Truer words, and I'll quote 'em just like First Draft did:
If Congress immunizes the telecoms for past violations of the law, it will send the message Congress approves what the administration did. We would be aiding and abetting the President in his illegal actions, his contempt for the rule of law, and his attempt to hide his lawbreaking from the American people. Voting for amnesty would be a vote for silence, secrecy, and illegality. There would be no accountability, no justice, no lessons learned.
The damage will not stop there. The telecommunications companies are not the only private entity enlisted by this administration in its lawbreaking. Think about Blackwater and its brutal actions in Iraq, or the airlines that have flown CIA captives to be tortured in foreign countries. These companies may also be summoned to court one day to justify their actions. When that day comes, the administration may call yet again for retroactive immunity, claiming the companies were only doing their patriotic duty as ``partners'' in fighting terrorism.
The debate we are having now about telecom amnesty is not likely to be the last round in the administration's attempt to immunize its private partners. It is only the opening round. In America, we should be striving to make more entities subject to the rule of law, not fewer. Giving in to the administration now will start us down a path to a very dark place.
Think about what we have been hearing from the White House in this debate. The President has said American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity--no immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he is willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments



Front page

Comments
Reading this speech is nothing compared to seeing it.
To feel the heat of Kennedy's righteous outrage is nothing short of spectacular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiFKIwffAGs
Nothing is true; everything is permitted.
Speaking of the FISA...
...just a reminder that two sections of the Patriot Act are coming back up for review at the end of the year. I did a blog on this back in November.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
My first comment here...
...since Corrente became Correntwire and I'm afraid it's a comment that is impolitic.
I admired much of what Ted Kennedy accomplished in his long service in the US Senate and this floor speech on (the gutting of) FISA is a good one. But how is it that that Teddy Kennedy felt so strongly about this granting of retroactive immunity but yet supported a man for the presidency who (earlier pledges to filibuster if necessary notwithstanding) sold us down the road by voting for this bill?
I'd like to think that Teddy Kennedy was disappointed to see Obama cave and vote to gut FISA and grant retroactive immunity. I'd like to think that having Teddy Kennedy with us and still an active and healthy part of the US Senate would make some difference in the current debate on health care...er...health insurance reform...er....health insurance company welfare. I don't know that Ted Kennedy would be able to change the outcome on health care, but I feel sure he would be disappointed in the path we seem to be heading down on the issue...and the president who is so impotently allowing it (because he sure ain't leading) to happen.
Long live Edward Kennedy. Long live the Lion of the Senate.
YeahYou
You weren't the only one asking this question while reading this:
I can't seem to remember if he endorsed him before or after the vote, but it is something that makes you wonder, and it's something many of us asked of many different legislators at the time they endorsed the current president.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
I thought...
... I'd let others draw the obvious conclusions on this one ;-)
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi