[Peace-discuss] Obama's perfidy on FISA

[John W.]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> wrote:

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 01:30:59PM -0500, John W. wrote:
>

> > 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
>
> That's interesting.  When you were working as a firefighter,
> were you unionized?  (I don't know whether labor unions are
> even common or not among firefighters.)


Yes, labor unions for firefighters are ubiquitous now, though they weren't
in 1975.   (Today pretty much the only strong unions left in America are the
public sector unions - just the opposite of the situation in 1975.)  And
yes, in 1975 I was in a union and we even had our first contract, though the
Illinois collective bargaining law for public sector employees was not yet
in existence, and striking was illegal.



> If you were, would an
> improper request be an issue you'd complain about to the union --
> would it make sense to do that?


It might have been if it had occurred to me.  But in 1975 I was a rookie who
practically trembled before the awesome power of the Assistant Chief.  And
the union was small - only 15 members - and had no real money to spend on
the resolution of grievances.

Equally importantly, all officers other than the Fire Chief were also
members of the union.  So there were obvious conflicts of interest all over
the place.  I'm more aware of all that now than I was back then, though.

Actually, it was very similar to the military and to the police, where there
is a cult of machismo and great pressure to obey one's superiors and to
conform to normative behavior.




> > > 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/b3330d87/attachment.html