How's that Big Brother thing working for you?

Eric Lichtblau's article in today's New York Times spills the beans:

In a separate N.S.A. project, executives at a Denver phone carrier, Qwest, refused in early 2001 to give the agency access to their most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls, according to people aware of the request, which has not been previously reported. They say the arrangement could have permitted neighborhood-by-neighborhood surveillance of phone traffic without a court order, which alarmed them.

Note: "in early 2001."

Before September 11. The United States was not under attack.

One cannot blame it on Bush alone. They NSA wanted that power when he came into office.

The government’s dependence on the phone industry, driven by the changes in technology and the Bush administration’s desire to expand surveillance capabilities inside the United States, has grown significantly since the Sept. 11 attacks. The N.S.A., though, wanted to extend its reach even earlier. In December 2000, agency officials wrote a transition report to the incoming Bush administration, saying the agency must become a “powerful, permanent presence” on the commercial communications network, a goal that they acknowledged would raise legal and privacy issues.

There are government claims that these activities are designed to ferret out links between domestic communication and persons operating abroad. Still, one cannot help feeling a distinct unease.

At least one major phone carrier — whose identity could not be confirmed — refused to cooperate, citing concerns in 2004 that the subpoenas were overly broad, government and industry officials said. The executives also worried that if the program were exposed, the company would face a public-relations backlash.

Is it any wonder that the Bush maladministration is now frantically trying to obtain immunity for all communications companies that cooperated with the government?

Why can't the rest of us have immunity from laws we may or may not have broken but we can't tell you what they were or if we broke them? Just trust us.

Not!

Why is Sen. Harry Reid going along with the version of a bill that would grant immunity? What the hell is he thinking? There is a version that does not grant immunity. He should be championing that and not even considering the immunity version. If they broke the law, even at the government's bidding, they should be accountable, just as our government should be accountable for breaking the law.

See post immediately below.

Instead of "Give 'em hell, Harry" our motto today needs to be "Give Harry hell."

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald writes:

More than anything else, what these revelations highlight -- yet again -- is that the U.S. has become precisely the kind of surveillance state that we were always told was the hallmark of tyrannical societies, with literally no limits on the government's ability or willingness to spy on its own citizens and to maintain vast dossiers on those activities. The vast bulk of those on whom the Government spies have never been accused, let alone convicted, of having done anything wrong. One can dismiss those observations as hyperbole if one likes -- people want to believe that their own government is basically benevolent and "tyranny" is something that happens somewhere else -- but publicly available facts simply compel the conclusion that, by definition, we live in a lawless surveillance state, and most of our political officials are indifferent to, if not supportive of, that development.

--the BB