Retroactive Immunity … the rest of the story?

The Bush Crime Family and its Main Lieutenant, Dick Cheney have pushed for retroactive immunity for telecommunications who cooperated with the illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme put in place after the former Cheerleader took power in 2001 because it may be that the Administration signed indemnification agreements with them:

In email, bmaz put it to me even more strongly: “The general counsels and legal departments of telcos are extremely accomplished and always protect their company’s interests meticulously. They have been dealing with wiretapping and surveillance agreements with the government and law enforcement for over seven decades, this was not a matter of first impression to them; and in difficult and unique cases, I have never seen them not insist on indemnification. Never.”

As Kevin Drum says in his piece some of what bmaz says is guess work but it is guess work informed by his legal background and experience in the field of wiretapping and surveillance. Drum also links to this WaPo article by Dan Eggen and Ellen Nakashima. In it they talk to some of the people involved in the lawsuits the Administration is trying to quash.

If [indemnification agreements] exist , it would mean the telcos have never been exposed in any way, and immunity would have no effect on their willingness to cooperate with the government in the future. It would also explain why the Bush administration was able to keep the telcos on board so easily even after the Protect America Act expired three weeks ago.

I wonder what Glenn Greenwald will have to say about this apparent new turn of events in the case of Retroactive Immunity.

(h/t Memeorandum)


About The Ancient Randonneur

A randonneur and epicure without a sinecure.
This entry was posted in Bush Crimes, FISA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Retroactive Immunity … the rest of the story?

  1. Kvatch says:

    Sounds plausible to me. One wonders then, whether such an agreement is legal in the first place since it, in effect, places the executive in the position of cutting off the judicial oversight role with no involvement of the legislative.

    [BANG!] Opps, my head just exploded.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s