[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[John W.]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Morton K. Brussel <brussel at uiuc.edu> wrote:

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
>

Maybe you're right, Mort.  I have a tendency to compare the telecoms to
things I'm more familiar with - the rank-and-file soldiers that Laurie
mentioned, and to incidents in my own life where I as a lowly firefighter
was ordered to do things that were of questionable legality, on pain of
losing my job for "insubordination".  But I didn't have armies of lawyers to
advise me, or a huge budget for legal counsel and litigation.  I guess
that's one of the key differences.

John




> 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]
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080627/ce1cb73d/attachment.htm