The truth edges out

"Allowing the lawsuits to proceed could aid our enemies, because the litigation process could lead to the disclosure of information about how we conduct surveillance." [...]
--Goerge W. Bush

Bush let the cat out of the bag when he said this.


I often invoke the principle of "cui bono?" (who profits?) here. In this instance I want to ask "cui malo?" Who is harmed?

If how we conduct surveillance is revealed, does it harm the American People or the Bush Administration.

Bush wants us to assume that we, the American People, will be put at risk by such disclosure, but let's take a look at that.

dday has a great article up at Daily Kos (thanks to mcjoan for pointing me to it). The title is "Telecom immunity is Bush immunity - the proof."

dday points to a New York Times article that notes:

The warnings from President Bush and his senior aides have grown more urgent over the last few weeks, now that Congress has let a temporary wiretapping law expire. But there is little sign of anxiety among many intelligence and phone industry officials.

Yes, the telecom industry is largely unconcerned about nullifying billion-dollar lawsuits against them.

That's right. The intelligence folks and Pentagon types are not freaking about lapsing laws or inadequate protection to do what needs to be done. And the industry execs seem calms too.

The only one freaking out is Bush.

What does that tell you?

To me it suggests that he and his thugs and cronies (White House Staff, Office of the Vice President perhaps, Justice Department) have a great deal to lose. The United States or the telecommunications companies? Not so much.

There is no crisis.

There is no reason for the congressional Dems to cave or "compromise" (which always equates to rolling over and giving the President everything he wants).

In fact, there is not much need to do anything at all.

Remember, it was the Republicans who thwarted renewing the Protect America Act (which Bush had promised to veto) after all the shouting about how important it was to pass such legislation. Why did they block it and why had Bush threatened to veto? Because it did not provide telcom immunity.

So if Bush wants to pout and hold his breath over this, let him. That's HIS personal problem; not ours.

UPDATE:

You can read what a plaintiff in a suit against AT&T has to say here. Part of it:

After Saddam Hussein was executed, President Bush reassured the world that the Iraqi dictator received "a fair trial – the kind of justice he denied victims of his brutal regime."

The Bush administration has similarly promoted "the rule of law" and "an independent judiciary" for countries such as Cuba, Burma and Iran.

Yet that same president is pressuring Congress to deny Americans our day in court before an independent judiciary by repealing the rules of law that guarantee the right to sue a private company for illegal infringements on our privacy rights.

mcjoan says toward the end of that post:

What they don't want us to know is just how illegal it was--how many Americans were targeted, why they were targeted, and what the scope of this program was.

smintheus has a different post up that talks about how Bush "guts" the board cahrged with oversight over intelligence activities. Quelle coincidence, n'est-ce pas?

Effing little thug. I wish somebody, anybody would hold him accountable in some effective manner. Extradition to the Hague would be a great start.
--the BB