FISA Blues

Last week, the Democratic Party once again mysteriously decided to cave into the demands of the most despised president in U.S. history by letting the gang of Petrowhores off the hook by including Telecom Immunity in the updated FISA Bill. Most clear-headed progressives were very disappointed, most notably, Glenn Greenwald, who has been on this issue from day one.

If you read this blog with any frequency, you've figured out by now that I'm quite the Barack Obama fan. But alas, even the venerable Sen. Obama has let us down on this one. Here is Obama's wishy-washy statement r.e. the FISA Bill. Greenwald says that "Obama has obviously calculated that sacrificing the rule of law and the Fourth Amendment is a worthwhile price to pay to bolster his standing a tiny bit in a couple of swing states."

Sure, maybe Barack is not yet the real leader of the Democratic Party. Maybe he doesn't yet have the political capital to burn on this issue and he needs to keep his eyes on the prize. He's a much better politician than I could ever hope to be so who am I to doubt his political instincts on this one? But I just don't get it. Granting telcoms immunity essentially extends the Bush administration's ability to violate our privacy and offend the Constitution. Just think if Nixon had hired a private company to do his dirty work. He might have succeeded in keeping his hands clean in the  Watergate break-in. Imagine if he had given that private company immunity ensuring that its illegal actions, and those of his own office, were above legal accountability. Now imagine that instead of the DNC, it was your home, business and personal records that had been violated - because in this case it is.

It's easy to cast all the blame at Obama's feet but the whole Democratic Party is really to blame, with the exception of a few dozen principled legislators. The Party's second most powerful leader, Hillary Clinton, was also conspicuously absent from this debate after all her talk of "taking the fight to George Bush." And we all know how effective the leadership of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has been so there are really no surprises there. But I guess we're all expecting more from Obama. For now, I'll have to take comfort in looking forward to the day when I'm disappointed by his decisions on a regular basis - because that means he'll be President.

Comments

[Daniel]

OK, I don't get it. I may live too far away in France where these kinda civil liberties aren't understood, but what's the deal? 99% of Americans have nothing to hide, or nothing the guvment would be interested in, right? SO personally I have no problems if they want to listen in on my droolings, and if they catch a bad guy in the process, well fine. And then if the feds are going to require the telecoms to pony up the info, or grant access, why should the telecoms risk lawsuits? It's our crappy elected officials who have deemed it OK to get the goods, and the telecoms have done a standup job by saying NO, not unless you don't hold us responsible. Got something secret? don't say it on the phone!?

[Alex Wise]

Here's the flaw in your "why should we worry as long as we have nothign to hide" postulate, Daniel: You assume that privacy is about hiding a wrong. It is not.
Privacy is an inherent human right, and a requirement for maintaining
the human condition with dignity and respect. The governments of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia told their people, "If you have nothing to hide, then there's no need to fear."

Ensuring that government power is appropriately checked, monitored, and limited from potential abuse is an essential part of our constitution. In the words of playwright Friedrich Durrenmatt, "a crime can always be found." Or better yet, suspicious non-criminal behavior can always be found. Should people who are doing perfectly legal but embarrassing stuff like calling a phone sex line (particularly powerful people or political opponents who would suffer if such information were made public) or non-terrorist-related illegal activity, like buying pot, have to look over their shoulder because they suspect that their calls are being monitored?

Whether the telecom companies can be sued is more of a civil liberties issue. And I'll concede that the heart of the problem lies in what the government is doing. But these telecommunications company's blatantly violated their user agreements with their customers. Shouldn't those customers have some sort of legal recourse? If the government tells PG&E that they need to start putting poison in the water supply on some Indian reservation (I know it's a stretch but stay with me here..), should the surviving members of that Indian tribe not at least be able to take PG&E to court? That's all these litigants are asking in this Telco case - that their beef be heard in a court of law. If the court finds that they did nothing wrong, then fine. But shouldn't that be determined through a normal legal process rather than a congressional rubber stamp?

We have the inherent right not to be subject to being called upon by
the state to justify our behavior. Do you really trust our government enough to allow them to determine who they should tap and what information might be helpful to deterring a terrorist threat? I sure as hell don't....

I highly recommend you go to Salon.com and read as much Glenn Greenwald as you can on this issue - I think you'll agree that your position is worth  re-examining.

[Daniel]

I'll try to get to Glrnn Greenwald.  But if the indian poison water scenario were to take place couldn't they sue the gavernment ?  I mean if someone were responsible, be it the CEO, the Janitor or the Clean Water Commission, or Dick Cheney, can't any one of them be held responsible?  WHy should the telecomS be held responsible if our elected officials required them to break their aggreements with the consumers?? 

 

And I'm still not worried about someone wasting their time listening to my phone conversations. I don't do much wrong, and if they catch some white collar criminal or some anarchist bomb maker.....

 

I'll look up Greenwald.

 

Supersize it!

[Alex Wise]

Dan - maybe we can just agree to disagree on this one but let me give it one more shot:

1) If a cop for some strange reason orders you to go beat someone up and you do it, should you not be responsible for your actions? Should the cop should be the only person subject to punishment? In my Indian water scenario, sure the government should be held to account, but so should PG&E.

In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the US Supreme Court, invoking the 14th Amendment, defined corporations as "persons" and ruled that California could not tax corporations differently than individuals. It followed that, as legal "persons," corporations had First Amendment rights as well. So neither the government, corporations or private citizens have immunity if they break the law.

2) What's with this "I don't do much wrong" attitude? (First of all, as your brother, I can attest that you've done plenty wrong!)  Maybe you prefer the French "guilty until proven innocent" system? The trouble is, in a made-up concept like a "war on terror" which will never end b/c it's a tactic that has been used since the Roman Empire, our government can be in a never-ending state of war - a very convenient state for the executive branch as we've seen them exploit this loophole for miserable ends over the past seven and a half years.

The U.S. has locked up hundreds of innocent people on terrorism charges for six+ years, tortured the hell out of them and the Supreme Court has ruled THREE times against the Government's position and yet you still want to trust them to do the right thing if they are legally able to tap your phone? I really am scratching my head on your logic here...

[Daniel]

SHould we be having this conversation off-forum?? (certainly someone is reading this due to words like Kill Cheney, Impeach Bush, and Hillary's hot...) ANyway, trying to get my head around the liberal position I know I should embrace, I just can't really imagine a scenario in which I would care if someone were listening to my phone calls, other than outrage at the waste of my tax dollars. I suppose a conversation with my tax accountant??? Yes it outrages me that we elected a government who ignores the laws set forth by our constitution and our supreme court, but I have no innappropriate affinity for our constitution. Arming bears and the like, I think that the constitution is a dated and flawed document, and that parts of it need contemporizing to catch up with modern times.

As far as beating someone up because a cop tells me to, well no, I should share the blame in that. But imagine this, a cop hands you a gun and tells you to watch someone, he's dangerous and he needs your help so he can what, stop his partner from bleeding out...ok, still with me?... and the guy lunges at you and you shoot him! and it turns out his kid sues you because he was actually innocent. Who would be guilty? It seems to me the "deputized" you would be innocent as you were following orders!? and the threat was real. It would be unreasonable for you to demand proof from the officer (a warrant) while his partner was bleeding out, or a telecom to demand proof before they allow you access to their phones. It's knida like "reasonable search and siezure" if the law enforcement bodies feel that there is a reasonable threat, like you have blood on your hands when you open the door, they should be allowed to forcibly search your house, right, and is it your landlords civic responsibility to deny access in defense of your constitutional rights? Or if the law,  the man, says let me in (let me tap this phone) the security guard (the telecom) should be immune to prosecution.

IMHO

I still need to look up Greenwald but I'm too busy adding locks to my 1000 year old french home.

Daniel

[Alex Wise]

Thanks for proving my point with the "maybe we should take this offline" part of your comment! This administration is just extreme enough to hold you accountable for your ironic use of the catch phrases you offer above.

And, while I agree (with you and with Thomas Jefferson) that the Constitution is a document that requires periodic updating, it does not negate the general principle that our nation be guided by the rule of law. In your hypothetical if you were deputized within the rule of law, then the consequences of that deputizing would be guided by that law. And, under civil law, the surviving family would have the right to sue you and the cop. If all laws had been followed correctly, you  wouldn't face any penalty.

In this telecom immunity instance, though, the President has willfully broken the law and has asked private companies to break the law for him. In doing his bidding they are not only committing criminal acts, they are violating their service agreements with their customers (this should open them to both criminal and civil action). Members of Congress are being asked to grant these companies immunity, but without the discovery that would be afforded in court, they can't even know what it is they're
being asked to immunize!

I am happy that you're at a place in your life that you feel you have nothing to hide and you trust the
government to sift through your private life, but lots of people (myself included) disagree. So shouldn't we err on the side of respect for privacy and the rule of law rather than giving government unfettered access and the ability to violate the law with impunity?  Do you realize how many innocent goat-herders have been sold-out by some bounty hunter or spiteful neighbor and are now rotting away in some U.S.-run prison - unfairly labeled as the "worst of the worst"" without the right to see the evidence brought against them in a jury trial? It's not about your level of guilt, it's about your fundamental (much more than constitutional) right to privacy. By saying "I have nothing to hide, I don't see the problem," you're spitting in the faces of all the innocent people who also did nothing wrong but have suffered a great deal nonetheless. It should also be noted that in our country's recent history, law-abiding but politically oppositional groups have been subjected to forms of unlawful domestic spying. You have nothing to hide...unless you have ever been a member of Greenpeace, PETA, ACLU, or Veterans for Peace (to name a few). And it's a good thing that neither you nor anyone close to you has ever had a whiff of marijuana because nearly 1 out of every 8 U.S. drug prisoners are locked up for pot. There are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates
behind bars for marijuana offenses (and those numbers don't include inmates incarcerated in county and/or
local jails for pot-related offenses).

I know you're busy putting locks on your doors but rather than blatantly minimizing people's fears about the threat of terrorism, I'll leave you with a few links (that you ma or may not read) instead:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/oct/15/broadcasting.bbc
http://achangeinthewind.typepad.com/achangeinthewind/2007/09/the-terror-myth.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/02/03/EDGSI4M3171.DTL
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20KH20060625&articleId=2691
http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/acluofpennsylvaniaseekspen.htm

[Cousin Todd]

Are right wing nutjobs like myself welcome? 

[Alex Wise]

I guess...but just b/c you're family!