Telecom Amnesty: Compromise is Not Always Good

by Deb Cupples |   Fascism is "a merger of state and corporate power."  Who would know this better than the late fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, to whom the quote is often attributed (though scholars debate whether he had actually wrote it)?

A solid example of the "merger of state and corporate power" is the White House's push to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the Bush Administration illegally spy on Americans -- what many have short formed as "Telecom Amnesty."

Back in February, before he unofficially joined Barack Obama's campaign, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gave a solid explanation as to why Telecom Amnesty is bad policy.

If you simply cannot endure 9-1/2 minutes of Olbermann's dramatically emotional delivery, check out the links at the end of this post.

That said, The Crypt reported yesterday:

"Telecom companies have presented congressional Democrats with a set of proposals on how to provide immunity to the businesses that participated in a controversial government electronic surveillance program, a House Democratic aide said Wednesday.

"Congress has been wrestling for months with an update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with the immunity issue the primary sticking point.

"Many Democrats want the companies held accountable for participating in the program, which was initiated in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The White House, however, has insisted that the participation of the telecoms is crucial to monitoring conversations between potential terrorists. President Bush has vowed to veto any bill that does not contain immunity.

"House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday a FISA deal is “still in flux” but he described the latest developments as “promising” and said he hoped to have a solution soon."

In other words, the (Democratic) House Majority leader seems willing to compromise on Telecom Amnesty -- which isn't new information, as we posted about it on May 1. 

But is "compromise" a good policy?   Think about the future potential for abuse.  If  telecom corporations can get a free pass, what's to stop them from helping politicians and bureaucrats dig up dirt on political "enemies"?

Does this sound too far fetched?  Too paranoid?  Think back to the 1970s, when Nixon Administration associates broke into the Democratic headquarters and tried to bug those offices at the Watergate complex (see Watergate refresher).   

And to Republicans who are reading this post, I ask you: how would you feel if a Democratic executive branch (which might exist come January) had the power to get telecoms to spy on political "enemies" -- without the telecoms' being accountable for their legal violations?

Memeorandum has commentary.

Some BN-Politics Posts on Telecom Amnesty:

* Domestic Spying Started Before 9/11 & Money Changed Hands

* Domestic Spying & Telecom Amnesty: the Bigger Issues

* So, Let Him Veto FISA (and "Protect Terrorists")

* U.S. Intel Chief Made False Statements re: Domestic Spying

* FBI Made Hundreds of Data-Mining "Errors"

.

Comments

[rawdawgbuffalo]

damn, damn, damn

[Adam]

I simply cannot figure out what Steny Hoyer is thinking. Why is the majority leader working so hard to act against the will of the majority of his party? Why is Steny Hoyer the majority leader, at all? What was the point of winning in 2006 if the congrssional Democratic leaders are willing to act as enablers of administration crimes?

Honestly, I am lost here. I can't understand why any congressional Democrat would be afraid to take a stand here. The counterattack to attack ads is so easy, and the DCCC is making it very clear that they will go to bat for vulnerable representatives who are willing to support the majority on this.

[D. Cupples]

Rawdawg,

My sentiments exactly.

[D. Cupples]

Adam,

I've no clue why any Dem would fail to stand against Telecom Amnesty. Rockefeller certainly doesn't need the few thousand in donations he received from Telecom companies, so I doubt that's it.

I suspect that there's something going on that just hasn't hit the sunshine yet.