Telecom immunity isn't about national security; it's all about protecting Bush

[bleever]

and those in his administration who broke the law, in a blatant and prima facia way.

If the telecoms had to defend themselves in court, they'd have to drag the White House into it as their only justification for knowingly breaking the law.

The lawsuits filed against the telecoms don't concern the administration because of potential financial damage to the companies themselves. It's because the suits will do what the Democratic Congress has failed to do: initiate discovery proceedings against the actions of the administration with regard to impeachable offenses.

Jonathon Turley, interviewed by Keith Olbermann, made the point that this effort to grant immunity to the telecoms is a piece of legislation that has no public interest. It isn't for the people.


Let's say it straight out: it's all about protecting Bushist crimes.

[baldguy]

1. Corporate rights over individual rights.

[bleever]

5. But more egregiously, in this case:

covering up Bush administrations crimes under the guise of protecting corporate rights, under the guise of protecting national security.

[baldguy]

9. Royalty can do anything to the peasant class without repercussions.

And the peasants have no power to stop them.

[gateley]

11. Well, we CAN eat cake. nt

[baldguy]

23. Yeah. WE get twinkies.

THEY get a 9-layer orange chocolate French cheese cake made with Cointreau drizzled with a Chambord syrup, served with an LBV tawny port. Altogether costs enough to feed a family of four for a week.

That's fair. Right?

[Dangerously Amused]

2. Well stated.

[ixion]

3. and why does that little bastard deserve any protection from congress?

it's really beyond me. He's done nothing but show contempt for congress and the constitution, and yet they bend over backwards to protect his scrawny little butt. :grr:

[bleever]

4. Bush said he will veto legislation to extend this "vital program" if there's no immunity

for telecoms.

Olbermann has made the point, several times, that Bush is placing that immunity above the security of the United States.

It's clear why; it just needs to be said out in the open, repeatedly and forcefully.

[bleever]

6. Video: Jonathon Turley on Countdown.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23155373#23155373

[havocmom]

7. Yep. He is absolutely terrified whenever he speaks on the subject

Let the criminals face the righteous punishment for their crimes. Absolution is for priests to give penitents. These bozos and the corporations who enable them are not penitent.

[bleever]

8. He gets that blinky look.

And though they be not penitent, there nonetheless will be penance.

[mod mom]

10. #5 right you are!

[bleever]

13. It needs to be said loudly and forcefully.

This is a blatant attempt to put clothes onto the emperor, before anyone opens their eyes.

I hope the House holds out. I have hopes that the greater number of people involved, compared to the Senate, makes it more difficult for members to be swayed by threats or donations.

[The Backlash Cometh]

12. Same thing with the 9/11 settlements. They paid off as many people

as they could, to stop the lawyers from coming after them and learning what the Bush Administration did or did not do in the days preceding the attacks.

Paying people off, that's how our country has become a place where the biggest liars live in the biggest houses. People are getting bribed to sell-out their neighbors in some of the most despicable ways.

[texpatriot2004]

14. Exactly right Bleever. I heard that J. T. interview on KO tonight.

He said this is about the Congress helping to cover-up the crimes committed by the * Administration. That this is an effort to make everyone involved immune from the law. Incredible! It is such a strange world we are living in where a "Supreme Court Justice" says torture is not against the US Constitution and specifically waterboarding - a crime that the US prosecuted not so long ago - is not unconstitutional. While the new Congress, not the Republican Rubber Stamping Congress but the new Congress elected by the people to make the changes necessary is actually covering up crimes.

Go figure! I never, ever imagined this sort of behavior would happen, much less be tolerated.

Thanks Bleever for keeping the faith.

[bleever]

15. It's as though the law now exists to protect criminal behavior.

It's nuts.

But I think we are going to get through this. :hi:

[texpatriot2004]

17. It does seem that way lately. Imagine that, the law protecting

criminal behavior. It is actually being manipulated to protect the guilty I think.

Absolutely, we will get through this. Nice to see you friend. :hi: It is a comfort to know that you are still there (here at DU).

[babylonsister]

16. And Harry Reid is so totally complicit. Him and others. Some Dems. nt

[bleever]

19. Jay Rockefeller?

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.

He has also recently benefited from some interesting political contributions.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/dem-pushing-spy.html

[babylonsister]

20. He's always been on the side of immunity; he got his wish. And

hello :hi:, bleever! Long time, no see!

[bleever]

22. Please

be careful; all those hearts might give you a backache if your posture isn't just right! :hi:

[Time for change]

18. Damn right -- I wish that our Democratic Congresspersons would just tell it as it is.

[bleever]

21. Conyers has come close, by saying that

they shouldn't grant immunity until they know what activity they are actually immunizing.

With today's news of action on the contempt citations, I'm hoping the prospects of Mr. Conyers and the House democrats holding firm on this might just be improving.

[autorank]

24. K*R We live in a nation without laws

So the White House tells the phone companies to commit a crime and all but one say, sure, why not? Then they get caught in 2004. The New York Times has a story ready to go by mid October. But the story gets delayed. Coincidentally, we're two weeks away from the presidential vote but who can say the NYT withheld this to help Bush.

Then we find out after the election and someone decides to sue the phone companies. Well, that takes time. When it looks bad for the phone companies, Congress steps in and starts to immunize them - make these laws to retroactively legalize illegal behavior. Hue and cry...so on and so forth.

...but Congress knows it's business. Just before the 2008 election fund raising/shake down cycle, there's a chance to immunize the phone companies again. The telcos rev up and inways we'll never hear about, delivers the goods, all legal of course, for big bonus contributions if they can just get out of the jam, just get that special law only corporations get.

And, surprise, surprise, it passes - the phone companies are saved! What a surprise.

Legalized bribery prevails and Congress gets theirs, the telcos get theirs.


WE LIVE IN A NATION WITHOUT LAWS

Of note: One company, Quest refused to tap your phones. The Chairman of Quest was investigated and convicted of insider trading after that. Just a coincidence. I doubt it.

[bleever]

29. Qwest.

I knew you'd know.

:yourock:

And, could you provide the graphs of Rockefeller's telecom contributions? I searched for it, but couldn't find it.

[autorank]

40. Hey man, I'm on a vision Qwest;);h

U2

[Patsy Stone]

25. Tying up loose ends

The denouement of this administration, if you will.

Congress turned over in 2006 forcing them to clean up behind themselves. If the Democrats hadn't come into power, there would have been no need to protect themselves.

Sadly, most of the Dems in the Senate are just curious enough to poke around, but not quite brave enough to wield the ax.

They will get away with it, unless the House steps up. And, remind me again why the House doesn't see this as impeachable offense?

K&R

[bleever]

31. I'm hoping that the House will prove to be

the repository of American temerity, in contrast to the Senate's role as the "cooling saucer" of political passions.

[NoodleyAppendage]

26. So, under your reasoning. Obama voted to hold Bush accountable and Clinton is enabling Bush crimes.

Thanks for clearing up the true consequence behind Hillary Clinton's SHAMEFUL unwillingness to vote to hold the telecoms accountable and uphold the RULE OF LAW.

J

[burrowowl]

27. I hope that

real Liberal Senators and Representatives are voted in and investigations into Bu$hCo are done and that there are indictments!
And Corps are indicted as well!
How unbelievable, where is justice and action for the People!

[orleans]

28. i just saw turley on olbermann--

and let us not ever forget those fucking democrats that voted to protect their fucking asses and to protect boosh.

[bleever]

39. Turley is consistently the best at cutting to the bones of the issues,

even when it means using words like "treason" and "impeachment".

I thought his point that the immunity was NOT related to the public good to be a powerfully stated acknowledgment of something no one else is saying outright.

[EFerrari]

30. The program was started in January 2001.

The national security argument is bs.

[bleever]

32. It's not about controlling our enemies.

It's about controlling Americans, isn't it?

[EFerrari]

33. You bet. So is torture. Torture is mostly for the onlookers

and that would be all of us.

[bleever]

34. It hurts.

I want it to stop hurting us.

[EFerrari]

35. I know.

We NGU.

:hug:

[TexasObserver]

36. Yes, it is about protecting Bush, by stopping CIVIL lawsuits and their discovery process.

Bush also wants to secure the kickbacks the telecoms give him and the Republicans in the form of contributions, bundled money, and 527s.

[bleever]

37. .

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

38. It's about allowing this administration to get away with crimes against the people.

It's about CONTINUING to allow this administration to get away with crimes against the people and this nation.

It's about an administration behaving in an ANTI-American, ANTI-law, ANTI-democratic, ANTI-constitutional manner and imposing no consequences, demanding no accountability.

It's about the future of this nation for if an administration can commit crimes against us and this country we can no longer hold ourselves out as a nation of laws or anchored by democracy.