Logical Falacies

Time to get angry at Keith Olbermann again. I respect Keith Olbermann, as readers of this blog will already know. I think he's a fairly lonely voice saying things that need to be said and asking questions that need to be asked. Nevertheless, sometimes he goes too far, and I believe he did so tonight.

Specifically, he was talking about a new bill that's been requested of Congress by the White House which would, in part, convey retroactive protection from prosecution for private sector companies that participate in FISA activities (in other words, AT&T and the rest who supposedly turned over all of our phone records illegally to the government). Keith immediately asks "Did the White House just admit that they lied to us when they insisted that none of these companies did anything illegal, or anything for which they would need protection?

I don't believe this immunity should be granted, but Olbermann's question is a little too black and white for my tastes. Even knowing my opinion of this Administration, I can easily see asking for protections even if you don't think they're needed. Look at it from President Bush's viewpoint: If he believes (as he most likely does) that the things he's doing are necessary for the protection of the United States, then he might honestly believe that all of the investigations now going on in Congress are a partisan witch hunt. They aren't, they are Congress beginning to reassert their required Constitutional advise and consent role that's been lacking for the first six years of this Administration. But to assume that asking for protection is an admission of guilt is like assuming that going to get a lawyer because you're called in for questioning on a police case is an admission of guilt.

No, even more apropos, it's like the endless repetition we get from certain elements of the extreme right that the only people who should worry about the erosions of privacy and civil liberties are those who have something to hide. I don't want anyone listening in on my telephone calls. I'll fight in court anyone who does, if I know it's happening. But by doing so, I'm not admitting that I'm doing anything illegal, I'm merely saying that in a free society, I should be able to discuss private matters without being listened in on.

So do stand up and demand that Congress not give the telecommunications companies blanket immunity, especially not retroactive blanket immunity; Blackwater has proven what a bad idea it is to give anyone free reign to break the law. But it's a bit of a stretch to assume that just by asking for protection for ones allies necessarily means they have broken, or you intend to ask them to break, the law.

There's enough stuff to be looking into that has substance. Making these faulty leaps in logic just gives those on the other side something to grab onto and say "See? He's not objective at all! He's just looking for anything he can to hit the Administration with!"

Liam.