Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Democrats Seek Alternative on Phone Immunity

Just when you think the Democrats in the House are going to cave in, they show signs of some fight on the issue of giving retroactive immunity to lawbreaking telecom companies that played a key role in the Administrations illegal wiretapping program.

Apparently they are pushing for an alternative that doesn't include immunity...as Reuters reports in the New York Times:

Democratic lawmakers drew White House fire on Tuesday when they offered an alternative to U.S. President George W. Bush's demand that phone companies that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program receive immunity from lawsuits. Under the Democratic proposal, phone companies would present their defense in a closed-door U.S. district court, with the judge given access to confidential documents about the electronic surveillance begun after the September 11 attacks.


Even if the full House passes the Democratic measure, it appears certain Republicans will block it in the Senate, extending with no apparent end in sight an election-year dispute over national security. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, called the House bill "a tremendous step forward."

I found this interesting, as once again the major corporate media got the facts of the wiretapping program wrong, or they're simply lying about it to not appear too "anti-administration". Why any news outlet would be afraid to report the truth about these criminals is beyond me, but notice this passage:

Shortly after the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized warrantless surveillance. Critics charged he broke the law. Bush said he had the war-time power to do it, but he later put the program under FISA jurisdiction. Terms remain secret.

Sorry to break it to the Times, but the program was started WELL BEFORE 9/11, not only making it clear the administration has been lying about why they really started the program, and, why, if its so critical to our safety, didn't it help STOP 9/11?

I guess the media just doesn't want to deal with questions and contradictions of this seriousness.

Click here to read the article in its entirety.

No comments: