Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 83 Editor's Choice: 1
-
If there's another attack
[Read the article: The baseless, and failed, "move to the center" cliche]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LogicalResponse and cabdriver are both correct about this one. They're addressing different questions.
Cabdriver is saying that if there's an attack between now and November, there is no way on earth it could possibly be due to a lapse of warrantless wiretapping starting in August. For this he offers reasons which are unassailably sound.
LR, on the other hand, is talking not about whether two months of "going dark" that isn't really dark would enable a terrorist attack, but about whether the Republicans (knowing perfectly well that they're lying) will claim it did, and whether Democrats fear there's no rational argument, no matter how open and shut, that could cut through the irrationality and the media eagerly embracing the lie, in the course of a few weeks.
I think that's a wholly rational fear on the part of those Democrats who entertain it. I doubt more than a handful of them are thinking clearly enough to frame it to themselves in those terms, though Obama may well be. Most of them, I suspect, are just wimping out from force of habit, just as Glenn asserts.
Glenn is dead right that the fear of being called "soft on terrorism" is pointless, outmoded, and not a significant liability in the current political landscape. But with an attack, those poll numbers could change on a dime. And because Al Qaeda would love to see McCain in office, any long planned operation on their part would more likely be timed for October of an election year than any other time window.
"There's the respect that makes calamity of so long life."
-
Attacking, rufus?
[Read the article: The baseless, and failed, "move to the center" cliche]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aside from shooter42, no one here is attacking Barack Obama. Most of us continue to be committed to voting for him.
We are directing our fire at the FISA abomination. If Obama insists on standing protectively in front of it, that's his decision. Frankly, we'd all love to see him get out of the line of fire.
-
Playing Devil's, erm, Obama's advocate
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have a couple of minor (one very minor) disagreements with your take on Obama's statement, Glenn.
The very minor one: I think there is a difference, albeit a small one, between the exclusivity provision here and in the original FISA. It's 102(b) of title 1, where it says in part
Only an express statutory authorization for electronic surveillance... shall constitute an additional exclusive means...
This utterly rules out the Bush defense that the AUMF (or any similar future dodge) can trump FISA by some vague penumbra of what it implies. Yes, 3 judges have already ruled that defense is claptrap. But appeals always present some slight risk of reversal, depending on which of Justice Kennedy's hormones are kicking in on the day in question. And there's some political value in closing off that defense in the public debate, all courts aside, and thereby forcing Bush back onto his desperate Article II grounds.
More substantively, I don't think Marcy's assertion that the IG requirements don't provide any accountability holds water. You have often argued that, although letting the telecoms off the hook would set a nasty precedent, what's really at issue is the chance to open up discovery. No accountability - not for the criminals in the Administration who initiated the crimes - will follow directly from that discovery process. At best, it only lays the ground to educate the public and perhaps provide political support for real accountability, whether that be criminal prosecution or (in the event of mass pardons) post-term impeachment.
Well, the IG report, which is required to be public and (except for appendices) unclassified, could serve that same educative function. Moreover, it will be a process agreed to in advance by the whole of the GOP and by Bush himself. Which means that there can be no quashing of the process by cries of "partisan witch hunt!" I suspect Barack sees this piece of the bill as a real win because it is a real win.
I also suspect, more tentatively, that Obama shares with the congressional leadership a belief that basket "warrants" are in fact a necessary counterterrorism tool, the specificity required by the fourth amendment be damned. That he regards the imperfections in this bill to consist not of the authorization of such warrants, but of the fact that the oversight of what the Executive then proceeds to do with them is so skimpy.
Under that interpretation, the hoovering up of everything was never what bothered Obama when he voted nay last summer. What changed between the PAA and this version, then, would be the addition of quite a few reporting requirements, to both the FISC and the Congress, about minimization statistics (or were those there last year?). Congress must also get copies of all certifications to and significant rulings from the FISC. Bush will presumably blow all those requirements off, but that'll be one more rope to hang him with, should the hanging become politically feasible next year.
-
Holly, you can eliminate that spam
[Read the article: The Al-Haramain ruling and the current Congress]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the signup page, you can opt to not get postings from the group, or get them consolidated into a single digest each day, rather than the 200 spams.
-
EJ @ page 7
[Read the article: The political establishment and telecom immunity -- why it matters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The 12 steps to restoring the Constitution look great, but this one:
VII. Enact a Law That Regulates the Invocation of Executive Privilege
is probably beyond Congress's power. I think the extent of Executive Privilege is basically whatever the courts say it is, otherwise Congress is encroaching on the legitimate power of the Executive.
I'd replace it with
VII. Enact a Law That Regulates the Invocation of the State Secrets Privilege
That one has never been regarded as anything but judicial construction in the absence of controlling statute.