BURYING THE EVIDENCE-Telecom immunity is Bush immunity - the proof

[kpete]

Telecom immunity is Bush immunity - the proof
by dday
Sat Mar 01, 2008 at 04:04:53 PM PST

We really have to look at this FISA battle in a completely new way in the context of today's New York Times story (emphasis mine).

THE PHONE COMPANIES DO NOT CARE-

The warnings from President Bush and his senior aides have grown more urgent over the last few weeks, now that Congress has let a temporary wiretapping law expire. But there is little sign of anxiety among many intelligence and phone industry officials.

Yes, the telecom industry is largely unconcerned about nullifying billion-dollar lawsuits against them.

THE MILITARY IS NOT CONCERNED

At the Pentagon and the military’s Central Command, senior officials gave no indication of any heightened concern about the lapsing of the law. In Congress, staff members with access to updated briefings said they had not been given any specific information about lost intelligence that might endanger national security. And in the telecommunications industry, executives said it was largely business as usual.

Indeed, for all the heated rhetoric in Washington about the government’s wiretapping powers, the debate over what a new surveillance law should look like has little to do with the present or the future and almost everything to do with the past.

So if the intelligence community doesn't care about this, and the phone company executives don't care about this, there's only one constituency for which this legislation is designed. And that's the Bush Administration itself.

In his Press Conference yesterday, Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush candidly explained why he was so eager to have Congress grant amnesty to telecoms:

"Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080228-2.html

Bush is finally being candid about the real reason the administration is so desperate to have these surveillance lawsuits dismissed. It's because those lawsuits are the absolute last hope for ever learning what the administration did when they spied on Americans for years in violation of the law. Dismissal via amnesty would ensure that their spying behavior stays permanently concealed, buried forever, and as importantly, that no court ever rules on the legality of what they did. Isn't it striking how that implication of telecom amnesty is never discussed, and how little interest it generates among journalists -- whose role, theoretically, is to uncover secret government actions?


This is about burying the evidence, as every single action by the White House since the Democratic takeover of Congress has been. Bush may have a soft spot in his heart for his corporate buddies, but he's really not interested in indemnifying them. He's interested in immunity for himself.

*****************



more at:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/1/19218/45259/791/467031

[bluerum]

1. ACtually, this gives the telecom execs great leverage over the bush crime family.

They will be blackmailing them for decades.

[fasttense]

2. It' not time for the truth to come out. The bush has plans for when

the truth is to be released and it's not time yet.

[malaise]

3. What's with this Commander -in- Chief bullshit

Bush is only Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, not citizens. :puke:

Is it fascism yet?

[Mister Ed]

6. Thank you for pointing that out.

The Busheviks have been using that "Commander-in-chief" title at every opportunity for a couple of years now. It's a propaganda ploy designed to get the public accustomed to the idea of the president as dictator, or "unitary executive", as they so euphemistically put it.

Of course, the truth is just as you say. Under the Constitution, the president is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and only the armed forces.

Someone needs to think of a clever way to counter this propaganda in a simple, memorable catch-phrase or sound-bite.

[malaise]

18. Commander-in-thief

might do. :D

[Mister Ed]

22. I love it! I'm gonna start using that one every chance I get. n/t

[kentuck]

4. Harry Reid offered the Repubs a 30-day extension...

and they shot it down. They are still following Bush's dictates. It should be obvious to the most naive novice that they are not concerned about America's security - they are cncerned about George W Bush and their own security. We do not know who they spied upon. Christine Amanpour? Al Gore? John Kerry? You? Me? (I did get an $850 dollar bill from AT&T which I am still fighting and have no idea what it was for)
I only pray that the Democrats do not fold on this issue. I wish I had more faith in the present leadership. We should not have to guess what they will do about this.

[madokie]

5. seems as if it hasn't been settle yet

I feel we've already been sold down the river on this and our congress critters are only working on how to frame it so as to not piss us totally off. but that may just be my ass talking I don't know.

[L. Coyote]

7. "We do not know who they spied upon." ?? EVERYONE! That's the cover-up!

TELECOM COVER-UP? Nacchio and Qwest: Another Political Prosecution?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2935817

[Spiffarino]

8. Reid and Co. keep bringing up the extensions

It shows what the Repubs in Congress are really about: Covering Bush's ass. But why? Why should they be so concerned for Mister 19% Approval Rating?

Given how much Bush is reviled in this country, Republicans can't be hanging their political futures on Bush's fate. There must be more to it, and it smells like the 109th Congress was involved in more than just allowing Bush to spy. I suspect the Republicans also benefited from it.

If telecoms are not allowed immunity by law, they can get it from Congress when they testify about the real reasons for the program. WE MUST hold Congress' feet to the fire and not allow Bush to get away with his crimes against the 4th Amendment.

[halobeam]

11. That's the whole nut right there.

----If telecoms are not allowed immunity by law, they can get it from Congress when they testify about the real reasons for the program. WE MUST hold Congress' feet to the fire and not allow Bush to get away with his crimes against the 4th Amendment.-----

WE MUST HOLD CONGRESS'S FEET TO THE FIRE.

[BadgerKid]

12. My thought exactly (Congress-telecom deal)

Let Congress give telecoms immunity in exchange for testimony *co, hopefully to use in their trial.

[havocmom]

14. Seems likely bush/cheney 'eavesdropped' on Congress too.

So much easier to get cooperation when you have the goods on everyone in the game. Blackmail worked well back in J. Edger's day and things weren't as easily tapped back then. With the technology available today, blackmail is easier.

[hootinholler]

9. Never forget the number one talking point should be that the AT&T tap was placed in Feb. '01

Inauguration on 1/20/01. Tap in Feb 01.

This is NOT being reported!

-Hoot

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. At least March 01.

Nacchio said he was approached 6 months before 9-11!

[hootinholler]

42. Mark Klein placed the tap in Feb. So AT&T was on board by then.

Thinking about it that is lightning fast for the Fed.

-Hoot

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. Not in 2001.

Klein's tap was in 2003, I believe.

Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619



The important thing is that Chimp was shopping wiretapping before September 2001 and just weeks after he took office. Easily the most underreported fact in the wiretapping story.

[hootinholler]

44. Thanks for that! I was relying on memory...

Now to figure out where I got Feb 2001 from. I'm positive I read it in association with Klein.

-Hoot

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. No problem. I had to look up the timeline, too.

[Beam Me Up]

10. I have a question . . .

Lets assume that the Bush administration was spying on everyone -- I see no reason to doubt that is possible. However "everyone" -- and all the telecommunications involved -- is a LOT of data, to me an unimaginable amount of data, being scrutinized 24/7. Obviously the vast majority of that data is of NO INTEREST to them what so ever. They may be building databases of certain 'buzz' words and phrases but it also seems to me more likely that they were TARGETING certain groups and individuals: Democratic leaders, journalists not in their control, intelligence operatives, military -- make up your own list. Even though the list will be a tiny fraction of the whole, it still represents an enormous amount of information being scrutinized. So here is my question: WHO was scrutinizing it? What department(s) under the Executive? And, moreover, as we reasonably suspect, they were looking for MORE than "terrorist threats" (especially since this all began months before 9/11), WHAT, precisely, were they looking for? I'm sure we can come up with a whole laundry list of possible 'threats' (to them) and 'benefits' (to them). But this still requires not only a massive amount of computing power but an equally large pool of people who are surveying the information, culling it for whatever criteria has been set. WHO were/are these people?

[frog92969]

13. ~Who were they targeting?~

I believe that's at the very heart of chimpy's paranoia over this.
And I've never seen him so terrified, you can smell it over the stench.

[awnobles]

19. Everybody

They can search not just for words but IP addresses, they can target any individuals email by searching. They have had access to every trade secret, and every transaction. The objection to FISA was making a list of who they tapped, they wanted no record. This tells me they wanted to target illegitimate targets. Why else would you object to a record being kept? Wasn't B*sh cited for insider trading before? They will destroy those record too.

[BadgerKid]

15. Data collection and analysis are two different things.

I'm sure that targeted groups/individuals woudl have ben analyzed fairly quickly. Whatever total data they have must be sitting in storage somewhere (probably with the missing WH emails :eyes:). The compute power need not be that massive if the analysis is to be done later, over a longer period of time.

Remember, the *cons are long-term thinkers.

[Spiffarino]

16. If enough is known about desired individuals...

...fewer resources are required to cull the desired data.

For example, if I happen to know journalist Joseph Blow's phone number, all I have to do is query that number and all the numbers dialed from it. Bingo, I've got a working contact list. If I happen to not like somebody he called, I can track that number, and on it goes. It doesn't take many people to do the work. And, if you work for the NSA, everything you do is classified so nobody is allowed to see what you've been up to. Just because you're doing dirty deeds for Dick Cheney doesn't give Harry Reid the authority to know about it.

Freepers take note: It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican; any compromising information can be useful when the time is right and it's all theirs for the taking. If you piss off the wrong person high in the government or if you are in any way an inconvenience to them, they now have the means to shut you up...or shut you down.

[aggiesal]

27. They don't have to scrutinize it 24/7 ...

Only when your name happens to pop up in some obscure organization like
MoveOn or DemocraticUnderground, they can just sift through all their
data to find who you've been calling, and then listen to those calls, or
what web sites you visit.

They now have all the data. Try getting a job with a DOD facility that
requires some sort of clearance. I'm be willing to bet that all your
dirty laundry comes out.

Bastards!

[sellitman]

17. With all the dirt on Hillary's temper and Obama's middle name you bring this crap up?

:sarcasm:

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Good theory. Except immunity does not stop Congressional oversight. Blackmail does.

[McCamy Taylor]

21. Immunity stops a whistleblower--this is what telecoms fear--insider with data--

that includes names, dates of those spied upon and the info obtained---this would lead to lawsuits, esp. if it was an organization like the Democrats that was the target.

[aggiesal]

28. Yes, but this administration has made it ...

illegal to even mention that anyone has been spied on.

So, no whistleblower could ever come forward, until that law is changed.

Remember in a 2004 debate between numbnuts and Kerry?
King George made a statement, and I'm paraphrasing this:
"If any librarian can prove that what we've been doing is spying on
a citizen, them please come forward and let us know."

He knew that any librarian could never come forward because it would have
been illegal to mention that this administration was spying on us.

The same thing is happening with your medical records. The government can
demand your medical records from your doctor, and they've been told that
they'd get arrested if they mentioned the request to any of their patients.

Ask yourselves this: If Hillary or Barack become president, would they roll
back any of the unitary Presidential laws now enjoyed by this administration?
I don't think so. This should be asked of every candidate, and a Yes or No
answer, should be the only response.

[midnight]

23. Chances are, our enemies already know. Probably only the

American people are in the dark.

"Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance."

[noise]

24. Bush implies we are united

Yet he is the one who uses fearmongering and deceit to attain more power over the public. So does Bush consider the American public to be his enemies?

It is possible to be concerned about terrorism and the possibility of a fascist takeover by authoritarian war profiteers.

[bjobotts]

31. Bush holds up map of our military positions in Iraq on National TV

[bjobotts]

32. Cheney's aid leaves TOP secret documents behind in hotel room

[bjobotts]

33. They leak a spy's name. They 'lose' $12 billion cash sent into war zone

[bjobotts]

34. The Bush administration is the biggest threat to National Security

[bjobotts]

35. Privatized our Security agencies. Let spys in for cash according to Sybil Edmonds

[bjobotts]

36. Only 'secrets' this government has is from its own citizens. Lying bastards

[DUlover2909]

25. This a huge issue. Why haven't the debates covered this?

[HuffleClaw]

26. exactly and the media is NOT reporting this aspect at all

and the dems will likely cave

[orleans]

29. when i heard the fuckhead say

"the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance"
it was obvious as hell that he was trying to cover his own sorry ass.

bastard!

[bjobotts]

30. It was so bad that Ashcroft and the top level at DoJ were going to resign.

over it. This from Glenn Greenwald at salon.com:

"
There was an explosion of press interest for a couple of days last May when former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified about the melodramatic hospital scene where John Ashcroft refused the demands of Alberto Gonzales and Andrew Card to authorize whatever it was the President's domestic spying program entailed, but the most significant revelation from Comey's testimony was -- and still is -- that the administration was engaged in spying activities back then so patently illegal and unconscionable that the entire top level of the DOJ threatened to resign if they continued.
What was it that the administration was doing that provoked that reaction even among its own far right political appointees at the DOJ? On which Americans were they spying without warrants, how were those Americans selected, and what was done with the information? Former OLC official Marty Lederman perfectly described the glaring, unanswered questions about Bush's domestic spying programs raised by the Comey testimony -- questions that are still unanswered and will remain so forever if Congress gives Bush telecom amnesty:
If the narrow version of the NSA program, just how broad and indiscriminate was the surveillance under the program that Ashcroft, et al. would not approve? . . .
This is the real heart of the Comey story -- What happened between September 2001 and October 2003, before Comey and Goldmsith came aboard? Just how radical were the Administration's legal judgments? How extreme were the programs they implemented? How egregious was the lawbreaking?
We still have no idea. Nobody does. And the establishment press could not be any less interested in finding out. The number two official at the Justice Department openly reveals that the President -- with the active, knowing collaboration of the telecom industry -- was breaking the law so severely for years that it was about to provoke mass resignations from his loyal right-wing appointees, and we all just collectively yawn, ...

The telecom law suits are the last chance to finding this out..."
______________________________________________________________

Bush lied about "high attorneys trying to make a buck" since these suits are being brought by organizations dedicated to protecting our civil rights by donating their time, money and experience, who have extremely small staffs and budgets.
Bush was spying on everyone of importance, especially democratic opponents and their financial donors, and it wasn't just Bush, it was all his cronies seeking insider knowledge. THAT was why even a right winger fanatic like John Ashcroft refused to sign on, and why so many republican conservatives at the DoJ were ready to resign...they would not sink that low into the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales corruption. We will never get justice if telecom immunity is granted. Bush will do anything (just as desperate as Nixon) to keep the public from finding out.

[Kermitt Gribble]

37. My guess

is that the military and telcos are not worried about this because immunity is already a done deal. The rest is just political pandering by shrub and congress.

[asp64064]

38. How Spying Works and Who is Involved

http://www.medicalsupplychain.com/pdf/Lipari%20v%20Novation%20et%20al%20Petition%20.pdf

[nradisic]

40. Criminals belong in jail!

Bush and his entire administration are criminals....Liars, Cheats, Thieves and Traitors....and they should all be hauled of to jail first for Treason....Telecomm immunity is nothing more than to cover their own asses. I don't think it is going to work. Karma is a bitch - it will always come back to haunt you.

[Echo In Light]

41. "business as usual"