[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[Morton K. Brussel]

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


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080627/c4e00735/attachment.htm