Letters to the Editor
-
Excellent
Thanks A.L. ... I like your writing and take on this. I believe two things are possibly happening in the background that explains a couple things:
1> Obama wanted to see what Hillary would do before acting ... so he could lever a possible left-inflaming mistake on her part. For him, I imagine, he would have preferred a vote on this bill ... so that HC could have voted for this, and he could further differentiate. I think his initial silence makes sense in this context ... at least to me.
2> I realize it's conspiracy-theory b.s. ... but ... why wouldn't Rove et al order intelligence be gathered on Democratic senators & others (Nixon basically did it, why wouldn't Bush). I think Dem support is good old fashioned blackmail ... in some form or another.
-
I Hear Ya, Bro!
AL,
You've just described the latest splinter in my brain. It used to be just Bush & Co. impaling my cerebellum, but now some Democrats have decided to take up the cause.
There's only one thing that can explain a Democrat voting for corporate retroactive immunity: corruption. This should be a litmus test for 2008.
Thank god for Dodd. He's the only candidate right now who is showing something real to me.
-
Let's stop and think for a moment
Okay, so there's been a lot of puzzled and/or sarcastic verbiage thrown around about the Democrats and their perplexing failure to do their job in Congress. Anyone who reads Greenwald's blog is pretty much well versed on THAT part of the issue.
Now let's ask the next question: assuming that the Democrates in Congress are not a bunch of spineless slugs (I mean, they DID get elected, often in highly competitive races, that ought to count for at least a minimal job qualification), WHY are they so readily granting the President everything he wants on this issue?
At the risk of sounding unduly alarmist, I propose the following hypothesis: the Democrats themselves are in on it. "It" being whatever was so horrifically illegal about Bush's wiretapping activities. They either aided or abetted or did SOMETHING that in the court of law would make them "accessories to the crime." Thus, the retroactive immunity for telecom companies as well as members of the administration (and the cessation of any meaningless investigation of the matter) constitutes immunity for these Democrats as well.
Eh? Eh? No? Well, there may be a much less sinister reason for their behavior. Such as a $40,000 contribution to their coffers from the telecom companies. But why would a Rockefeller care about that paltry sum is really beyond me. If anyone has a better hypothesis, I'm all ears.
-
Hypotheticals
Lets consider the following hypothetical. Should corporations (or individuals for that matter) consider it their obligation to second guess law enforcement/security agencies of the US government about their judgments about how best to protect our homeland against implacable enemies of our beloved country?
-
Blackmail < Treason
By endorsing immunity, you condone and enable the systematic violation of constitutional rights = Treason. AS to possible blackmail, I can't think of anything a Democratic senator has done in the past that exceeds what has already come to light with many of their Republican counterparts.
-
re:Hypoetheticals
Should corporations (or individuals for that matter) consider it their obligation to second guess law enforcement/security agencies of the US government
Yes. They should.
Please, allow me to counter-propose a different hypothetical for you: if the "law enforcement/security agencies of the US government" told you to rob a bank, would you "second guess" them? Even if you did not, would you really think "but they told me to" would be an adequate excuse?
The telecommunication corporations, and their attorneys, know exactly what is and is not a legal wiretap order. They did what they did in willful defiance of the law.
Breaking the law is a funny way to show "love" for our "homeland." If President Hillary had done the same, I daresay you would agree.
-
Hypotheticals
Corporations (and any individual for that matter) should know enough about the Constitution to know when they're being asked to violate it. Especially huge corporations with huge legal staffs.
Case in point: in December, 2003, the FBI issued an NSL to casino operators in Las Vegas requesting all transactional data during the holiday week in order to counter a perceived terrorist threat. The casinos, to their credit, refused.
I'm not saying it wasn't out of self-interest (they would have faced massive class action suits if it had gotten out), but they did have the resources and ability to know when they were being asked something that exceeded the normal boundaries of authority and resisted the request.
Presidential authority does not exceed the Constitution, and they should know that.
-
Well, there may be a much less sinister reason for their behavior
My eyes usually glaze over when the subject of Campaign Finance reform comes up. I'm actually a tad bit sympathetic to the "free speech" arguments that opponents cite. But your brief essay has made it abundantly clear, that the only force currently at work in this controversy is that the Dems are feeding from the same trough that has sustained the Republicans all along. I always think of Disney as the one company that most directly tries to control our behavior from the cradle to the grave, but certainly ATT and Verizon are able to operate at least 300 marionettes in Congress effortlessly.
If it weren't for the complete dissonance necessary for the events you describe to proceed, the debate would already be over.
-
Perhaps ...
... the Democrats are thinking about how much fun *they* could have abusing such powers when they win the White House. And perhaps the Republicans should think about whether or not they want president Hillary's political goons tapping their phones.
-
Re: Hypotheticals
if the "law enforcement/security agencies of the US government" told you to rob a bank, would you "second guess" them? Even if you did not, would you really think "but they told me to" would be an adequate excuse?
Please!!! That's an utterly ridiculous comparison. As Judge Mukasey eloquently pointed out during his Senate confirmation hearings, the Executive Branch's Article II powers can be very plausibly argued to comfortably accommodate this surveillance authority. Your jailhouse lawyering arguments are hardly convincing.