1115.org

(1)
The Senate, in its profound deliberative wisdom, has seen fit to kill the Judiciary Committee’s version of the surveillance bill (by a 60-36 vote; obviously, many Democrats voted “Kill! Kill! Kill!). That is to say, the Senate has put to sleep the version of the bill that would have withheld retroactive immunity for telecoms for unspecified acts of illegal wiretapping.

That clears the way for the Senate, in its lust for trampling on basic constitutional rights, to embrace the Intelligence Committee’s version of the surveillance bill. That is the version of the bill that appears regularly in George Bush’s wet dreams, the one that grants telecoms retroactive immunity.

Or maybe “clears the way” is too strong. Chris Dodd and friends stand ready to be the bicycle to the Bush regime’s Tian’anmen Square tanks. Stand ready to be gratuitously vilified, and be called traitors and terrorist-lovers and worse.

(2)
Maybe it helps to put the retroactive immunity issue in the simplest possible terms.

These telecoms knowingly cooperated with the Bush regime in illegal wiretapping of their customers. They started down this road well before 9/11.

What possible excuse can there be for granting them blanket immunity for this illegal conduct? (In case you are tempted to entertain any, the fact sheet on Sen. Russ Feingold’s web page that I linked to yesterday will do a fine job of disabusing you of any such notion.)

And yet these twelve Democrats think Bush’s retroactive immunity plan is really, really neat: Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).

Do send them a love note if any of them belongs to you. If none of them belong to you, join me in spitting on them, and wishing that their sons and daughters are sharper than a serpent’s tooth to them in their old age (may it come upon them soon).

(3)
The White House has stooped to really absurd levels in trying to sell/defend retroactive immunity:

Retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies is the most contentious issue. The Senate is expected to vote this week on whether to shield the companies from the roughly 40 pending civil lawsuits alleging violations of communications and wiretapping laws. The White House says if the cases go forward they could reveal information that would compromise national security. It also contends that the companies could be bankrupted if the lawsuits are successful.

Could “reveal information that would compromise national security” is just the usual Bush regime crock o’ sh*t, the one we have all learned to recognize at 200 yards. I think I like Newsweek’s version a lot better:

If the lawsuits were allowed to go forward, they could become vehicles for a full public examination of still secret orders and legal rulings that the president and Justice Department used to justify warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens after September 11.

But how about that “the companies could be bankrupted if the lawsuits are successful”? What a truly novel argument for protecting someone from the legal consequences of their illegal actions!

Hey George, if the lawsuits are successful, some of the CEOs may burst into tears too. Their moms will be deeply hurt, as well. Make sure you put that in your next round of rationalizations, okay?