Hoyer: Info for Immunity

[Gold Metal Flake]

From the AP:



A top Democratic leader opened the door Tuesday to granting U.S. telecommunications companies retroactive legal immunity for helping the government conduct electronic surveillance without court orders, but said the Bush administration must first detail what those companies did.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority. About 40 pending lawsuits name telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws. Democrats introduced a draft version of the new law Tuesday _ without the immunity language.

"We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done, for which we've been asked to give immunity," Hoyer said.

Is he writing a history book? Crime without consequences. Hoyer, you goddamn traitor.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Is he writing a history book? No, he's trying to get some answers.

And given the lengths to which this administration has gone to try to keep from giving them, I'd say that's a pretty important item to ask for. If FISA was really "too onerous", if warrantless wiretapping was really only about spying on calls made involving "the terrorists" and at least one party outside the country, that's one thing.

But what if the reason they don't want to give ANY information about the NSA wiretaps is that they were used, say, for political purposes? Say they were monitoring the Kerry campaign in 2004, to throw out one hypothetical. THAT would be the REAL crime, wouldn't it? Some of this shit might actually start making sense, and it would be awful hard for the administration to justify ANY of it's bullshit unconstitutional "anti-terror" shennanigans.

Frankly, I think it's worth giving the telecom companies a pass if it leads to some actual ANSWERS on some of this shit. I disagree with you- I think Hoyer is onto something.

[Eric J in MN]

3. If they were eavesdropping on the John Kerry campaign,

...do you think they are going to tell Congress that?

Bush doesn't want amnesty for phone companies that much.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Probably not. But I'm not going to reflexively flip out on Hoyer, here.

If Harman was still in that job, we wouldn't have ANY sorts of demands on the administration. If they could just provide a load of phony answers, they would have done so already, I should think. Instead, they've been oddly obsessed with total secrecy around what they've been up to on this.. I think it's weird.

We'll see what happens, I guess.

[babylonsister]

4. I don't trust Hoyer, and trust the progressives. Having said that,

I will wait to see how this VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE shakes out. And I'm not keen on giving the telecoms a pass for any reason.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. I'd like to see some answers. I think the administration's refusal to provide 'em is suspicious.

That's all I'm sayin'. If comes down to a choice between giving the telecoms a pass and giving the Bush administration a pass, I'd just as soon the Bush administration be held ultimately responsible for any extra-constitutional or illegal activity that may have gone down.

[Mojorabbit]

5. I so totally disagree

they were traitors to the constitution to do what they did. If they get off, it will send a message that it can be done again with no consequences. And I have no confidence the administration will give them anything resembling the truth and they will have caved for nothing.

[Warren DeMontague]

7. If the Administration could just bullshit on this, why haven't they done so already?

Why have they refused to provide ANY answers about what they've been doing?

[Eric J in MN]

10. Because the Bush Admin loves secrecy.

They refused to even say what Alberto Gonzales' middle initial stands for during his nomination hearings to become US Attorney General.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. I read the article. The bottom line is, it's ridiculous to spin this as Hoyer being a "traitor".

I know it's a fun pastime for some to poo-fling at Democrats in congress, but I'm not so sure it's warranted in this case. Read the article. What he's saying isn't "give us answers and we'll give you immunity"- he's saying "how the fuck can we be expected to even consider immunity if we aren't being told what activity we're supposed to be giving immunity for?"

Here's the operative quote, again: "We have not received documentation as to what in fact was done, for which we've been asked to give immunity"

Don't like it, fine. But I think it's a little much to call the guy a "goddamn Traitor" for it.

[Eric J in MN]

15. The article also says,

"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said providing the immunity will likely be the price of getting President Bush to sign into law new legislation extending the government's surveillance authority."

[Warren DeMontague]

16. True dat.

One way or another, I'd like some answers as to precisely WHY the FISA rubber-stamp court was "too onerous" for this gang.

[soothsayer]

12. what will happen is immunity plus no answers.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. And freezing rain, too.

No doubt.

[Eric J in MN]

2. If Bush vetoes the FISA bill, that would be GOOD.

It would mean the Bush Administration would be legally required to get a warrant more often. Democrats shouldn't give immunity to phone companies out of fear of a Bush veto.

Please send your Senators or Congressperson an email like this (you are welcome to use my words without mentioning me):

Do not give retroactive immunity to phone companies.

Any company which violated our privacy in an illegal manner should pay damages.

This is about accountablity for breaking the law.

Phone companies have no motive to obey the law in the future if you give them retroactive immunity.

Once again, please vote against any bill which gives retroactive immunity to phone companies for privacy violations.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. I don't think the phrasing in the OP is terribly fair. What he's saying is, how can they be

expected to even consider granting immunity if they aren't going to be told what they're supposed to grant immunity for?

That's a legitimate question, frankly.

[soothsayer]

14. Why don't the dems just make a fist and force the effer to sign new legislation.

I mean, just keep sending it back to his desk over and over until he knuckles under. Why are we the first to blink every time?