[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[LAURIE]

Stuart (and John),

> > 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.

I believe that Stuart is correct; and if my memory is correct, some of the
telecoms were carrying out such activities in compliance with government
requests without FISA-court approval even before the Act in question was
passed into law (legal or illegal). There probably have been a set of
informal agreements to pass along information and records to government law
enforcement and security agencies prior to 9/11; they may have been
formalized to a greater extent after 9/11 but prior to the passage of the
Act in question.  The Act in question just attempted to formalize,
legitimate, and make less secret these activities as possibilities without
recognizing or identifying specifics of the interdependencies.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net [mailto:peace-discuss-
> bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2008 9:11 AM
> To: Peace-discuss
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA
> 
> 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]
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss