[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[John W.]

Thank you, Stuart.  This seems to me to be a pretty logical and thorough
answer.  I think all of us have pieces of the puzzle, but none of us has the
entire puzzle.

I still say, though, that legislative time and energy would be better spent
in impeaching and/or prosecuting members of the current administration than
in creating liability for telecoms.  Let's hold the REAL criminals liable!

John


On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 05:12:59AM -0500, 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.
>
>
> They were somehow asked to do it by the gov't, though not under FISA,
> right?  If the requests had been FISA-approved there'd be no question that
> they were legal.
>
> > The legislative branch was complicit with the executive branch.
>
> How was that?  The Administration didn't even try to notify, let alone
> consult, the full Intelligence and Judiciary committees in both houses.
> They claim to have notified some subset of key people (leaders in each
> party?)
> in those committees, but apparently didn't say much about the scope
> of the warrantless wiretapping program.  When the New York Times stories
> about it came out, some of the Democrats involved (I remember
> Jay Rockefeller as one) said they'd never been told of anything like that.
>
> They're certainly complicit now, but were they at the time?
>
> > The telecoms complied.
>
> Most did, with the notable exception of Qwest, who correctly refused
> on the grounds that they were being asked to behave illegally!
> Thus showing that (a) the telecoms did have a choice and
> (b) it's reasonable to assume that their lawyers knew the law.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Even if the leg. branch had been complicit as the program was being set up
> (if I'm missing something with that, please let me know),
> I think it's important to make it clear that an Administration can't
> make illegal practices legal just by saying so.  Otherwise any law
> could be made moot.
>
> I agree with Wayne -- 'most certainly the telecoms, by complying, got more
> from the Administration than a warm feeling that they were helping with
> the war on terror.  Next time this kind of situation comes up,
> there has to be a reason for the telecoms (or whoever it is then)
> to say No, we can't afford the legal risk.  That's why prosecuting
> them is important.
>
> The other value of prosecution is that it would expose just what the
> government did ask, and what the telecomms agreed to do and how.
> So it's no wonder that the Adminstration desperately wanted
> a FISA update that prevents prosecution.
>
>
>
> > 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/20080627/8cd9855b/attachment-0001.html