[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[John W.]

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]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080627/6b86656d/attachment.html