The real reason for Bush 2.0's insistence on telecom immunity...
...in the "Protect America Act" is finally reported by the Washington Post. Sure, Bush 2.0 makes his case that telecom companies shouldn't face lawsuits over his insistence on warrant-less wiretapping because it's "legal". But the Washington Post gets to the real reason why Bush 2.0 is demanding that immunity... because he needs to hide the details of his "legal" wiretapping. You see, if any of those cases against the telecom companies goes to court, much, much more information about the warrant-less wiretapping will become public and if that happens, I'll bet that Bush 2.0's "legal" warrant-less wiretapping isn't so "legal".
Here's the choice passage from the Post's article:
"But in the bitter Washington dispute over whether to give the companies legal immunity, there is one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward, sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration's surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time."
UPDATE: Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post does a good job of laying out Bush 2.0's argument for retroactive immunity while explaining how each of Bush 2.0's points doesn't add up to a sufficient reason for such immunity. Now we're just waiting for the Congress to cave...
Here's the choice passage from the Post's article:
"But in the bitter Washington dispute over whether to give the companies legal immunity, there is one thing on which both sides agree: If the lawsuits go forward, sensitive details about the scope and methods of the Bush administration's surveillance efforts could be divulged for the first time."
UPDATE: Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post does a good job of laying out Bush 2.0's argument for retroactive immunity while explaining how each of Bush 2.0's points doesn't add up to a sufficient reason for such immunity. Now we're just waiting for the Congress to cave...



Comments