[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[LAURIE]

I would respectfully submit that the telecoms liability comes from their not
challenging the government's right to demand and obtain their cooperation
without obtaining a court order to do so, without any specification as to
the extent and time limits of such wiretapping, and without notifying their
customers who had an expectation of privacy that the companies were
participating in and complying with the government's requests for such
wiretapping.

 

> Isn't it more important to restore our constitutional rights than to
create some legal liability for telecoms? 

 

Why not do both?  When an actor knowing acts in compliance with an illegal
order or law without getting beforehand in writing a formal statement of
being held harmless for their actions by those who they complying with; it
seems that they knowingly assume the responsibility for  and future
consequences of their actions and should not be excused after the fact.  I
am not sure that constitutional issues with the law are identical as
liability issues connected with acting under a law which may create economic
and social hardships to third parties of which they are deliberately being
kept in the dark about but from which the companies are profiting in the
sense of charging them for the types and quality of services that they
thought they were contracting for but were not getting.  At minimum, maybe
the companies should be forced to return the payments of their customers who
thought that they were contracting for private communications avenues free
from interception without their knowledge or a specific court order, which
they could either fight in a courtroom or terminate service because of.  

 

I guess I fail to see any difference between holding the telcoms responsible
for complying with an unlawful law and holding soldiers responsible for
following illegal orders from superiors even though the orders have been
justified by a law allowing them as in cases of war crimes where a national
law allows for such action although those acting in compliance with that law
are held accountable as war criminals.  To be sure, the telecoms are not war
criminals (maybe they are given they were involved in a war against terror);
but they still might be common criminals - after all there were many
libraries and other institutions that refused to comply with the government
requests under FISA and challenged the government rather than voluntarily
acting as government agents.

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of John W.
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 5:13 AM
To: C. G. Estabrook
Cc: Peace-discuss
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

 

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/20080627/65a8c136/attachment.htm