[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[Stuart Levy]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:30:59PM -0500, John W. wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
> It seems that the obvious answer is that the Telecoms did *not* have to
> > comply with an unconstitutional request from the executive.  They were only
> > too willing…, and not all complied--mkb
> >
> 
> Maybe you're right, Mort.  I have a tendency to compare the telecoms to
> things I'm more familiar with - the rank-and-file soldiers that Laurie
> mentioned, and to incidents in my own life where I as a lowly firefighter
> was ordered to do things that were of questionable legality, on pain of
> losing my job for "insubordination".  But I didn't have armies of lawyers to
> advise me, or a huge budget for legal counsel and litigation.  I guess
> that's one of the key differences.
> 
> John

That's interesting.  When you were working as a firefighter,
were you unionized?  (I don't know whether labor unions are
even common or not among firefighters.)  If you were, would an
improper request be an issue you'd complain about to the union --
would it make sense to do that? 

> 
> 
> 
> > On Jun 27, 2008, at 5:12 AM, John W. wrote:
> >
> > Let's try to break this issue down in simple terms.  Maybe I'm not
> > understanding something.
> >
> > If I understand it correctly, the telecoms didn't initiate illegal
> > wiretapping or spying all on their own.  They were ordered to do it by the
> > government, under FISA and some national security rationale.  The
> > legislative branch was complicit with the executive branch.  The telecoms
> > complied.
> >
> > What would be the point of the legislative branch now turning around and
> > holding the telecoms liable or responsible for a constitutional violation
> > that it, the legislative branch, was complicit in?  Isn't it more important
> > to restore our constitutional rights than to create some legal liability for
> > telecoms?
> >
> > I've never understood this whole issue of immunity or no immunity for the
> > telecoms.  I hope someone can explain it to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:22 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> > [Glenn Greenwald has a detailed account of Obama's going back on his pledge
> >> to oppose a free pass for illegal spying <
> >> http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/>  (putting him to the right of
> >> our Republican Congressional representative). Here's a bit of it.  --CGE]
> >>
> >>
> >> Greg Sargent reports on Obama's latest FISA comments from today and his
> >> explanation as to how he can support a bill with telecom amnesty when he
> >> previously vowed to filibuster any such bill. Obama explained, in essence,
> >> that he won't jeopardize our National Security in order to hold telecoms
> >> accountable under the rule of law ("My view on FISA has always been that the
> >> issue of the phone companies per se is not one that override the security
> >> interests of the American people"). Apparently, we can't be safe unless we
> >> immunize telecoms. Dick Cheney couldn't have said it any better himself.
> >>
> >> Obama's comments today will undoubtedly please the likes of this typical
> >> anonymous "senior Democratic lawmaker" -- quoted in a Wall St. Journal
> >> article documenting Obama's drift to the Right -- who is too cowardly to
> >> attach his name to his comments:
> >>
> >> "I applaud it," a senior Democratic lawmaker said. "By standing up to
> >> MoveOn.org and the ACLU, he's showing, I think, maybe the first example of
> >> demonstrating his ability to move to the center. He's got to make the center
> >> comfortable with him. He can't win if the center isn't comfortable."
> >>
> >> That's the sickly mentality dominating the Democratic Party: Democrats
> >> must stand up not to George Bush, the Iraq War and rampant lawlessness, but
> >> rather, to the ACLU. That's exactly why they are currently in the process of
> >> trampling upon core civil liberties and the rule of law. That's how you
> >> stand up to the ACLU and show how Tough and Centrist you are.
> >>
> >>
> >> [But, "Would you rather have McCain?" Thus our political system's good
> >> cop/bad cop  set-up is supposed to mean that we're not to be able to oppose
> >> government lawlessness.  And Obama plays his part.  --CGE]
> >
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss