RE: Did Bush grant telecomms indemnification for domestic surveillance?

To: Congressman

March 3, 2008

If the President and Secretary of Defense were asking Congress to pass a bill that provided retroactive immunity for criminal prosecution for criminal acts by Blackwater in the US and abroad, and Congress was not clear about the nature and scope of the criminal behavior because no through investigation had occurred, Congress would rightly be reluctant to blindly give blanket immunity.

How could Congress justify their decision without full knowledge of the crimes? It could not responsibly do so. Furthermore, it could not responsibly take the word of the administration in the matter either. It would have to investigate or make sure the courts could adjudicate.

With over 40 cases already pending in the courts regarding whether the government and telecomm industries conducted illegal surveillance on Americans citizens, it would be a miscarriage of justice for Congress to intercede and end adjudication, the President’s misinformation campaign – that day by day since February 15 Democrats have put American lives more and more at risk – notwithstanding.

There is an argument being made that these telecomm (savvy from experienced legal staff and 70 years of wiretapping legal history) were able to extract indemnification agreements from the US government before becoming a party to the Bush Administration’s domestic surveillance program. If so, retroactive immunity is not needed for the telecomms but needed only by the US government to conceal the facts.

Do not grant telcomms or the Bush administration retroactive immunity. Allow the courts to do their job.

If Americans can no longer have the right to privacy in their communications as we have for so many years then let it be done in the open and not in secret.

“I don’t want you reading my personal stuff,” the president explained to newspaper editors three years ago on why he doesn’t send electronic messages.

All historians need to see are your fucking loopy, loads o’shit, dimwitted,
press conferences…
That’s your legacy…

No.

This frames the issue as the actions of a man devoted to some sense of civic duty. That’s not the case.

Cheney’s lifelong goal is to find ways of helping himself to more power and then using that power to benefit himself (and his friends) financially.

I just sent off your feb 18 post to my USRep’s local chief of staff, regarding prior administrative indemnification. She expressed surprise at this argument when I ran into her at our local starbucks. Is there any more follow-up on this? In particular, anyone who has written not by pseudonym?