Discussing proposed immunity, Angle omitted judge's finding that no "reasonable entity" could think actions urged by Bush admin. were legal
SUMMARY: In describing the Senate debate over granting retroactive legal immunity to
telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the government's
program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping, Fox News' Jim Angle stated that
the debate "is over whether or not to give immunity to the telecom companies who
were told by the administration that they were acting lawfully and asked their
cooperation, and they gave it." But Angle did not mention that, in a case
challenging the legality of AT&T's alleged cooperation with the wiretapping
program, a judge found that AT&T "cannot seriously contend that a reasonable
entity in its position could have believed" that it would be lawful for the
company to cooperate with the government.
On the December 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report, chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle left out key information in describing the Senate debate over granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated with the government's program of warrantless domestic eavesdropping. Discussing the issue with Washington managing editor Brit Hume, Angle stated that the debate "is over whether or not to give immunity to the telecom companies who were told by the administration that they were acting lawfully and asked their cooperation, and they gave it." But Angle did not mention that, in one of the cases challenging the legality of a company's alleged cooperation with the wiretapping program, Hepting v. AT&T, Vaughn Walker, the federal district judge hearing the case, found, as part of his rejection of AT&T's claims of immunity, that, "based on the facts as alleged in [the] plaintiffs' complaint," AT&T "cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed" that it would be lawful for the company to cooperate with the government.
As Media Matters for America previously noted, Walker denied AT&T's motion to dismiss, which claimed, among other things, "qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs' constitutional claim," ruling in part that, if, as the lawsuit alleges, AT&T "provide[d] the government with direct and indiscriminate access to the domestic communications of AT&T customers," then the company "violate[d] the constitutional rights clearly established [by the Supreme Court] in Keith [i.e., United States v. United States District Court (1972)]." Walker's ruling continued: "Moreover, because 'the very action in question has previously been held unlawful,' AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal." Walker's decision has been appealed and is now pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard arguments on the appeal on August 15.
From the December 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
HUME: And one other thing, Jim, what about this long-running fight about intelligence surveillance, terrorist surveillance, and the phone companies that's been going on? What's happening there?
ANGLE: It went on all day long in the Senate. It is over whether or not to give immunity to the telecom companies who were told by the administration that they were acting lawfully and asked their cooperation, and they gave it.
HUME: This is for listening in on phone calls from outside of the country to inside the country, suspected terrorists --
ANGLE: Correct.
HUME: -- calling into this country?
ANGLE: And emails and any other kind of communication.
HUME: Right.
ANGLE: It absolutely requires the cooperation of the telecommunications companies. Senator Chris Dodd [D-CT] has been on the floor on and off all day. They had allowed a certain number of hours for this. He has used up as many of those hours as possible. It is now believed there won't be enough time to deal with the amendments, so there are some who believe this is dead for this year. It means it won't be taken up until the middle of January and the old bill expires on February 1st. So once again, they will be working on one of the most important issues in the country on a deadline clock, trying to figure it out at the very last minute.
HUME: All right, Jim, thank you.
Follow the money - odd question, but which telecomm companies does the government hold contracts with? Perhaps they didn't question the administration's assurance because they didn't want to have huge federal contracts immediately pulled and sent to a competitor.
So here another question (and I'm not really sure about this): How are we more likely to get to the truth of what really happened? With or without immunity being granted? I can see the argument going either way, (putting aside the millions of people who had their rights violated, of course!)
THAT is a good question. IF the point of immunity is to get co-operation in finding the extent of the wiretapping. Another question that came to me is when did either AT&T OR the Bush administration become reasonable entities?
Words you don't need to know...
What Happened: Hillary kicked Barack the soccer ball.
FOX NEWS ALERT: Hillary kicked Brarack.
I think I may be on board the SS WITH here. Angle didn't really misrepresent what the issue was, he just didn't state what the conclusion was in one specific case. Am I missing something?
But the conclusion of that "one specific case" was rather importnat though, relevant to the issue and pokes a huge hole in his argument.
What part of his argument? I don't even know what Angle's argument is, just that he didn't mention the judge's ruling in that case.
Yeah, didn't notice that. Looks liked I jumped the gun! Can I just yell "Fox News" and everyone will conclude they're on the telecom's side 'cause they're pro-big-business?
No?
Yeah, I know - that was weak.
More to the point, since Bungle launched the surveillance before his vocaulary was expanded to include "turrists", no later than April BEFORE 9-11, the rest of that legal BS is also misinformation. No, a LIE.
Actually, I sorta meant "vocabulary" as opposed to "vocaulary" . . .
No sweat, C.G.
Relating something Duhhbya says can be dangerous to your brain.
Hey, mine is rusting away - maybe that is one more thing I can blame on Bungle? May I cite you as my authority when I level that new charge against the liar-in-chief? You know, so that Tommy doesn't immediately demand sourcing?
What, can't take responsibility for yourself?Typical liberal ;)
Thanks - I needed that! You are right, all the problems of this nation and the world that I have been blaming on Bungle more likely result from my liberal penchant to resent liars and thieves, and to try to hold them accountable for lying to me and stealing from me!
(Yes, I noticed the smiley - but to acknowledge same would have poisoned the point.)
What happened: I support our GIs in battle against the terrorists in Afghanistan.
Fox News: I support... terrorists in Afghanistan.
Hey, this is fun!
So, I guess the bigger question of why grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms if they didn't do anything illegal doesn't matter??
Maybe we can talk to Joe Naccio (Qwest CEO nabbed for insider trading) about what was requested from the govermnent with regards to domestic surveillance.
One theory has it that since Qwest didn't co-operate, Naccio paid the price..
OK - I guess if I keep throwing these charges up of Bungle's lies, I should support them to some extent with outside links. Here is one, very recent, NYT piece that supports at least two of the charges, on the second page, buried.
NYT - surveillance began early 2001
I wonder how long before Perino demands a formal, printed, correction of my posts here, in that I classify her with the rest of the Bungloids as habitual and incessant liars? (See the bruhaha about the Times subheadline on the article castigating the Administration for the destruction of the video of interrogations). Worst of all, it appears that she will get it, for the Times is willing to confess to a "specious" report despite having been verified on every single statement except to what extent the White House "loss of memory" leaves them culpable for misrepresentation of their participation.
Hey, Dana: if you lie a lot, you gotta expect to get called on the lies from time to time, even by this Repugnant Corporate Media. And I guarantee you that you do not want to ask me for a retraction or an apology, for you might get the one you dread.
Here is a tidbit I just found on TPM, that might serve (with an extra dash of malice) as an outline of the apology I would have to offer:
Apology to Dana Perino
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
If you are listening to this clip as though the prospect of re-authorizing the FISA amendments that allow this President legal cover from illegally spying on Americans as acceptable, and should be law to begin with, then you have accepted the fate Republicans would have for you, Fascism.
If you accept that the civil liberties sacrificed to the cowards alter of fear to Bin Laden, you surrendered before the war really started. You believe that allowing terrorist to subvert the greatest democracy, the greatest nation in human history into a Fascism, little bit, by bit.
The answer to better security from such a threat was to secure our paremeter, demand professional governance from top to bottom which would have meant a house cleaning of useless cronies in all branches of government. Finishing the job in Afghanistan, capturing Bin Laden, dismantling Al Queda, and strengthening the military personel instead of material for profits of a few cronies.
When our President ignored President Clinton and all his cabinet including George Tenet that Al Queda was the first and foremost threat, and the Presidential Presidential Breif that "Bin Laden was determined to strike in America" to instead clear rubbish off his ranch, for weeks. No Crisis meeting of all principles as Clintion traditionally had done with far less threats, no the ranch needed his attention.
Serious, Sincere, Principled Governance is our only salvation through the representative form of democracy that truly respects the rule of law!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Well said.
I just got another overseas call offering me a low introductory 1.5% refinance loan.
The 'do not call list' didn't work but I bet the 'terror watch list' did.