Skip to main content

View Diary: Telecom Immunity Gives Bush Immunity (209 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  probaby same reason dems have been so spineless (14+ / 0-)

    time after time even though the facts and law were on their side as well as public opinion.

    or, it could be that some dems with influence may not want certain facts revealed. if immunity is denied, then when are the risks for dems? well, congress may have to bail out the telecoms, which may trigger public debate about our government's role in telecom surveillance that now requires billions of dollars be paid to telecoms.

    •  some dems (7+ / 0-)

      it could be that some dems with influence may not want certain facts revealed.

      some Dems=complicit Dems

      You can almost bet the House (and Senate) on it.

      Just because I spend time in "Blogostan" doesn't mean that I gave up my citizenship in the real world.

      by Sagebrush Bob on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:06:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I fear that Dems are compromised (4+ / 0-)

      if there's full investigations.

      As for a bail-out -- would the damages be that high?  I think Greenwald has suggested not.

      The Democratic Message: Security, Privacy, Justice

      by Upper West on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 09:07:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Telcos Still Off the Hook (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Upper West, Sagebrush Bob

        No, probably the telcos don't actually need immunity. The analysis of the immunity terms indicates that without it, they'd still be able to avoid liability after arguing on the evidence they were instructed by the Executive that they were not liable, and that it was a national security emergency.

        The difference is that with the proposed FISA immunity, those arguments would need never be made, that evidence need never be exposed. And very possibly, since those conditions would moot any case, the case would never be brought, and no legal process would ever be started that would hold the Executive liable, though the law would assign it so if it were applied. Democrats and Republicans alike have been claiming that the immunity wouldn't avoid Executive liability, but rather narrow liability directly to the Executive alone.

        But given their record all year of failing to apply any teeth to Bush's many and ghastly (and impeachable) liabilities - just flapping gums for cheap (though deserved) campaign fodder, I think they're lying. Twisting Bush in the campaign wind is all the Democrats want, and Republicans of course are happy to cut their losses and oblige.

        In any event, $billions wouldn't be enough to repay the damage telcos have done by spying on everything Americans have said for the past 7 years (Hi Dick!). But it would be a good start. Especially because America's grassroots telephony industry (like VoIP) would be even better than the remonopolized AT&T/Verizon industry. The years the telcos would spend fighting it would be years they'd finally be too busy to stifle that startup competition, and the penalty money could finance one hell of an oversight and "assurance" infrastructure to replace them. Replace them with something diverse and decentralized enough that our telecom would finally become as private as we'd like to think it used to be.

        "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

        by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:30:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not "the Dems" but the Democratic Leadership (0+ / 0-)

        will be/are already compromised.  Are you kidding?

        I fear that Dems are compromised if there's full investigations.

        As for a bail-out -- would the damages be that high?  I think Greenwald has suggested not.

        Are you willing to let Bush/Cheney walk away from criminal activities with not even a slap on the hands?  I am not! Glenn must not understand the sitution or he would not say the damages would be minimal.  

        •  I think (0+ / 0-)

          you misunderstood my point, or I wasn't clear enough.  I certainly don't want anyone to walk away with just a slap on the hand, least of all Bush and Cheney.

          I was not advocating against full investigations.  There absolutely should be.  I was speculating that the reason there may not be is that the Dem leadership and others are compromised (e.g., by knowledge of spying, torture, etc.)

          As for the minimal damages question -- that refers to what the Telcos will ultimately have to pay if the lawsuits proceed.  If the potential damages are not that high, they don't need a bail-out for that reason (among others).

          The Democratic Message: Security, Privacy, Justice

          by Upper West on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:49:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site