Photo from source, Raw Story
I see. OK, so the telecom companies didn't break any laws, but they need retroactive immunity. They were doing their patriotic duty because George W. Bush asked them to, so they shouldn't be punished (again, for their legal actions).
But wait! Even if they weren't being patriotic, and acted in bad faith, they should still be awarded immunity! Why? Why ask why. You've fallen into the same trap I'm in, expecting things to make sense.
[Excerpt]
FBI head: Give telcos immunity even if they acted in bad faith
FBI Director Robert Mueller undercut that argument Wednesday, telling Congress that the 'good faith' argument should have nothing to do with whether or not they are let off the hook in dozens of pending court cases.
"I would focus more on the downsides, substantial downsides, of not providing retroactive immunity as being the principal rational of the legislation, providing immunity," Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee. . .
"I would focus more on the downsides, substantial downsides, of not providing retroactive immunity as being the principal rational of the legislation, providing immunity," Mueller told the Senate Judiciary Committee. . .
Read more at: Raw Story
No comments:
Post a Comment
Have something to say to us? Post it here!