Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm talking about a bill Bush previously said was necessary for the defense of the country, and one he now says he'll veto to get retroactive protection from prosecution for telecommunications companies. To take Bush's words at face value, why is he willing to risk our safety to exempt telco companies from prosecution?
|
Do you have any idea how the world works, any at all?
Tele companies help, they are necessary for the surveilance. If we expose them to sanction do you think it possible they won't help next time?
do you remember a bank that was helping us find terrorists by giving up financial records? When that story hit the front page of the NYT, naming the fucking bank, do you think the bank feared it might be "sanctioned" by the Jihadis, maybe wished it had passed on helping?
Entities work like people do, they like to minimize risk, they might want to do good, but not at the expense of hurting themselves.
until you tried to push this point, I hadn't realized that the immunity was necessary for the underlying protection to have achance of working. What Clinton did is far worse*.
You really don't get this do you?
*and actually what Clinton did wasn't even wrong. he was standing up for his convictions. but if bush is "wrong" then billy is double wrong.
