I should wait 3 hours after my breakfast to read the NY Times.
Ashcroft, after threatening to quit the Bush administration over its illegal wiretapping policies just came out with this gem in the NYT this morning.
At the outset, it is critical to understand what the immunity provisions the administration and Congress have negotiated actually do. This is not "blanket immunity," as it is sometimes caricatured by its opponents. The Senate bill would confer immunity in only two limited circumstances: if the carrier did not do what the plaintiffs claim; or if the carrier did do what the plaintiffs claim but based on explicit assurances from the highest levels of the government that the activities in question were authorized by the president and determined to be lawful
.
Since when are "assurances from the highest levels of government that its OK" written into the constitution as a reason for breaking the law.
As a practical matter, in circumstances involving classified intelligence activities, a corporation will typically not know enough about the underlying circumstances and operations to make informed judgments about legality.
Yeah but corporations have got dozens of lawyers who know the law, and should have known that the administration was breaking it.
Yet if we allow the litigation to continue, that is precisely what we will do. The message that will be sent to American companies is that they can be exposed to crippling lawsuits for helping the government with national security activities that they are explicitly assured are legal. The only rational response would be for companies to adopt an attitude of extreme wariness, even in the most urgent or clear-cut situations. To put the matter plainly, this puts American lives at risk.
Not exposed to litigation if they follow the law. Its called a court order are you familiar with it? FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR card
When critics of immunity are being honest, they will admit that the main reason they want the litigation to continue is the hope that it will force disclosure of information about the underlying programs — information they hope will advance their own political or ideological disputes with the administration. But that is a bad consequence, not a good one.
My political agenda is understanding that the government is following the constituion... yes.
Assuming that the country’s communications companies helped the National Security Agency track Qaeda operatives and other terrorists after being assured that their conduct was lawful, they acted as patriots, not privacy violators. The Senate Intelligence Committee acted wisely. The full Congress should follow its lead.
People who support the administration - patritots. People who support the constituion. Dirty liberal extremists - get it???
Excuse me I need to clean up the barf in my kitchen now.
© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
Privacy Policy
Powered by Scoop.
Permalink | 8 comments