(Bush’s My-Way-Or-Bug-Off Approach to) Working With Congress
Bush's latest comedic foray into "working with Congress" involves yet another tired stab at the do-it-my-way-or-bug-off approach.
The only way to preserve the security of the United States of America, to secure our borders and protect us from terror (pronounced terr-uh), Bush believes, is to confer retroactive immunity for big telecommunications corporations that conspired with the gov't to illegally tap our phones and eavesdrop on law abiding Americans. Put another way, we are so vulnerable as a nation, that American citizens who have been the victims of criminal activity by big telecoms should not be entitled to hold these corporations accountable for violating the law. Nor should they be entitled to hold them accountable for conspiring with our own federal gov't (i.e. by the people, for the people, and of the people) for violating the constitutionally protected privacy rights that you and I are supposed to be entitled to have, to hold, and to enforce.
Perhaps I'm just being a bit persnickety. I have some vague recollection of my country going to war to protect our way of life and spread democracy and freedom across the globe. You know, the way of life that involves us having certain inalienable rights such as the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Like for example, by requiring law enforcement officials to get a warrant before eavesdropping, just as the law demands. Like also, for example, by requiring the gov't to actually obey and respect the rule of law -- the law of the land.
Then again, maybe it's just me nitpicking. Compliance with the law is optional, right? I'll bet Scooter Libby thinks so.
Ask yourself, if these companies didn't break any laws, then why would they need immunity? Immunity from what -- obeying the law? If they didn't break any law, what could they conceivably be held liable for? Does anyone really think that our notoriously business-friendly U.S. Supreme Court would permit a corporation to be held liable for NOT breaking the law? Does that make any sense to you?
The answer is obvious. The only reason to grant immunity is if Bush knows for a fact that these telecommunications corporations broke the law, and he wants them to get away with it. He wants to eliminate the negative consequences other corporate criminals are burdened with when they get caught. This way, next time he asks these corporations to break the law for him, they'll be perfectly willing to do it again.