[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[John W.]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 6:06 AM, LAURIE <LAURIE at advancenet.net> 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.
>
Well, didn't FISA create some sort of special court where oversight is
minimal, or some special type of order whose name now escapes me (a letter
of something or other)?  And weren't the telecoms and the libraries
FORBIDDEN BY LAW to divulge to the customer that the customer was under
surveillance as a result of one of these letters from Homeland Security?



> > 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.
>
Well, that's the problem.  In such instances the small-fry soldiers should
NOT be held accountable, or they should be held significantly LESS
accountable then the officers who gave the orders and the government
officials who gave the officers THEIR orders.  What happens instead, on the
rare occasions when anyone is punished at all, is that the small-fry
soldiers are scapegoated, and the Big Shots get away scot free.  That seems
to be what's happening here, though the telecoms are not exactly "small-fry
soldiers".  Our legislators are debating whether to hold liable the very
institutions whom THEY, the legislators, ordered to break the law.  Or
rather, the telecoms did NOT break the law, because the legislature CHANGED
the fucking law.


>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.

That's fine and commendable.  But what about the libraries who complied?
Should we be able to sue the libraries?

I think this whole debate is really about creating liability for "deep
pockets" whom our beloved attorneys can then sue on a contingency basis and
make billions, like they did with the tobacco lawsuits.   I cant see where
it's about any sort of genuine justice for ordinary citizens at all.



  *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/be00a0c8/attachment.htm