When politicians and pundits discuss the current FIAS-fix bill, they almost invariably start saying things that are patently absurd. Here are four typical examples of the crazy talk that has seized the nation's politics-and-punditry caste.
By way of background, last August, using bogus horror stories of an immanent attack on Washington D.C., the White House stampeded our Democratic congress into passing the unconstitutional Protect America Act (PAA), which then expired in February. The year-long surveillance programs authorized under the PAA will expire between August 2008 and mid-February 2009.
"Congressional and intelligence officials are bracing for the possibility that the government might have to revert to the old rules of terrorist surveillance, a situation that some officials predict could leave worrisome gaps in intelligence," reported Eric Lichtblau in the 6/10/08 issue of the New York Times. The White House has used the specter of those "worrisome gaps" to yet again stampede the Democrats into capitulating to its demands. Bush's bill, which guts FISA and grants immunity to his telco accomplices, has passed the House and received the support of Barak Obama. In the Senate filibusters, have been closed off. Consideration of amendments and the final vote have been scheduled for July 8. For further background, see this.
Here are the promised examples of FISA crazy talk:
- Per Barak Obama at a press conference (from the transcript of Countdown, Wed., 6/25/08).
"The issue of the phone companies, per se, is not one that overrides the security interest of the American people. I do want accountability and making sure that, as I've said before, somebody's watching the watchers. That you don't have an administration that feels it can make its own determinations about when warrantless wiretaps are applicable without going through a FISA court; can we get to the bottom of what's being taking place; and, most importantly, do we have safeguards in place going into the future, so that American civil liberties are not being violated?"
But, this Obama-supported bill does the opposite of everything Obama claims to want:
- To get accountability, you hold people accountable and don't immunize them.
- To force the administration to go through FISA court, you leave FISA in place and don't legalize its circumvention.
- To get to the bottom of what's been taking place, you let the discovery processes of the current civil suits run their course and don't pass legislation that forces federal judges to dismiss them.
- To keep safeguards in place, you leave them in place and don't support legislation that removes them.
The [real] "issue of the phone companies" is whether or not their welfare overrides the constitutional structure of our government; the Constitution would have their cases tried in federal court, not in congress, where money can buy a favorable verdict. And, the issue of the phones companies can never override the security interest of the American people: under the existing FISA law, phone companies must comply with legitimate requests from government intelligence services.
- Per Jonathan Alter, Senior Editor of Newsweek, on Countdown, Wed., 6/25/08:
"And I actually think one of the big points, Keith, that hasn't been made about this bill is that currently, as of last August, since last August, we've been operating in an unconstitutional environment, clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.
So, there was tremendous urgency to get the FISA court back into the game. And does this bill do it imperfectly? Yes. But it does do it and it restores the Constitution, which is a point that's not getting made very much."
And, in this Randi Rhodes's interview, Alter claims that "In August, Congress temporarily repealed the Fourth Amendment." But, obviously, an unconstitutional law cannot repeal any portion of the Constitution. It can, however, create a contradiction that prevents the successful prosecution of violations. As noted, the PAA expired in February, and the programs it authorized expire from August 2008 through mid-February 2009.
Alter's projected sense of urgency, distress, and concern for the Fourth Amendment and are obviously part of a successful campaign to stampede Democrats, including Barak Obama and Kieth Olbermann --- and if he is doing it consciously, he deserves an Oscar. Rather, I think it is an example of the mass hysteria and groupthink that seizes this nation's politics-and-punditry class.
Alter sounds as though the Bush is holding the Fourth Amendment hostage and Alter is plead for us to save its life by paying the ransom that Bush demands, permission to spy on Americans and immunity for his telco accomplices --- pathetic, but it seems to work on our Democratic capitulators.
It is blindingly obvious that there is but one way to restore respect for the Fourth Amendment: impeach and prosecute those who have violated it. But under Barak Obama, the Democratic leadership has chosen to pay the ransom. Some call that pragmatism. Some call it cowering. Benjamin Franklin calls it foolish: "Those who trade essential liberties for a bit of security deserve neither and will soon lose both."
- Per Diane Feinstein's response letter to enquiring voters:
"I write this in response to your communication indicating your concerns on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) now before the Senate.
[...]
It is important to understand the consequences if the Senate does not pass this bill. We would either have to extend the temporary surveillance bill passed last August - which should not happen - or allow surveillance on certain foreign targets to expire, which would lay the Nation bare and decrease our ability to identify and protect against terrorist threats. Neither of these options is acceptable."
Feinstein is pleading on behalf of a different hostage, namely the surveillance efforts that Alter sees as the unconstitutional mortal enemy of the Fourth Amendment. But the ransom is still the same, permission to warrantlessly spy on Americans and immunity for Bush's telco accomplices.
For perspective, please note that FISA has never prohibited surveillance of any foreign targets. To surveil a foreign target's communication with people in the U.S. for more than a few days, FISA
does, however, require a fourth-amendment warrant, which FISA courts grant by the thousands.
- Here is an exchange between Kieth Olbermann and John Dean on Countdown on 6/20/08:
DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it's a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it's not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability. And that something that Obama has said during this campaign he would do, unlike prior presidents who come in and really give their predecessor a pass, he said, "I won't do that." And that might be why he's just sitting back saying, "Well, I'm going to let this go through. But that doesn't mean I'm going to give the telecoms a pass." I would love it if he gets on the Senate floor and says, "I'm keeping that option opened."
OLBERMANN: In other words, let the private suits drop and get somebody in there who'll actually use the laws that still exist to prosecute and make the actual statement and maybe throw a few people in jail.
DEAN: Exactly. And it looks to me, as I read this bill and talk to a number of people in Washington familiar with the bill, some who are involved in the negotiations, and they say, "You know - we just didn't think about this issue."
John Dean is something of an expert on presidential pardons. He has been around them since Watergate and has written an astute article that argued that Bill Clinton could have pardoned himself had he been convicted. Yet, knowing that Bush can and likely will issue pardons all around, he encouraged the cockamamie theory of an Obama secret plan to prosecute the telcos that has now erupted into a flame war between Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald. (See this by bmaz for a complete analysis of the obvious, and not so obvious, impediments to "Obama's secret plan.")
Think about this epidemic of crazy talk that has overtaken the our pundits and politicians, especially the Democratic leadership, as you watch Olbermann's Special Comment on Obama, FISA, etc. Olbermann is usually both clear and wise, and the FISA issue is in serious need of clarity and wisdom from the media.
Also, I recommend this video by Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks for perspective on the likely effect of Obama's capitulation.