Well, the headline, "House challenges Bush on surveillance", is both tart and accurate. The story, not so much. So, the defects:
One member voted present.
They think we
love one-sentence paragraphs. Who, dammit? Inform me!
Update: Lincoln Davis (D-TN).
The Democratic plan would allow telecommunications companies to be sued for their role in the administration's much-disputed warrantless surveillance program.
First, the surveillance program is clearly and objectively
illegal. It's not "balanced" to refrain from noticing that fact. Further, this sentence omits the fact that standing to sue
already exists and that the Democratic bill would not eliminate that standing
ex post facto.
Then we hear fatalism. The Senate will never pass the House bill. The President will never sign it. Fine! Then telecom immunity, bastard of the current fascism, will not become law.
After Duhbya's argument, we are privileged to hear from GOP members, from the administration's flunkies in the DOJ and intelligence with multiple quotes and paraphrases.
When we finally -
finally - get to a Democrat defending the bill, we hear that the estimable John Conyers has an "angle":
"We are not going to cave into a retroactive immunity situation," the Michigan Democrat said. "There's no law school example in our memory that gives retroactive immunity for something you don't know what you are giving it for. It just doesn't work in the real world or on the Hill either."
Then we hear from Duhbya and from Tony Fratto before Nancy Pelosi gets to give a rejoinder and to speak about the secret session sideshow with help from David Obey, but
at no point in the entire story is the substance of the Democratic argument presented.
Update: Important to
remember that the Bushist surveillance was already going on
before 9/11.
