Letters to the Editor
thelastnamechosen
Published Letters: 283
-
Foreshadowing
[Read the article: What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by "bipartisanship"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's take a look a one part of the bill. Read it twice, it is worth it.
---
SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.
`(a) In General- No State shall have authority to--
`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;
`(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;
`(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or
`(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.
`(b) Suits by the United States- The United States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.
`(c) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of this section.
`(d) Application- This section shall apply to any investigation, action, or proceeding that is pending on or commenced after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
----
How in the hell is this constitutional? If federal law can prevent a State government from investigating federal surveillance then why can't federal law prevent the citizens of a state from investigating? Can congress really eliminate the State's ability to investigate violations of State law by their own citizens? Can congress really eliminate the State's ability to investigate the behavior of the executive and congress?
Does the Constitution allow federal law to immunize federal agents from State laws and State Constitutions only in the area of "assistance to an element of the intelligence community?" Or does it allow any sort of immunization from State laws and Constitutions for any reason? Maybe only when the president is exercising Article II authority?
This section is necessary to force the States to fall in line along with the communication service providers. The point is to eliminate all possible avenues of exposure and/or noncooperation. State laws and State Constitutions are a roadblock to total surveillance.
Citizens? Check. Corporations? Check. State Government? Check. The Judiciary? Check. Neatly down the fucking line. The Constitution be damned.
Why wouldn't Obama appoint Supreme Court Justices that believe the federal government has this kind of power? What is the point of opposing immunity if you support a bill that tries to eliminate accountability and transparency in future surveillance?
Too many fucking questions.
-
Dean
[Read the article: What Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Fred Hiatt mean by "bipartisanship"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]John Dean was on Countdown. He saw a possible pony -- that a President Obama could bring a criminal case, because this outrage only addresses the pending civil suits.
This stuff from Dean is just silly. If Obama is president he can declassify all of the records about spying he wants. He can order the head of the NSA to give a televised address explaining exactly what happened. He doesn't need a criminal case.
I don't want a president to direct the attorney general to prosecute or not prosecute specific people. Dean should know better than this.
-
Be careful what you wish for
[Read the article: Obama's support for the FISA "compromise"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Judges who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional.
Besides being a lottery ticket approach to government, I am not sure if it is true.
Why would Obama pick a Supreme Court judge who would overturn the bipartisan cornerstone of the modern war on terror?
Why would Obama endanger the criminal prosecutions of terror suspects by appointing a Supreme Court judge who would unravel the legal underpinnings of the system designed to bring the "war on terror" under a legal umbrella? Even if by some accident or miracle Obama did appoint a person like this, the senate is not going to approve this person.
Does anyone think that it will be good for the fourth amendment, good for the constitution and good for the country if terrorists convicted in a court of law under an Obama administration are freed by a supreme court ruling because the government unconstitutionally collected evidence against them?
If something like this happened I believe the fourth amendment would be in serious danger of being completely dismantled. Either by amendment or mass social acquiescence. If we are really going to try and bring the "war on terror" under the law, it must be done right and with the utmost care. This bullshit of passing whatever laws congress wants in the "war on terror" and letting the supreme court sort it out is going to destroy the country and the constitution. If the congress, the executive and the courts can't come up with a workable system, the people will get tired and I think they will blame the constitution and the courts not the executive and the legislature. Maybe that is the point.
We really aren't going to have many tries to get this right.