[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[E. Wayne Johnson]

I doubt that the telecoms were "asleep at the switch" and "failede to 
challenge the government".  The FCC and antitrust laws have significant 
impact on the telecommunications business.  It is most likely that some 
concessions were given and the telecoms participated enthusiastically as 
a result of some quid pro quo.

LAURIE wrote:
>
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080627/496bb770/attachment-0001.htm