How ridiculous would it be if the Democratic majority in Congress gave the telecommunications companies (and George Bush) retroactive immunity, even though they have no need to do so at all? Folks, it would another failure by our caucus to stand up to the President and to act as a co-equal branch of government. This would be a repudiation of the Constitution and another symbol that Congress would lay over and die rather than protect the rights of Americans, something they swore an oath to when becoming members of the Legislative branch.
I guess many in that caucus just don't give a damn:
House and Senate Democratic leaders are headed into talks today that they say could lead to a breakthrough on legislation to revamp domestic surveillance powers and grant phone companies some form of immunity for their role in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
A senior House Democratic aide said a bill could be sent to President Bush as early as next week. But significant issues remain, including those surrounding immunity, said Wyndee R. Parker, general counsel of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Parker, who said she hopes the House can take up the compromise legislation as early as this week, said a resolution has been delayed partly by the need for all members of the House Judiciary Committee to gain access to the letters and other relevant documents sent to the phone companies by the administration requesting their assistance.
Um, what? No, the duty of Congress is to allow the people (who they represent) to be able to sue these companies for violating their privacy. It is up to (and framed by the people that wrote our Constitution) the courts to decide whether the telecoms are culpable in their actions that aided and abetted George Bush in his quest to illegally spy on American citizens. That is how it is supposed to work.
If only the wing of the Democratic party that wishes to (and rightly) do nothing to help these corporations had more members, we'd be able to sit tight until either the President learns that this is a nation of laws and not a nation that serves corporate interests.......or, we get a new President. That is what we need, "compromise" (meaning giving Republicans everything that they want) is not the right path of action here.
|