It’s deeply unfortunate that, after all of these months of debate and discussion, the president is still this confused.
The Bush administration wants to extend amnesty to telecommunications companies that appear to have broken the law. I say “appear” because the telecoms can have their day in court, presenting evidence, and defending their decisions. Bush believes Congress should stop ongoing legal proceedings, and doing so is important enough to hold the nation’s surveillance laws hostage. (As Matt Yglesias put it, “It’s almost as if the Republican Party exists to serve the interests of large business enterprises and very wealthy individuals, and tends to use national security and cultural anxieties as a kind of political theater aimed at securing votes so that they can better pursue their real agenda of enriching the wealthy and powerful.”)
The notion, though, that telecoms would no longer cooperate with intelligence agencies is just foolish. Two things would happen without telecom immunity: 1) the companies and their teams of lawyers would defend their decisions in a fair trial; and 2) the companies would continue to cooperate because the administration (and any future administration) would get a warrant.
To hear Bush tell it, telecoms would start blowing off court orders. That’s simply not realistic — the telecoms and their lawyers are well aware of the fact that refusing to honor a warrant would bring rather drastic legal consequences. With or without amnesty for previous criminal conduct, the companies will have to cooperate — they won’t have a choice.
Friday, February 15, 2008
He's not "confused"
He's lying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
“[P]eople are wondering why companies need liability protection. Well, if you cooperate with the government and then get sued for billions of dollars because of the cooperation, you’re less likely to cooperate. And obviously we’re going to need people working with us to find out what the enemy is saying and thinking and plotting and planning.”
This can't have been written for him. It has to be some comment he ad libbed. There doesn't seem to be much logical reasoning involved if the information is aimed at educating adults. The sentence structure (And, and, and)is childish and overly explanatory. Why does this man use extemporaneous comments? He has truly "lost" his mind.
Post a Comment