Letters to the Editor
logicalresponse
Published Letters: 168 Editor's Choice: 19
-
subtle connection
[Read the article: Accountability Now and Strange Bedfellows: The strategy and rationale]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With the obvious exception of the immunity grant, some may ask, what is the connection between corporate money and politics and the Democratic position on FISA? The issue of immunity and the issue of warrantless wiretapping could have been separated out into two separate bills. To argue that the two issues had to be strung together in order to get the immunity passed, is to argue that the wiretapping was some how supportable in a more compelling way than immunity.
To me, it is the other way around. I can almost (ALMOST) go along with immunity. I don’t think damages against the telecoms were close to an even shot, much less a slam dunk, even in the absence of immunity. I also doubt that court proceedings would have really cast much light on the wrong doing of the Bush administration, given the way the cases had gone to this point. Furthermore, congress would have the power to investigate that wrong doing, even after Bush grants a pardon. (Note also that a pardon is not as simple as it might seem. There are potential individual criminal culpabilities and the scope of the pardon may be a later point of interpretation.) In fact, the grant of a pardon might even aid a congressional investigation by eliminating Fifth Amendment claims.
So even though I might not be too upset over immunity, the warrantless wiretapping issue is as fundamental as any issue I have been aware of in my lifetime. The problem with the FISA amendments is not, after all, whether an actual terrorist will be denied some right. It is not even solely that someone for whom there is real probable cause to suspect will be listened in on. It is first that the listener should not be the final authority on what is probable cause (which results in 1/3 of detainees being mislabeled), and second (and most important) that the FISA amendments provide a smoke screen behind which warrantless wiretaps can be used for political purposes that have nothing to do with terrorism. Even if the misuse of FISA is not intended in the amendments, the temptation to the power hungry is just too great. The most power hungry of all are money interests, which by and large institutionalize amorality in the name of shareholder interests. So you have money controlling politicians and politicians controlling wiretapping, and you have a recipe for constitutional disaster.
No doubt the rhetoric, claiming the FISA amendments were necessary for national security, was to some extent a smoke screen for getting immunity passed. But there seem to me to be two motives working together. One is serving the corporate masters in immunity. The other, as I have developed elsewhere in another comment, is the fear that another terrorist attack will leave anyone who opposed FISA amendment holding the bag in the political fall out after such an attack.
Still, there is a subtle connection between the two, not as a matter of motives, but as a matter of effect. The whole notion of warrantless wiretapping protected by an “intent” standard, as the FISA amendments require, is a temptation to the powerful that is an inevitable trap door for First as well as Fourth Amendment rights.
Perhaps the bedfellows coalition will move us toward a realignment of power with people instead of money, or perhaps it will fail in an eventual internal feud amongst well egoed leaders whose success gives them a little corruptible power. Either way, right now it is the thing to do, and pray for the best.
-
the P in Pickens is for profit
[Read the article: Republicans lose a major financial backer]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I guarantee Pickens has an angle. The T is not for Treehugger. I bet he has some wind leases and wants some government breaks to make them profitable.
-
The gathering
[Read the article: Obama's all-star summit ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To put it more specifically, while they all certainly have motives for wanting to come, from ego to business, that this diverse group is willing to essentially endorse Obama by their presence and risk Republican revenge if Obama loses, gives one a good idea where the pros are placing the odds. Furthermore, it is an out and out repudiation the supply-side policies that Republicans typically support. It always amazes me that supply side policies always result in moderate to severe problems, and the supply siders never seem to get the message. When Obama gets it all back on track, like Clinton did, then the supply siders will be back wanting to lower taxes yaddy yaddy. Wouldn't it be wonderful if just once we could skip the supply side of what seems to be a cycle of economic grandstanding by people who just don't get the facts on the ground. Yet the types that are now gathering for Obama always seem strangely quiet or ineffective when the supply side rolls around.
-
It's just the lighting
[Read the article: The graying of Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All your dark hair photos are inside in less light and all outside are grayer. When I was twelve I wore a burr haircut. It looked grayish outside. You probably weren't born yet, so don't worry if you never heard of burr haircuts. Short hair looks gray outside. It's because the hair has some shine which reflects the white sunlight and so makes the dark hair look lighter, I guess.