It’s probably a personal character flaw, but I try to make a good-faith effort to at least understand what the other side is thinking when it comes to policy debates. And when it comes to granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration’s warrantless-search program, I’ve looked long and hard for some kind of coherent argument that bolsters Bush’s position. I just don’t see it.
As a rule, the principal (and only) talking point offered by the White House is that these companies came to the administration’s assistance in a time of crisis — in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 — and believed the administration’s lawyers when they said the surveillance efforts were legal. Neither of these points make any sense — the surveillance began before 9/11, not after, and the telecoms had their own legal teams to tell them that these efforts were illegal.
So, this morning, when I noticed that the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page had tackled the subject, I thought I’d get, at a minimum, the best far-right pitch possible on the issue. Here’s what Gigot & Co. came up with:
Not long ago Democrats seemed ready to move a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate Intelligence Committee last autumn. But under pressure from the anti-antiterror left, they are now bending and will try to weaken the bill on the Senate floor. Given that the House is likely to pass something far worse, the Senate debate will determine how much the U.S. ties its own hands in the fight against terrorists.
By far the worst threat is an amendment from Senator Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) to deny legal immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with the government on these wiretaps after 9/11. The companies face multiple lawsuits, so a denial of even retrospective immunity would certainly lead to less such cooperation in the future.
This is precisely the goal of the left, which has failed to get Congress to ban such wiretaps directly but wants to use lawsuits to do so via the backdoor. We’re told that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are co-sponsoring the Dodd amendment, no doubt for political reasons as they compete for left-wing votes in their nomination fight. But they had better hope the effort fails, because as President they’d surely want the same telecom cooperation.
This is the best the far-right can do? Seriously?
First, referring to the “anti-antiterror left” is just sad. The Wall Street Journal isn’t just some random posting on the Free Republic. Editors should probably try to aim a little higher.
Second, as far as the WSJ is concerned, any legal requirements, and any effort to provide checks and balances on administration power, is necessarily seen as the U.S. “tying its own hands in the fight against terrorists.” The newspaper’s editorial board, in other words, believes the only responsible course of action is to let the Bush White House have unfettered surveillance powers over Americans, without exception. What about the possibility for abuse? We should simply trust the administration to be restrained and responsible. Those who disagree are guilty of wanting to weaken America.
Third, the WSJ is so unhinged, it argued, in print and without a hint of jest, that the left’s “goal” is to prevent wiretaps. It’s as if the Journal’s editorial board has slept through the last couple of years of debate, and feels comfortable simply making up rationales to smear those who take the rule of law seriously.
And fourth, my personal favorite, is the notion that Congress and the president have to intervene in ongoing legal proceedings, and clear companies that already broke the law of any wrongdoing, otherwise the telecoms will never cooperate with the federal government again. It’s as if the WSJ has no idea what “warrants” and “judicial oversight” even mean.
For lawmakers, there really are only two logical rationales for supporting retroactive immunity: 1) the telecoms gave the senator a lot of money, and he or she feels the need to support his or her benefactors; and 2) Bush wants to protect the secrets of his warrantless-search program, and immunity is the only want to ensure Bush gets his way.
Everything else, including the Wall Street Journal’s argument, is just nonsense.