration and Republicans opposed it. See if you can target the recurring theme. From today's press briefing:
Q So what does the White House think of the op-ed from the Democrats that accuse the President of using scare tactics and playing political games? And they say if the President really believed the expiration of the act created a danger, he should have accepted their offer for an extension.MS. PERINO: Well, one, the House proved that they couldn't even pass an extension, so that wasn't an option. An extension wasn't an option. But we had a response to the op-ed, that I issued.
I think that fear-mongering and the use of the phrase "scare tactics" is something that the Democrats -- it must be, like, one of their favorite words, or it must poll very well, because they use it almost every time.
What we have done is state facts; that this is what the law said; this is what the intelligence community says that they need; this is what the bill in front of the House says, and it's one that was designed with the intelligence community, in concert with them, so that they would be able to have the buy-in and say that they would get what they need out of that bill. It passed 68-29; we think they should go ahead and pass it.
The issue really right now between the House and the Senate, as far as I can tell, the biggest issue is retroactive liability protection, and in their op-ed they just had a passing glance to that issue. But it is one of the biggest sticking points, because at the end of the day if we don't have the companies helping us, then we won't have a program.
And later:
Q If this is such a big deal, why didn't the President accept another extension?MS. PERINO: Because the House couldn't even pass an extension bill, even if they had wanted to. They couldn't pass it. What they need to pass is a bipartisan bill --
Q The President said he wouldn't accept it, so --
MS. PERINO: Well, that's true, but they wouldn't have been able to pass it anyway.
Q -- isn't it his problem that he lost a couple of days, if in fact he did?
MS. PERINO: Absolutely not. This -- no. The President is not going to accept the blame for House Democrats not taking up a bill that passed 68-29 in the Senate.
Q Yes, but if it's such -- if it's so urgent to protect the nation's security, as you have said --
MS. PERINO: But, Bill, it still didn't do what -- the things that I have said repeatedly that it needs to do. Even if they had extended it, it doesn't provide for retroactive liability protection, which is what the companies say that they need.
Update: Here's video:
Josh
Zachary
Let Conyers hold another committee meeting and invite all the TelComs to state their need for immunity.
February 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for Conyers hold another committee meeting and invite all the TelComs to state their need for immunity.
February 25, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like me some immunity for a few things, too...who do I talk to?
February 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Bushie -- you are aware that the administration won't let the telecoms talk to Congress about the wiretapping program, right? They say that security concerns won't permit them to testify even in secret, so we just have to trust that they're telling the truth, even though they've lied about it repeatedly.
Rare true statement from professional liar Perrino:
"The President is not going to accept the blame for..." (No real need to finish the sentence, he never accepts blame for anything.)
February 25, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
There has been a conscious decision by the folks in DC to not go after the Telecons in any way. Never do we hear anyone question the Patriotism of the Telecoms for not wanting to help, or even refusing to help. No condemnations when for the sake of a few coins, they shutdown active wiretaps on god knows who. Never a threat to rescind the licenses they hold to airwaves, or to fine them for any number of reasons. Not even a mention of bring any charges for threatening the Nation Security.
Even the Dems in DC have tip-toed around with the language they use oh so carefully. The Newspapers and other Press, except for the Blogs, have been just as quiet in their choice of words and innuendo.
Why when we know the Telecoms started spying on Millions of Americans before 9-11 is all this pussyfooting going on ? When we have the answer to this question it will be the real beginning of knowledge surrounding all this cloak and dagger tripe.
February 25, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the unspoken 800 lbs. gorilla in the room is that even if any Telco was jittery about helping out, a quick trip to the FISA court would FORCE them to comply. That's what court order tend to do and why we have them. But therein lies the real issue.
If the Bushies had legitimate surveillance in mind, they could easily do so with a FISA court order, and no need to have telcos break the law then try to get them get-out-of-jail-free cards so they are not forced to testify in lawsuits that will reveal what the Bushies are actually doing.
February 25, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait is this transcript accurate. She says at the end this something the companies say they need. The companies need a warrant not retro immunity. Am I right or wrong?
February 25, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is a Frat Boy - what he really wants is Double Secret retroactive and proactive immunity.
February 25, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate this line of criticism. Being fratty is not mutually exclusive with having respect for the rights of Americans, and not mutually exclusive with revulsion toward Bush.
Why do people hate frat guys so much?
February 25, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"retroactive liability protection, which is what the companies say that they need."
Is Ms. Perino saying that the companies are holding government hostage: no cooperation in surveillance matters - even if law would require them to - before they get immunity?
That's ridiculous, yet that's the only real argument someone could use to claim in good faith that immunity is needed to improve security.
February 25, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's talking out of so many sides of her mouth that it's like she's caught in some 17 dimensional universe. The bottom line is that the bush regime wants retroactive immunity to save their own hide, because if the telecoms start talking to defend themselves in lawsuits nobody in the administration will be safe. Their own criminal butts are more important to them than our nation's security and always has been. And I have no doubt they've been doing a lot more than just looking for terrorists.
February 25, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's an ominous additional layer to the maneuvering: a grant of retroactive immunity will eliminate telecom customers' standing to sue for the invasion of privacy. No standing means no discovery, and no information for 30 years. Those lawsuits might otherwise reveal data as to the breadth of surveillance which would shock not only people, but the constitution. It might even document impeachable offenses. This isn't an issue of companies holding the government hostage or vice versa: this is a situation of the government scratching the telecom's backs in order to scratch its own back.
February 25, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Precisely.
My only quibble: It's not an "additional ominous layer", it's the raison d'être. Bush helping out his corporate buddies get out of lawsuits is just gravy. Bush and Cheney know exactly what will come out in the discovery process, which is why they fear it so much. And that's the Hokey Pokey in this case.
February 26, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no issue here: Bush is wrong and so is his chosen liar, Perino. FISA is the mechanism in place ready to be used, and with a mere warrant the telecoms would give information, as good citizens of course they would. For Bush it's all about politics, this immunity nonsense.
February 25, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush is a terrorist.
terrorist
noun
a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities
February 26, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
She has to be the worst White House spokesperson ever. I don't even feel sorry for, she is pathetic. I have seen teenagers who could do a better job...
February 26, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember how she didn't know about the bay of pigs invasion or the Cuban missile crisis?
On the other hand I think Ari Flicher and McClellan were just as bad.
February 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
As is stated on another site it would be great to see how much money and future jobs are promised to these people by the phone companies if this passes.
February 26, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even the Dems in DC have tip-toed around with the language they use oh so carefully.
Yep, those campaign contributions suuuuure are effective.
February 26, 2008 4:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whether or not they get immunity, the telcos are required to comply with legal requests when a warrant is provided. The Bushies keep claiming that immunity is necessary because the government needs the telcos' help. Why don't some of these reporters ask Perino or the president why immunity is necessary given that the law doesn't give the telcos a choice whether or not to cooperate?
February 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Its not really TELCOM IMMUNITY, Its a get outta jail pass for those in the Administration, who want to do their BLACK BAG WORK, and their Carnivore vacuuming of our telcom infrastructure, without any Oversight, from the Congressional branch of the people's government.
The judicial branch has already be Scalia-sized, or Roberts'ed - I meant neutralized.
RWS
February 26, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink