Thursday, October 18, 2007
FISA and amnesty...
As it turns out, if the telecoms acted in good faith, believing that what they were doing was legal, they already have immunity.
Bush is pushing to give them immunity again. Why?
Oh, come on, now. I know Bush supporters are shameless in spreading BS, but isn't it a bit hard, even for them, to suggest that they need another layer of immunity on top of that? It's it pretty damn obvious by now that there were knowing violations of the law, done in secret?
Bush is demonstrating that he knows that what he did was illegal, and he's scared to death that the telecom lawsuits will prove that he's a criminal, that he violated the law, rather than do the responsible thing and have it changed. Further, there's suggestions that he was breaking the law (or attempting to do so) in February of 2001, 7 months before 9/11. If the telecoms give up information in discovery, it might turn out that his lawbreaking was because he wanted the extra power, not to protect us from terrorists.
Which brings us to another question. At this point, if you're a Bush supporter who think he acted properly, shouldn't you want to see him vindicated? Shouldn't you want enough of the truth to come out to prove that he acted nobly?
Otherwise, there will be constant questions about when he acted, and why... if you were confident that the truth would protect him, why wouldn't you want the truth to come out? The most obvious reason to fight to keep it hidden would be if folks were afraid that the truth would be that his actions really were indefensible.