Facts Unclear: Let's Immunize!

The Washington Post's editorial page continues its Pravda act:

There is one major area of disagreement between the administration and House Democrats where we think the administration has the better of the argument: the question of whether telecommunications companies that provided information to the government without court orders should be given retroactive immunity from being sued. House Democrats are understandably reluctant to grant that wholesale protection without understanding exactly what conduct they are shielding, and the administration has balked at providing such information. But the telecommunications providers seem to us to have been acting as patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment.

This is ludicrous. Democrats are "understandable reluctant" to hand out retrospective immunity "without understanding exactly what conduct they are shielding." But, according to the Post, since based on the limited information the administration has agreed to release immunity seems justified, Democrats should hand it out without asking harder what information the administration isn't releasing. Even better, the Post refers to the "difficult and uncharted environment" during which the conduct-whose-nature-we're-still-not-sure-about took place, bolstering the false impression the administration has started to give that this justified-and-no-we-won't-tell-you-what-it-was conduct took place only after 9/11, when in fact it began in early 2001.

It's reminiscent, I suppose, of the argument that since Scooter Libby, by committing perjury, had successfully blocked investigation of the Plame leak case, that Libby was entitled to be left off the hook for perjury. Call it the "it's not the crime, it's the fact that the coverup succeeeded" defense.

Comments

This is getting increasingly depressing. It seems the US is well on its way, no, not to become a fascist state, but something akin to a corporatist, authoritarian pseudo-democracy.

Posted by novakant | October 14, 2007 1:20 PM

yes, the Post likes to this sort of thing. Here is another example.

On October 4th they printed this piece o' crap editorial basically saying, hurry up democrats, we need an attorney general. Stop asking for documents and do the bipartisan thing and just confirm Mukasey already:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302197.html

Unfortunately for the Post, the NY Times published this the same day:

Secret U.S. Endorsement Of Severe Interrogations

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE3DD1130F937A35753C1A9619C8B63

Then the Post, in embarrassment, publishes this editorial on Sunday. Essentially taking back what they had said, without really acknowlegding the Oct. 4 editorial:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100600940.html

Yet again the Post's chummy, bipartisan shtick fails them. But they keep trying.

Posted by David | October 14, 2007 1:25 PM

Don't say "retroactive immunity."

Say "total impunity."

As in "impunity" for well-connected thieves and torturers in other Banana republics where the rule of law has been abandoned.

Posted by lambert strether | October 14, 2007 1:56 PM

Well, Mukasey certainly seems to have a pretty terrible recent record on civil liberties/torture/indefinite detention without trial.

Given his name, I'd vaguely assumed that he came from some sort of Arab/Muslim background, and his support for extraordinarily harsh measures against Muslim "terrorism suspects" was due to some sort of over-compensation or effort to prove his patriotic credentials.

Then I saw a claim somewhere on the Internet that he was actually some fanatic Jewish-activist type, supposedly very close to the crazy settlers on the West Bank, many of whom are "terrorists" under any reasonable definition.

That's all we need right now in America---some crazy fanatic as Attorney General, with ties to foreign terrorists (but only HIS foreign terrorists).

If there's even a remote possibility of Mukasey having links to Jewish terrorism, it's utterly outrageous that the NYT and the WashPost haven't given a hint of this.

But it does certainly explain why all those Democratic politicians from New York City are so gung-ho on Mukasey...

Posted by RKU | October 14, 2007 2:20 PM

I bet that if a general or a Republican official offered the Washington Post editorial board a random bottle of some liquid with the label removed, they would all drink it and call themselves brave and clear-minded for drinking it before vomiting out a lung.

Posted by Reality Man | October 14, 2007 2:42 PM

Links RKU? Sound like a bunch of conspiratorial nonsense to me. If you think this is actually true or a problem why not do some research and link to some credible sources instead of lazily making claims like this?

Posted by David | October 14, 2007 2:48 PM

Yet, fortunately, the Post sometimes offers a multiple approach to things.
See the Oct. 14 article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html?wpisrc=newsletter

in which the muddy story about the government's relationship with the telecoms is revealed.

Posted by Paolo | October 14, 2007 3:03 PM

I'm always struck by the condescending tone of the WaPo editorial board.
To me, they almost always come off as smug defenders of the Bush status quo while taking every opportunity for belittling environmentalists, anti-war activists, and anyone else who might upset their tidy little vision of the world (which does not extend beyond the DC beltway).

Posted by magisterludi | October 14, 2007 4:22 PM

No immunity and prosecute Bush once he leaves office.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 14, 2007 6:12 PM

Mukasey....Given his name, I'd vaguely assumed that he came from some sort of Arab/Muslim background

Why!? To me it defintely looks like Ellis Island bastardization of classic Hungarian empire region names. But that would just be a guess, signifying nothing.

As it was suggested by another commenter, it usually only takes a quick google to avoid making a fool of yourself in comments:

Michael Mukasey From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.... Religion Orthodox Judaism.... Michael Mukasey's father was born near Baranavichy in the Russian Empire (modern-day Belarus) and emigrated to the US during the First World War....

Posted by artappraiser | October 14, 2007 6:26 PM

Mukasey....Given his name, I'd vaguely assumed that he came from some sort of Arab/Muslim background

Why!? To me it defintely looks like Ellis Island bastardization of classic Hungarian empire region names. But that would just be a guess, signifying nothing.

As it was suggested by another commenter, it usually only takes a quick google to avoid making a fool of yourself in comments:

Michael Mukasey From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.... Religion Orthodox Judaism.... Michael Mukasey's father was born near Baranavichy in the Russian Empire (modern-day Belarus) and emigrated to the US during the First World War....

Posted by artappraiser | October 14, 2007 6:26 PM

My thought is that if the phone companies committed any crimes, they did no particular harm. Maybe some government officials who used the information did. Here's a deal: to get the bill, we immunize the phone companies in exchange for a "truth commission" on what was done when, to whom, and on whose orders. Full disclosure or no deal. Then, if any government officials misbehaved, let's nail them. If the administration then insists on immunizing its officials, well, that's just too raw, even for them to get away with.

Posted by CJColucci | October 14, 2007 9:21 PM

The WaSHINGTON Post is not an embarrassment. It is the leadingedge of an active assault on basic journalistic ideals and principles. It has driven me to make the internet my first source for news and commentary. I would rather read Granma than WaPo.

Posted by della Rovere | October 14, 2007 10:23 PM