Letters to the Editor
What Constitution?
Published Letters: 131
-
@ Ethics Professor and LA Times Op Ed
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Among the astonishing things in today's LA Times op-ed (things like this being written by a former Clinton Administration national security advisor, or being titled "A Good-Enough Spy Law"), the description of the premise for granting telecom immunity is quite clearly and starkly stated:
In its review of the [presidential wire tap 'request'] effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance 'had been authorized by the president' and that the 'activities had been determined to be lawful.'
We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power."
So, there you have it. The Senate Intelligence Committee fully understands the illegality of the President's actions creating this problem. So, then, where is the provision in this FISA proposal that recommends criminal prosecution of the President or his advisors? Oh, none. Well, then, where is the provision affording immunity to the President or his advisors? Well, none there, either. Hmmm. So then, where is the rider or the recommendation that the House proceed with hearings on the pending impeachment resolutions, specifically (at least) articles 24 and 25 which encompass the acts which the Senate Intelligence Committee finds to have been illegal and on which the Senate Intelligence Committee is recommending the whole Senate act to immunize the recipients of these illegal demands? Oh. Impeachment.
Once again, the closer this FISA abomination gets to a vote the greater the likelihood that some proponent is going to accidentally say something true. Last November, it was Booz-Allen guy (and current McCain advisor) Woolsey who used his LA Times op-ed to advocate telecom immunity by hoping it would create a precedent for future illegal conspiracies between government officials and private companies (tell them we'll get immunity passed, like in [the FISA situation]").
Today's op-ed simply and glibly describes the elephant in the room that immunity advocates have been trying not to mention: that the President clearly violated Federal laws and the Constitution, and that this immunity provision is based on the belief that the Congress of the United States does not have the guts to impeach the President over that.
Happy Fifth of July.
-
This Op-Ed Clearly Focuses on the Premise of the FISA Bill: Presidential Lawlessness
[Read the article: The political establishment and telecom immunity -- why it matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][I was writing and posting this on the last thread as GG posted this one, and this is where it belongs]
Among the astonishing things in today's LA Times op-ed (things like this being written by a former Clinton Administration national security advisor, or being titled "A Good-Enough Spy Law"), the description of the premise for granting telecom immunity is quite clearly and starkly stated:
"In its review of the [presidential wire tap 'request'] effort, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the administration's written requests and directives indicated that such assistance 'had been authorized by the president' and that the 'activities had been determined to be lawful.'
We now know that they were not lawful. But the companies that followed those directives are not the ones to blame for that abuse of presidential power."
So, there you have it. The Senate Intelligence Committee fully understands the illegality of the President's actions creating this problem. So, then, where is the provision in this FISA proposal that recommends criminal prosecution of the President or his advisors? Oh, none. Well, then, where is the provision affording immunity to the President or his advisors? Well, none there, either. Hmmm. So then, where is the rider or the recommendation that the House proceed with hearings on the pending impeachment resolutions, specifically (at least) articles 24 and 25 which encompass the acts which the Senate Intelligence Committee finds to have been illegal and on which the Senate Intelligence Committee is recommending the whole Senate act to immunize the recipients of these illegal demands? Oh. Impeachment.
Once again, the closer this FISA abomination gets to a vote the greater the likelihood that some proponent is going to accidentally say something true. Last November, it was Booz-Allen guy (and current McCain advisor) Woolsey who used his LA Times op-ed to advocate telecom immunity by hoping it would create a precedent for future illegal conspiracies between government officials and private companies (tell them we'll get immunity passed, like in [the FISA situation]").
Today's op-ed simply and glibly describes the elephant in the room that immunity advocates have been trying not to mention: that the President clearly violated Federal laws and the Constitution, and that this immunity provision is based on the belief that the Congress of the United States does not have the guts to impeach the President over that.
Happy Fifth of July. Thank you, Glenn, for taking this op-ed on so quickly and so thoroughly.
May Congress grow a spine and exercise the Constitution's requirement, imposed by the elementary principle of separation of powers, to rein in George W. Bush's rampant excesses. Do it now. There is no excuse for refusing to pursue impeachment -- including no "political expedience" excuse, since at the very least we could have a national debate on what is, and what is not, "worthy" of impeachment. Anybody who thinks that the Republican party will, once out of control of the White House, engage in "circumspection" about demanding impeachment based upon some sort of "deference" to the "politeness" of the Democrats when faced with the litany of Bush's conduct is smoking dope.