Steny Hoyer: FISA Deal "Still in Flux"

from AlterNet's PEEK:




Steny Hoyer: FISA Deal "Still in Flux"

Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 5:28 AM on May 8, 2008.

The telecom companies are still trying to secure immunity for their illegal assistance in spying on Americans.




Just when we thought we were out, they pull us back in ...



This is an piece of legislation which we can feel proud to have battled back since last August. But Bush wants this one very, very badly for some reason and he's going to push it right up until the day he leaves office. It's a zombie. And it's not just about money. These are huge corporations that can easily afford to litigate these claims and since it is unlikely that any of the plaintiffs suffered huge damages they don't face outrageous financial liability. They don't even face much bad PR: if they lose, they just say they were trying to help the government fight terrorists and there won't be a whole lot of customers who will switch to other carriers when they find out they violated the fourth amendment. This is about the Bush administration and keeping civil liberties lawyers from having access to discovery documents.


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/84784/

that the telecoms were not all that concerned about the immunity since they have an indemnity clause that bush gave them. Which basically says go ahead and sue the Government will pick up the tab if you win. Wondering if this is true?

it's only about BushCo fighting off the discovery of evidence about illegal wiretapping. The companies are not really under threat at all. They are just helping out their buddy, Bush.

(As it has been for quite some time) They only have one overriding aim for the rest of the time manage to keep their hands on the levers of power -- The avoidance of responsibility for the vast criminal undertaking they have been the authors of.

Those that are innocent have no need of immunity. Practically every criminal, when caught, protests that he was acting in service to only the highest motives. In this case, it was (all bow) "national security." Left unanswered, of course, is the question why this was going on even before September 11, 2001.

Can't the Dems just be firm and just say NO.

What good (for the American public) exactly will come out any kind of "deal" on FISA "reform", particularly any kind of "reform" that gives retroactive immunity to telecom companies that may have, on Bush's orders, allowed him to spy on Americans outside of the boundaries of the current FISA law? The National Intelligence Director and Attorney General have essentially been forced to admit that the current and longstanding FISA law has been adequate in helping prevent terrorism or at least has not been proven to have prevented federal law enforcement agencies from responding adequately to terrorist threats. I have a feeling that any kind of "deal" made by House Democrats and the Bush (mis-)administration and/or Senate Democrats whom supported the telecom immunity would end up being, like so many "deals" that have already been made on too many things since Bush took office, a BAD one for the rest of the country and would further serve to legitimize the unconstitutional and illegal actions undertaken by the Bush (mis-)administration. Let's hope that enough Democrats (and maybe even some Republicans?) ensure that FISA stays just the way it is. Based on the evidence, not only of the current FISA law's apparent adequacy but also of the Bush (mis-)administration's well-known "bad intentions" towards EVERYTHING, it does not need to "enhanced" in any way IMHO, especially not with Bush/Cheney still in office.

a "deal" or a "compromise" on UNNECESSARY legislation just doesn't pass the smell test. Something is really rotten about Hoyer pushing for another go on unnecessary FISA Legislation. A question that needs to be asked bluntly, what will Hoyer personally gain from re-introducing this legislation? The American people sure as hell won't benefit and its unthinkable that the House Majority Leader would want to help cover up criminal activity or run interference for accountability to benefit the White House.