President Bush: Holding telecoms accountable is “patently unfair”
Bush's argument is bizarre. "You can't expect phone companies to participate if they feel that they are going to be sued".
That's bollocks:
The claim that telecoms will cease to cooperate without retroactive immunity is deeply dishonest on multiple levels, but the dishonesty is most easily understood when one realizes that, under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They don't have the option to "refuse.""The government said to those that are alleged to have helped us, 'It's in our national interests and it's legal.'"
The problem was the government got that wrong. It wasn't legal. It was outside of FISA, which is the "exclusive" means of authorising this kind of activity.
And then he claims that he doesn't want to get into Attorney's heads, but states that he thinks they see "a financial gravy train". No, they see a crime.
He then states that, "It's unfair, it's patently unfair" for telecoms to be prosecuted for this because, I assume, the government told them what they were doing was legal.
Whose fault is that? It was the government who lied to them. And I just love how he can state categorically what the government said and then say that they said this "to those that are alleged to have helped us". Right, so the government categorically said something... but don't read into that that Telecoms gave us what we want.... Just give them fucking immunity......
He continues throughout to make an illogical insistence that telecoms won't participate if they think they will be sued. They would have no choice other than to co-operate if a legal request were made and they will only be sued if they work outside of FISA. Which they did. And the people who wrongly told them this was legal were the Bush regime.
Which he why he now seeks immunity.
If the government got it wrong when they told the telecoms that their request was legal, and if the telecoms acted in good faith, then this is something that a court would take into account in any consideration that it made. So whose ass is Bush actually trying to save here?
Tags:
2 comments:
The idea that the telecoms were "acting in good faith" is disproven by the fact that Qwest refused to participate without a warrant. They certainly saw potential problems. Qwest, at least, didn't buy the Administration's assurances.
The telecoms knew it is illegal, but they believed Bush would protect them. They gambled on Bush and lost.
When the lawsuits reveal the scope of the warrantless wiretapping, Bush's 'legacy' will be worthless. That's why he's so concerned about telecom immunity.
The idea that the telecoms were "acting in good faith" is disproven by the fact that Qwest refused to participate without a warrant.
I knew that Todd, which is why I used the phrase "in good faith". I was simply pointing out that, even if one takes Bush's argument at face value, it's still his own ass he's saving.
Post a Comment