Posted by D. Cupples | Evidence from a court case involving former Qwest Communications executive Joseph Nacchio suggests two deeply disturbing possibilities, according to the Washington Post:
1) that the Bush Administration sought -- before the 9/11 -- telecom companies' help in getting American's private phone records without court approval; and
2) that the National Security Agency refused to give Qwest huge federal contracts after Qwest refused to take part in potentially illegal activities.
Since the warrantless-wiretapping programs became public knowledge, Administration officials have claimed the programs were necessitated by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Two months ago, the Bush administration supported legislation that would grant immunity from privacy lawsuits to telecom companies that helped with the Administration's warrantless wiretapping -- the justification being that these companies were serving their nation, as opposed to merely making a buck. (MSNBC)
None of that seems to hold much water now, which is why Congress (even Republicans) should re-think granting such ill-deserved immunity. Congress should also pull out the microscope. If the Qwest-case evidence is accurate, the two big questions are:
1) Why did the Administration want to spy on Americans before 9/11?
2) Is it proper for the Administration to award federal contracts in exchange for a company's agreement to perform legally questionable activities?
I can't help remembering President Richard Nixon, who made an art form of spying on those he perceived as political enemies (see Watergate basics). Below are a few comments from around the blogosphere.
From Braniac Conspiracy:
" It is always the same with these people. All politics, all the time. If they were spying as alleged on Americans' phone conversations in spring 2001, you can bet they weren't looking for foreign terror suspects."
From Free Constitution
"I'm increasingly having a hard time believing we need mass legalization of speedy surveillance unencumbered by warrants.... The issue here is the alleged unethical use of massive government contracts as persuasion to aid in what is most likely an illegal program. Here's a tip to the next spy-prone administration, when you want help for a constitutionally questionable program, don't make it worse with what approaches outright bribery."
Melissa McEwan at Shakesville summed it up this way:
"Another day, another impeachable offense that will come to nothing."
Comments