See, I am a civil liberties kind of girl. I was concerned when it became apparent to me that the government was engaged in wiretapping US persons, because I am one, and I vaguely recall the bad things that were COINTELPRO. I'm silly, I just don't think a reasonable government should have an enemies' list made up of its own citizens. And this is why I am against offering immunity to the telecoms who knuckled under without warrants (in contradiction to, you know, the Constitution) when the Bush administration wanted to get info.
I guess a part of my reluctance has to do with the fact that wiretaps were asked for before 9/11 and it seems like from this article, some threat was held over the heads of the companies, or at least one company, anyway, who said no.
Which is why I am puzzled at Steny Hoyer. The House Majority leader seems to want to legitimize the actual obtaining of information without warrants. So not Constitutional. If you are in his constituency, send him a little note that he's wrong. I don't know what spell he's under. Maybe they will cancel the availability of roll-over minutes on his cell-phone plan. But seriously, wiretapping--they were doing it before 9/11--they did not apparently crack that intell. It was not legal then--I just don't see how immunity should be granted. They are sweeping up information they aren't even using, and I think they should do the Constitutional thing and get warrants--always could've (under FISA--they could've got 'em 72 houre after the fact. Always should've.) I just don't see why the Telecoms are being protected from liability--unless the downlow story is; there's a lot of liability to go around.
Or at least, so Vixen wonders.
Sign the email and pass it on if you are equally dubious.