All President Bush wanted was "immunity" for the telecommunication companies. Why? To shield them from lawsuits. Or to be more specific to shield them from motions of discovery which would reveal the full details of the spy program which our own government refuses to divulge.
Why the warrantless spy program in the first place? The difference is record keeping and justification. After all you can wiretap BEFORE even requesting a warrant and since almost every request the only requirement is you have to pass the laugh test. If you can dress even the flimsiest piece of evidence and not have the judge fall down laughing your request will be granted. And given only two requests have ever been rejected perhaps even that bar is too high.
No. The real reason beyond just a pure power grab by the executive branch is so they never have to have anything they do or say explained to anyone. And so if they decide to spy on say the Quakers or perhaps suspect lefty sites. Or anything you'd never actually want to admit to.
Let us be clear not passing this doesn't endanger a single investigation or deprive the government of basically unlimited power. The additional powers granted in the bill are "gravy" so that congressmen can hide the real goal. Immunity.
Right now the administration claims "executive privilege" to obfuscate and deny appearing or saying virtually anything under oath to congress. Immunity means the other branch of government cannot pry into what they are doing either. It also means nothing in the bill itself matters since there is immunity granted if everyone chooses to ignore it.
I don't think I go to far out on a limb to call this un-American. A clear violation of not just the spirit and intent of the constitution but the very letter of it. This is the equivalent of the government having a contractor spending money on something completely unrelated to what congress has authorized that money to be spent on. Then clouding who gave the order so no one has to give the order and then immunizing the contractor from having to answer for breaking their written contract and the written law.
Or to make up a hypothetical example to make this analogy clearer if Haliburton using the money congress allocated for New Orleans reconstruction to build the Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska. And then not only given a free pass by everyone but having a law passed especially to say if they misspend their money on anything the Bush administration ever asks for they can never ever be prosecuted for anything.
And what do we call it when our elected representatives ignore the will of the people. Ignore the laws of the land. Ignore enforcing the laws. Ignore even the desire to enforce the laws in the future? I have a suggestion courtesy dictionary.com. Treason.
http://dictionary.reference.com/...
- the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
Certainly not the first definition. I'm not sure there is ANYTHING Bush could do to get removed never mind bring harm his way.
- a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
This one looks promising when you have people in congress putting money from AT&T and Verizon ahead of the will of the electorate? Putting their allegiance to corporations ahead of their own state. Though I guess perhaps you COULD give them a pass because they are showing extraordinary allegiance to our "sovereign" George W Bush. And they are definitely treating up more like a sovereign ruler than the head of a co-equal branch of government.
- the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
And here we have a definition that fits the situation perfectly.
We trusted the leadership of this congress to finally stand up to the Bush administration and say no. While I do appreciate the desire to not do anything to offend so as to thus not give the opposition issues which to campaign against you on we do expect a little bit of backbone. And there is an important reason why NOW is the time to stand up on these issues.
If they are unwilling to stand up to a Republican administration who demands arbitrary and capricious powers in direct violation of the constitution what happens in 2009 when you have a Democratic administration? There is a saying that absolute power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? Is it beyond reason that Democrats who once looked at these powers in horror might perhaps see utility and value in these powers when it is instead thrust into their own hands?
Once upon a time John Ashcroft was a leading critic of some of the really bad civil liberty violating ideas of the Clinton Administration such as the "clipper chip." And he as well as the rest of his Republican colleagues lost their religion as soon as they came into power.
Now is the time for Democrats to stand up and be counted and not give us a "betrayal of a trust or confidence" or a "breach of faith" or act in a downright treacherous manner. If this is how they stand up to the most unpopular Republican administration ever just imagine how useless they'll be come next election when a more popular incumbent is in place.
Perhaps treason is too generous for them. Cowards? Sycophants?