Skip to main content

View Diary: FISA Fight: Is it that hard? (59 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  they did what the POTUS asked them to (0+ / 0-)

    They didn't break the law for their own benefit that we know of. It wasn't their idea as far as we know.

    As far as we know, POTUS asked them to help in combating terrorism. (I've heard the prog actually started before 9/11, but I've never seen confirmation.)

    That would mean something to me. I'd have a hard time saying no to that. I understand Dems hate Bush. But POTUS, that still means a lot to me.

    Yes I know it's naive, and that the telecomms almost certainly got something in exchange.

    •  So it should be even easier to call it Amnesty. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kimoconnor, bushondrugs

      they did what the POTUS asked them to  
      They didn't break the law for their own benefit that we know of. It wasn't their idea as far as we know.

      There are several problems with this.

      1. If you assist a bank robbery and don't expect to get any of the loot, that's still Aiding and Abetting.
      1. The companies hire whole firms' worth of attorneys, they should have known the President's sayso does not make it legal.
      1. Your post still doesn't explain why they need to hide behind a euphemism like "retroactive immunity." By your logic, they would have a stronger case for Amnesty; but if they can't call it that, nothing doing.

      I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

      by Judge Moonbox on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  amnesty & retro immunity are not the same (0+ / 0-)

        "Retroactive immunity" isn't a euphemism. It means something entirely different from amnesty. Amnesty means you're guilty, but you don't have to pay the consequences.

        Immunity means you haven't done wrong.

        There's a difference, and it's not entirely cynical I don't think. At least in theory. I do think Bush is behaving cynically.

        There's a parallel here to the torture debate. CIA and DoD could torture and simply get a pardon afterward. But that is fundamentally different from going into it knowing it's allowed. Just psychologically there is a huge difference and I have no doubt it impacts what happens.

        FISA, and how to get reasonable private entity cooperation (which we need, make no mistake), is a bigger issue than just Bush.

        On #1, if a private entity robs a bank, it's a crime. If you assist, you're aiding and abetting.

        But if the govt robs a bank, and it's covered by sovereign immunity, then there is no underlying crime. But a private entity who assists is still aiding and abetting.

        On #2, I think what we're seeing is what telecomms were told when they cooperated, that they'd be given immunity.

        •  Well then, we might as well be a dictatorship (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Judge Moonbox

          I mean, who decides what is covered by what you call "sovereign immunity".

          The telcoms are not stupid, they knew damned well that the Congress could actually decide to follow the LAW and not let them off the hook.

          They have tons of lawyers, and the law has protected them as long as they get a warrant.

          What is your problem with the government and telcos following the law?

          That is what this is about.

          Period.

          01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

          by kimoconnor on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:27:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But they HAVE done something wrong. (0+ / 0-)

          "Retroactive immunity" isn't a euphemism. It means something entirely different from amnesty. Amnesty means you're guilty, but you don't have to pay the consequences.
          Immunity means you haven't done wrong.

          Okay, I am not a lawyer, but when it comes to playing one on DK, I think I do a better job. "Use Immunity" and other varieties can be given to a specific person in exchange for testimony. My dictionary defines Amnesty as a "general pardon for offenses against the government." The votes in question treat telecom execs as a class, therefore they are amnesty.

          As for not doing anything wrong, what do you call breaking the law? By your own definition, you can't say that the vote is to give telecom execs immunity.

          I've always had the suspicion that the left listens to Bush a lot more than his own administration ever did.-Babylonandon, Huffington Post.

          by Judge Moonbox on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site