Greenwald Truth Squad: Next-up, FISA?

As documented on today's front-page, Glenn Greenwald has done an absolutely masterful job of unmasking the media rollout of BushCult Surge Supporters that, but for his diligence and lawyerly skills, would have gone entirely unrecognized, and hence uninvestigated, by the MSM.

Through a combination of research, logic and common sense, Greenwald has utterly devastated the media rollout with his O'Hanlon interview.  If his work continues to be trumpeted, it could potentially form the basis for the rollout of a scorched earth counter-narrative by Dems next month.  I say potentially, because we have discovered that one lone voice of truth is not enough.  The Democrats must be willing, and able, to use such valuable insight to create their own media campaign and rollout.  As with Social Security, we know they can do it if they choose to.  To date, however, they seem to be unwilling to do it for the Iraq war.

In this diary, I'd like to be a little presumptuous and ask everyone to propose the next story for Glenn to go after.  My choice, which is detailed further on the flip, is another disaster of epic proportions: the FISA capitulation.

So, I decided to write an open letter to Glenn suggesting an similar "O'Hanlon" type investigation of the FISA debacle.  Would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

Dear Glenn,

FISA is right up your alley.  As a former First Amendment attorney, you have the capability to investigate the FISA scandal and why the Democrats capitulated.

First, you have the ability to tell us authoritatively what is at stake.  Does the legislation give unlimited surveillance powers to the NSA and Gonzo as some have suggested?  What exactly does the sunset provision cover?  If the sunset provision does not cover wiretap authorizations made within the next six months, when will those authorizations expire, if ever?

Secondly, these are the kind of questions that are vitally important to this community and the American people.  And yet, the media has not really discussed, much less answered such questions in depth.

Incredibly, it also seems that once again the Democrats in Congress were sold a piece of legislation based on lies.  The plan of attack for BushCult, repeatedly, has been to create a crisis to apply pressure to Congress.  It worked with the Patriot Act I and II.  It worked with the MCA.  They have tried it again and again.  And it has worked.  The one time it did not work was with Social Security.  As we know, there is no Social Security crisis.  And the Democrats stood up and said so.

The old saying fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me is not up to the task of addressing the apparently infinite gullibility of the Democratic Party.  Is it true that they are so completely gullible?  Or are they just using the appearance gullibility to give BushCult what they want (for whatever reason)?  Either way, the American people have lost because there is apparently no real opposition to the destruction of our Constitution.  

In yesterday's WaPo, keeping with the "Hapless Harry" narrative, we learned that the Democrats got totally rolled on FISA.  Were there really Democrats that believed the lies of the Bush Administration once again?  Haven't they learned their lesson by now?  Was it really the case that they were outnegotiated?  Why were they willing to sell our Constitutional liberty down the river just to get out of town?    These are questions that could and should be answered with a little investigation.

For that matter, if there WAS such a threat, shouldn't we demand that our elected, PAID representatives to stay in town to find the OPTIMAL way to balance national security with our Constitutional liberty, instead of just giving more power to a President who is a proven liar and torturer?  Don't they owe that minimal duty to us and to their oath to protect our Constitution?

As you can see, my anger has not subsided on this, and therefore my tendency on this issue is to rant.  

Glenn, we need your calm, cool head to address this issue, since, as with the Iraq "surge success" story, the FISA "capitulation" is about either the sophisticated manipulation of Congress using lies, deception, smoke and mirrors and a pliant media or something worse.

I hope you will consider investigating the FISA story, how we got where we're at, what it means for us, and how we might restore our Constitutional right to not be spyed on by our own government.

xo,
Max

So, that is my argument for a "O'Hanlon" type investigation of the FISA debacle.  Please post other suggestions in comments.

•  With Greenwald on the case....

  ...we can at least get the beginning of truth about FISA.

  by maxschell on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:02:49 AM PDT

  •  Anonymous Liberal is on the FISA story

    BIG TIME, as I diaried on Saturday night.  Everyone must have been in their cups and making merriment as the diary didn’t get much play.  

    The beauty of the blogosphere is that someone qualified will jump on a story and cover it.  Right now Anonymous Liberal is on the new Gestapo Law case.  

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by deepsouthdoug on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:42:08 PM PDT

•  Greenwald should go after the judiciary first

  The Valerie Plame matter once again brought my primary concern to the fore.  The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect us from the wrongful actions of government. But if the only meaningful remedy lies in damages, and pretty much everyone who matters (e.g., prosecutors, judges, senior executive branch officials) is immune from a damages action (and the government is immune by definition), of what value is the damn thing?

  The Harriet Miers case brought my secondary concern to the fore.  If a prosecutor has unlimited discretion as to whether to pursue a criminal matter, does he not have the de facto authority to declare that some Americans are above the law, and others are beyond its protection?

  As a former First Amendment attorney, he'd already be up to speed.  He could get the evidence easily, and put the BushBots on notice just as quickly.

  by Dick Cheneys Heart on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:28:07 AM PDT

  •  I think this is interesting.

    In fact, I was just watching a C-Span-televised panel last night that discussed new legislation to give FOIA applicants a private, enforceable right of action.

    This is relevant to your concerns because a great many of the dismissals of cases brought against BushCult have been on grounds of standing.  Drafting legislation to give standing to the plaintiffs in these cases would be one way of attacking the judiciary problem, which as you suggest, is very real.

    by maxschell on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 11:41:32 AM PDT

    •  "Standing" is the new ghetto

      This problem extends much further than you might think. Valid civil rights claims are routinely extinguished under the grounds of standing and/or governmental immunity, often on patently disingenuous grounds.  In essence, our government can do anything it wants to you with total impunity.

      by Dick Cheneys Heart on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:00:41 PM PDT

      •  I agree.

        Conservative judges are routinely tossing cases on these grounds.  But, new statutes to specifically provide standing could be a remedy.  Of course, it may not save the cases before Scalito-clones, but we may at least win a few more.

        by maxschell on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:11:23 PM PDT

    •  The federal courts have been thoroughly unclear

      on when their standing requirements are merely court-created, and when they are supposed to be constitutional in their basis (based on Article III's language about "case or controversy").

      Maybe this matter would at least force them to be somewhat more clear on when it is a constitutional requirement.  (To the extent that it is constitutional, an Act of Congress couldn't circumvent the problem.)

      by lysias on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:09:38 PM PDT

•  "Wired" had a piece the other day reporting

  that Gonzo's DOJ has filed a motion with Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco asking him to dismiss the eavesdropping complaints against the telecom companies on the grounds that the new FISA law renders them moot.

  I think this motion gives Judge Walker jurisdiction to rule on the constitutionality of the new law, at least if the opposing lawyers argue that it is unconstitutional.  Standing problems circumvented?

  by lysias on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:07:05 PM PDT

  •  I saw that and I think it's great.

    It definitely is a new posture for a plaintiff in a case like this.  Plus we are before a great judge in a reasonable circuit.  I can see this one going all the way.

    by maxschell on Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 12:09:47 PM PDT