Monday, October 15, 2007

No To Phone Company Amnesty

Glenn Greenwald explains, in a way I don't have the patience to, why Congress must not approve any kind of amnesty to the phone companies for selling us all out to the Bush Administration.

It's also a useful look at just how intertwined the telcos are with our spying and military institutions.

If it weren't for the ACLU and the EFF, we wouldn't know any of this. It's truly mindboggling; it can be depressing if you're willing to sit back and watch it happen while sitting on your hands. But it doesn't have to be:

Tell the House and Senate leaders, NO AMNESTY! Firedoglake has a list of important numbers to call and let the committee members hear it, loud and clear. Use your voice. Call the Senators. Call the Congress.

Drunken hobo Joe Klein has a perch at Time magazine; you have your voice and toll-free numbers to call. Make your voice louder than his.

UPDATE: BoingBoing also has a good post up on this:

The administration's attempt to stop the litigation based on the secrecy
argument failed before the U.S. District Court, and the administration's appeal
is pending before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Unnamed sources have
informed reporters that the government and the telecommunications carriers are
deeply concerned that the 9th Circuit will allow the case to proceed, and now an
army of telecom lobbyists and administration officials is trying to stop the
litigation by persuading Congress to grant full immunity to the carriers.
The Hepting case, along with companion cases pending in District Court,
represent the country's best hope to test the administration's extreme view of
executive power in the crucible of judicial scrutiny, and to allow the courts to
determine whether we are truly a nation governed by law or by people.
It is
imperative that our society gets answers to crucial questions raised by the
warrantless surveillance program on the separation of powers and the scope of
executive authority. The courts must not be pulled from the fight, whether by
the state secret privilege or immunity legislation. It would be a travesty to
deny the opportunity for justice to those whose privacy has perished under a
presidential program, and to prevent the courts from determining whether the
Constitution supports the president's claim of unbridled executive power.

No comments: