FISA Part II: Telecom Retroactive Immunity

When the Bush Administration began their warrantless wiretapping in February of 2001, they approached the telecoms. They asked them to supply the NSA with all their communications. This was prior to 9/11 so they didn't ask for their help to prevent terrorist attacks -- the Bush Administration ignored all pleading by people like Richard Clarke to take Al Queda seriously so we know it wasn't for anti-terrorism. It was only much later, after the World Trade Centers had fallen, part of the Pentagon destroyed and a jet full of innocents crashed in Pennsylvania that they cared.

We will never know what the Bush Administration did with all the information they were given.

Congress has granted the telecoms retroactive immunity for aiding and abetting the Bush Administrations criminal behavior and Bush happily signed the bill into law. Once he pardons everyone else involved in this particular criminal behavior at the end of his term, there will be nobody left for Congress to question. The President and his Administration will have completely gotten away with it. Glenn Greenwald puts it in perspective.

I would really like to know where people like Soderberg get the idea that the U.S. President has the power to "order" private citizens to do anything, let alone to break the law, as even she admits happened here. I'm asking this literally: how did this warped and distinctly un-American mentality get implanted into our public discourse -- that the President can give "orders" to private citizens that must be complied with? Soderberg views the President as a monarch -- someone who can issue "orders" that must be obeyed, even when, as she acknowledges, the "orders" are illegal.
(Glenn Greenwald)

Imagine if one of your neighbors came to you and asked forgiveness for the horrible thing they'd done. "How horrible?" you ask. The person won't answer, just insists that you forgive them and that it was a really awful thing to do. "C'mon," you insist. "What did you do?" The person is so, so sorry, but cannot say. The neighbor does point out the new car another your neighbor has. This neighbor was the first to forgive and received the new car.

So ... of course ... you give your neighbor forgiveness and since you were a little late, only get a new bicycle and golf clubs. Not too bad of a deal, eh?

Obviously, Democrats like Jello Jay Rockefeller were the neighbors who got the car. Which was your Senator? Did they get a new set of golf clubs? Dinnner on the town? Or are they doing the political fancy dance to explain how their lack of intestinal fortitude, their inability to stand up to the Bush Administration wasn't their fault so don't go and blame them?

Remember, the Democratic led Congress passed a law making it legal to break the law after the fact. This immunity will prevent all of the civil lawsuits from moving forward. Criminal lawsuits will still be allowed, but Bush will likely pardon many participants. Then in a future Democratic Administration, the Republican will cry "politics" as soon as the Democrats consider bringing criminal charges against the few who are left. Do any of you honestly think any future Democratic "Leadership" will find the intestinal fortitude to prosecute this?

Looks pretty bleak doesn't it.

There is one and probably only one hope and that is for the courts in particular the Supreme Court to declare this law unconstitutional. Of course, this is the Supreme Court that elected President Bush President in 2000 in a 5-4 decision which prevented a full count of Florida ballots. This is the court that includes Justice Scalia who said the following about torture:

Is it really so easy to determine that smacking someone in the face to find out where he has hidden the bomb that is about to blow up Los Angeles is prohibited under the Constitution? Because smacking someone in the face would violate the 8th amendment in a prison context. You can’t go around smacking people about.

Is it obvious that what can’t be done for punishment can’t be done to exact information that is crucial to this society? It’s not at all an easy question, to tell you the truth.
(Think Progress)

With this kind of reasoning from a Supreme Court Justice, ... okay ... it does look pretty bleak.