Retroactive Immunity: The Last Defense
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on October 18th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, War on TerrorIt’s probably too strong to say that all that stands between retroactive immunity and Senate approval is Arlen Specter, but he certainly gets one more chance to finally — for the first time ever? — put his money where his mouth is. (Without getting too graphic about where his mouth has been in the past, let’s just say that if you had the poor judgment and bad taste to kiss him, you would be at risk to contract any STDs that Bush may have. This does, of course, also explain why he’s had difficulty in the past putting his money into his mouth—his mouth has usually been full.)
On Tuesday, Specter snarled:
I certainly would not give them immunity retroactively on programs that we don’t know what they are. … I think it’s unreasonable to ask us to give them immunity for things we don’t know what they did.
Now, look, if there was a need for it at the time, and if the telephone companies were good citizens, and if they supplied information which was important, then I would be prepared to look at. But I’m not going to buy a pig in a poke and commit to retroactive immunity when I don’t know what went on.
Such statements in the past have always been part of Arlen’s infamous two-step. That’s where, in step 2, he steps back from the position he fiercely staked out in step 1.
Well, WaPo reports today that:
Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government’s domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.
All is not lost, though.
The draft Senate bill has the support of the intelligence committee’s chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), and Bush’s director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.
[…]
Democrats warned yesterday that the Senate intelligence panel’s consensus bill must gain the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman and ranking Republican have said, like their House counterparts, that they are wary of granting immunity to telecommunications companies.
Which dance is Arlen going to give us this time? Stay tuned, but don’t get your hopes up.
sarabeth wrote:
Does anyone have any idea what is the significance of “full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States”?
What does “legal directive” mean? (From the WaPo story, it clearly doesn’t mean a court warrant.)
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 6:43 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I would *assume* that means that the action was taken as a matter of National security but that is just a guess.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 10:44 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I really hope you don’t think that explains anything at all here.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 11:12 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It strikes me as really funny that this is where our body politic has reached in the time of Bush: we are now proposing to write classic Orwellian double-speak into our laws. And it’s not even coming from the Republicans, it’s coming from the Democrats.
Consider the absurdity of a bill that will confer full immunity for following a legal directive. Obviously, if you follow what is actually a legal directive, you don’t need immunity. You did nothing illegal.
So the phrase “legal directive” in the legislation actually means an illegal directive.
What will actually be deemed to constitute a legal directive for purposes of this legislation remains a very interesting issue. But one thing is clear, by definition. It will be an illegal instruction of some sort.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 11:26 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Why does everything have to be so difficult? You asked “What does “legal directive” mean?”. Could it possibly mean that a National Security directive was issued for which these companies complied with, nothing more, I didn’t propose this THE case, just a possible meaning to “legal directive”. It could mean legal but top secret. But of course that doesn’t matter, our congress would rather spout off in public forums about theoretical possibilities instead of getting the security clearance to know the truth.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 12:44 pm ¶
matt wrote:
how would that supersede the FISA law that requires warrants signed by judges?
i’m well past sick of hearing this line of nonsense from you. in any number of cases, congress has been cut out of the process. we’ve painstakingly documented this over the course of four years.
it’s not like going down to the store and buying milk. the administration is loudly and proudly denying congress the information they need to do their jobs. it’s not theoretical, it’s on the record.
i don’t want to read this shitty attempt to muddy the waters again here.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 1:06 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I’m not here to defend it, I was just giving a possible explanation as to what that could have meant.
I’d be fine and dandy with that if *they* actually tried and were stonewalled and then came back and told the public they were stonewalled by the Bush administration, but to not even try because they would be stonewalled is not acceptable. They are there to represent us and they should do their jobs.
My daughter didn’t want to try to ride her bike again because she fell too many times in the past and simply wanted to give up, but I encouraged her to keep trying, which she did and fell, again but eventually she got it. I’d expect at least a child’s effort from our congress….
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶
matt wrote:
are you retarded?
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 3:04 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, don’t waste your time.
JimC seems to have entirely missed all the news stories about how the Bush administration routinely insists that all appropriate members of Congress have already been fully briefed, even when they themselves publicly declare that they have not.
In the delusional world he lives in, the problem is that these people have not bothered to get security clearances. And not demanded information. And not publicly complained about not getting it.
I’m not sure if there’s a name for the disease that JimC suffers from. There’s certainly no cure that I’m aware of.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 3:12 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’t care which issue or how long it takes, if they don’t try, then they are defeated without lifting a finger, no wonder the approval rating for congress is lower than for Bush….
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 3:54 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
just like I said…
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 4:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So are you advocating that congress just yield to the Bush administration? I mean if the Senators are asking what went on and protesting, yet doing nothing to find out, how is that serving us? Or is it this is just a way to get the legislation killed? I mean if congress finds out the secrets and then passes the bill, then we won’t be able to roast the evil telecom over an open fire. So clearly it would be better political fodder to not find out anything and just bleat as loud as they can about it, get some more negative news cycles, etc., is this the real problem?
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 5:29 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I rest my case. an incurable, unknown disease.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 7:52 pm ¶
matt wrote:
jim, now you’re just jabbering.
please tell me you know that every sitting congressman has a higher approval rating than bush. because i hope you’re not back to incoherently repeating fox news talking points…
get smarter.
Posted 18 Oct 2007 at 8:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Turns out that “legal directive” means a pretty-please letter authorized by George W. himself:
Doesn’t cover acts of bending over performed by telecommunications companies before 9/11, though.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:54 am ¶
JimC wrote:
From the politico - Oct 11, 2007 06:57 PM EST
And from the same article, Bush is at 27%, now I know I’m not as smart as you but I do believe that 18% is lower than 27%.
Now I know you said “congressman” but the Senate is part of congress (upper house) but I will cut you some slack if you only meant to say that only members of the House of Representatives are all higher than Bush (I don’t even want to bother looking at their approval rates) but Senator Reid (D), the Senate Majority Leader, is way below Bush’s ratings.
Wasn’t that fun?
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 2:43 pm ¶
matt wrote:
reid won his last election 61-35%. he’ll do the same next time. congress has a 92% re-elect rate. bush lost his first election, and won by 3% last time.
reid’s constituents in nevada give him 32%, still 5 points higher than bush’s constituents give him.
earlier this year, reid was at 50%. bush hasn’t seen 50% since his reelection.
next year, when congressional democrats force all the issues they’re passing on now in order to increase their margins in congress, their numbers will go back up. bush’s will only continue tanking.
i’m sorry you thought you found a nut, but you should have stopped at “I know I’m not as smart as you” because none of this is the point. you have been flailing about for months blaming democrats for not kidnapping the president at gunpoint and forcing him to turn over all the documents he’s hiding. without breaking the law as the president is, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE THEM DO? not an optional question, btw.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 3:25 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Oh, I thought you meant no sitting member of congress now. My mistake because clearly had you meant no sitting congressman now, today has a lower rate than Bush then you would have been wrong but we all know you are never wrong, so clearly you meant past ratings or future ratings and not current ratings. Of course I’m being facetious. You would never let me get away with a response like you just gave me….
As for your non-optional question, I expect them to do their job. How difficult is that? I don’t care if they get scuttled at every turn by Bush Administration. I’m not talking just about Democrats either. This post clearly highlights Arlen Specter who said that he didn’t know what went on that needs retro-immunity, well Arlen, go find out, do your job….
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 5:29 pm ¶
matt wrote:
hey retard: “reid’s constituents in nevada give him 32%, still 5 points higher than bush’s constituents give him.”
what part sent what passes for your brain into an infinite loop?
this is supposed to be an answer?
do not post another comment until you answer the question. what would you have them do?
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 5:41 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I very much fear that’s the best (if not only) answer JimC is capable of giving.
I don’t think he understands he’s being asked to explain how they’re supposed to find out.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:08 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Oh so among his constituents he has a slightly higher rating, how about his friends & family? Reid is the Senate Majority leader, and is supposed to be leading the Democrats in the Senate and in that role, he gets an 18%…
What would I have them do? I have said it over and over, push, grill, ask questions, get clearance if necessary, and if after that you still do not get any answers, then pursue legal action, take it to the Supreme Court, anything except whine about not having what they need or want. Its called checks and balances, except this impotent congress can’t check the Executive branch because they are witless and spineless or deliberately not pursuing just to be dramatic and score points for the next election cycle. I want our congress to get serious about something. They let Bush get away with everything you complain about yet its not their fault??? They deserve their 11% rating….
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:24 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Dear me, no one who already has clearance has pushed, grilled, or asked questions, have they? Or issued subpoenas (or maybe that doesn’t count as a legal action?).
As for taking anything to this Supreme court, yeah, that’ll work where nothing else has.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:36 pm ¶
matt wrote:
from people who can’t even vote in elections in which he runs.
and it is your considered opinion that they have not done all of this? have you recently suffered a brain injury? you’re now just repeating the same nonsense over and over.
what does this mean? clearance is granted by certain executive branch agencies, controlled by the president. they can’t just go to the store and pick some up.
they have subpoenaed documents and officials. they have been ignored. the legal system dictates that the justice department must enforce the subpoenas. the justice department hasn’t cooperated either.
so my question to you is “what can they do that they have not already done?”
and wouldn’t it be easier for your hero, commander codpiece, to just follow the law and give them what they need to do oversight?
do you realize how absurd your argument is? and on top of that, they’ve done everything you suggest except “get” clearance. and i’d love to hear how you think they should go about that?
god you’re a fucking moron. you’re just clueless as to how things work outside of the church and the rush limbaugh two minutes’ hate. how do you even walk without falling down? you should really find someone smarter than you (should be a piece of cake) to sub for you here.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:40 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
If they have exhausted all of their avenues and the President still will not cooperate, then impeach him. Bush is not my hero but I am sick and tired of the whining that the brainless, idiot, monkey outwits and out plays the cunning free thinkers. My personal belief is that they, the leaders of congress, do not want to push it because it is better to play the victim….
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:51 pm ¶
matt wrote:
My personal belief is that this is a brand new version of “his responsibility but not his fault.”
it’s pathetic that you can’t do any better than this because i’ll argue all day. but you’re not even worth it. you aren’t adding anything except pathetic word games and blame shifting.
have we not criticized democrats enough for you here? on this same and other issues? who here is whining about “the brainless, idiot, monkey outwits and out plays the cunning free thinkers?” cause you know, i’d really hate to have to ban you for ascribing others’ words to us. but i’ll do it without another thought.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 7:57 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
First of all, in reference to the “ascribing others words” I wasn’t talking about you, I wasn’t ascribing anything to you or 1115.org, I was talking about Bush’s critics in general, especially Democrats in office, so please put down your ban finger, hold off just yet.
I’m not excusing Bush for anything in fact there comes a point, if the man is breaking the law, when is he going to be impeached? I mean if he is breaking the law who is supposed to check him on that? Congress? Is he truly untouchable? Even if he is, I still would respect someone for trying to force the issue, even if they know they are going to fail.
This is not about putting blame on congress for Bush’s acts but blaming them for their inability to get anything done. Whatever they are doing, it is not working….
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 9:19 pm ¶
matt wrote:
wtf does any of that have to do with discussing what we’ve written here? i’ll tell you: nothing.
go fuck yourself. their inability is his refusal. i’d ask you how many votes democrats have vs how many they need for impeachment, but that seems like a fools errand. stop fucking jabbering and pay attention to the law and political realities.
Posted 19 Oct 2007 at 9:37 pm ¶