The Cover-Up Nearly Complete
by mcjoan
Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:35:16 AM PDT
DNI McConnell and AG Mukasey have penned yet another missive to Harry Reid, this time to warn him that the most promising of amendments to be considered to the FISA Amendments Act, Bingaman's provision that would delay immunity until after an IG report, is utterly unacceptable. There's a surprise.
Emptywheel at FDL covers the salient points:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2008/07/07/shorter-mike-and-mike-no-we-dont-want-immunity-contingent-on-actually-finishing-the-ig-report/And I gotta say--the fact that
DNI Mike McConnell and AG Michael Mukasey claim they'd advise Bush to veto the bill if it included Jeff Bingaman's amendment--holding off on giving the telecoms immunity until after the IG study mandated by the bill was completed--makes me rather suspicious that Bush intends to spike the IG investigation....As we have previously noted, any FISA modernization bill must contain effective legal protections for those companies sued because they are believed to have helped the Government prevent terrorist attacks in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.
H.R. 6304 contains such protection, but the amendment would reportedly foreclose an electronic communication service provider from receiving retroactive (immunity) until 90 days after the Inspectors General of various departments, as required by section 301 of H.R. 6304, complete a comprehensive review of, and submit a final report on, communications intelligence activities authorized by the President between September 11, 2001, and January 17, 2007. The final report is not due for a year after the enactment of the bill. Any amendment that would delay implementation of (immunity) in this manner is unacceptable. Providing prompt liability protection is critical to the national security. Accordingly, we, as well as the President's other advisors, will recommend that the President veto any bill that includes such an amendment.
Now, I'd be charitable and buy Mike amd Mike's claim that they're just worried about a delay. Except that they make this completely cynical bid to suggest that the SSCI's review of the program was adequate to expose what really happened with this program....
So we know that--at the very least--the IG investigation will have reviewed John Yoo's role in this process, whereas SSCI has not done so. You think maybe there's something that OPR found but is hiding (and on that note, here's the LAT's recent discovery of something I covered last year--
http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/07/the-ig-loophole.html that OPR never has to reveal the results of its investigations)?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-opr6-2008jul06,0,7756465.story Mike and Mike don't want you and I to find out what that is until after McConnell's former buddies in the privatized spying racket get their immunity.And, too, though Mike and Mike don't want to say it, they also don't want us to have any leverage over both the telecoms and the Administration(s) to make sure we get our IG review. Telecom immunity, after all, is a pretty fucking big carrot.
We're way more likely to get what we want out of them--timely cooperation and security clearances--if we withhold that carrot until we get what we want.
But Mike and Mike, for some reason, are dead set against that happening. more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/8/10352/81349/209/547948
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
