Once more to the phonebanks….oh, to hell with it
By Thoreau
The House is currently negotiating the terms of the surrender:
The dilemma faced by Democrats is that Republicans and the administration oppose any bill other than the measure passed by the Senate that includes full retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies.
Oh, that’s not a dilemma at all! If the White House will only sign bad bills, then make damn sure that you don’t send them any bad bills. See? Problem solved! But I guess that makes too much sense.
“This is not amnesty,” Wainstein said at the meeting. “This is targeted immunity” for companies who meet requirements specified in the Senate bill that include having received an attorney general’s certification that their assistance was determined to be lawful.
See, not just any old company will get amnesty. Only a company that got a secret letter from Gonzo asking for assistance in an unlawful program!
Look, I know that the government is scary, but when a cop asks you to break the law the correct response is to chicken out. Even if you don’t have any ethical qualms about breaking the law, you ought to know damn well that this shit is going to come back to bite you in the ass. So, when a cop asks you to break the law, always say No!
It’s right up there with “The next time somebody asks if you’re a god, say yes!”
Anyway, I can see why some might want to go easy on companies who complied with requests from Alberto “Dim Bulb” Gonzo. The correct way to go easy is to give them immunity…in exchange for testimony. If you just give them immunity, that’s a blank check for all future Attorneys General (even the ones who wear Blue instead of Red) to ask companies to violate the law, knowing that nobody will ever face any consequences.
Comment by joe —
March 4, 2008 @ 10:09 am
I’m confused, isn’t that the existing law?
I’ve been reading the argument “If they received notice from the administration that the wiretapping is legal, they just have to show that letter at a pre-trial hearing,” as a comeback to the Republican/administration line “These companies were told their cooperation was legal.”
I though “amnesty” was about forbidding lawsuits against companies that DIDN’T receive such assurances from the AG.
Comment by Michael —
March 4, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
I’d agree to Telecom amnesty if and only if the people in the administration who claimed that the wiretapping was legal were prosecutable for it.
Comment by Frank —
March 4, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
I really don’t understand how you could be smart enough to get an advanced degree and not be smart enough to understand that there is no way a democrat would be allowed to get away with this. Even if there were only one Republican in the House and one in the Senate they’d be able to stampede the dems into impeaching over anything even close to this.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 4, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Frank, I hope you’re right, and I suspect that in the short term you are, at least in regard to some of the more spectacular violations we’re seeing. But I suspect that even somebody dumb enough to join the Democratic Party could, in time, find a way to violate our civil liberties.
Comment by mds —
March 4, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
The telecoms do already have grounds for imdemnity if they can demonstrate “good faith.” The key word is demonstrate… in a court of law. Let them produce the legal reasoning they received from the Executive Branch, along with an accounting of what they were asked to do. Which, of course, is what the lawsuits are all about.
To be fair, though, the telecoms other than Qwest don’t necessarily get off scot free as the law is currently written. Demonstrating “good faith” usually doesn’t mean “complying with any document the DoJ waves at them, even though their expensive lawyers know goddamn well what FISA says.” But the major players, the ACLU and the EFF, would gladly leave all that aside in order to get hard evidence about (more) flagrant criminal wrongdoing by the Bush administration. You know, other than the President going on national TV and declaring that he had flouted FISA, and would continue to do so.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
March 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
That’s pretty much the case for the Blues as offered by their fans. “Our guys are too dumb and weak to get away with the stuff they help the other guys do.”
If you want to win in November, please restrict that horrible case to libertarian blog comments (as browbeating the likes of me into not voting for Obama, etc. will be minimally damaging) and let the Blues with brains sell hope and whatnot.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 4, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
Yeah, it’s like “Why vote for the ringleader when you can vote for the guy who just drove the getaway car and then got caught?”
Even with my advanced degree I still can’t understand how that’s a ringing endorsement. It is certainly a plausible prediction for minimal damage, but it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Comment by Frank —
March 4, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
I don’t know why you think I’m obligated to give any of these guys a ringing endorsement. I’m not, just so you know.
Its not that they are too dumb and weak. They have to be smarter and stronger than Republicans just to get and keep their positions.
There is just virtualy no reason for the Dems to care about anything, you or even I care about. If people don’t support them because they are too far to the right, then they will move farther to the right. If you don’t get that dynamic there is really nothing anyone can do for you.
Comment by Frank —
March 4, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
Want them to be willing to cross the Republicans?
Elect more of them.
Or don’t, hell I don’t care. Just quit your whining already.
Comment by mds —
March 4, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Um, that was the argument for 2006, when somehow Senate Democrats couldn’t stop anything, not even judicial nominees. Now they’re in the majority, and they can’t stop anything, either. Noticed all those procedural roadblocks Senate Republicans have used, that didn’t just get created in January ‘07? Did you ever notice how Tom DeLay used “majority of the majority” to shut House Dems out completely, thanks to his puppet Denny’s control of the gavel? Did you notice that when Bernie Sanders gained support of enough Republicans to pass an anti-Patriot Act measure on a majority vote, the Rules Committee simply threw the result out because they could? Now show me how the Dems have used their majority control to push back against liberty-gutting demands by a President whose approval is in the toilet. Elect more of them? Twenty-one House Democrats have been clamoring since January to give the telecoms retroactive immunity, and the House Intelligence Committee Chair has just said he’s willing to capitulate. Nineteen Senate Democrats already voted to capitulate on immunity, along with making the odious aspects of the Protect America Act (”Suck it up; it’s just temporary”) permanent. So how many more do we need, Frank? Rough figures will suffice.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 4, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
In that case, it shouldn’t matter to you in the slightest if I decide to trash talk them.
Comment by Ravi —
March 4, 2008 @ 3:01 pm
mds, it isn’t that simple. On “security” issues Democrats don’t have a majority because of the sizeable contingent of Blue Dog conservative Democrats – who actually do buck their party the votes matter (as opposed to the mythical moderate Republicans who only buck their party when the votes don’t). Some of this difference is historical (part of the Southern realignment) and part of it is because of structural differences in the Democratic and Republican caucuses – the Republican caucus (at least in the era of Gingrich, Delay, et al) has had a more extensive party-controlled patronage and fundraising machine that kept the rank-and-file in line. In my opinion, such a patronage machine (and the associated party discipline) is not an attribute of Republicans worth emulating, which means that Democrats structurally need larger majorities than Republicans in order to wield the same power.
Given that, the practical way to push the country in a new direction on “security” issues is to elect non-Blue Dog Democrats. That’s why Donna Edwards beating Al Wynn (in Maryland, IIRC) is such a big deal. Giving up on the project shortly after the first year (especially when there have been positive developments like the fight on telecom immunity) is just another symptom of the short-term instant gratification thinking that has America and Americans in trouble on so many fronts.
The Republican machine had 12 years to entrench itself in Congress and has been digging into Washington since the Nixon years. Rooting that out isn’t the work of one opposition Congress. It is a generational challenge – one that will require winning the Presidency as well. If you’re not on board for the whole project, then you either: (1) don’t really care about these issues (not enough to really work on them) or (2) have already given up on the American political system (3) have a different plan to make progress (which I’ve never seen). But other than case (3), it should be understandable why those of us who care about these issues and believe it is possible to fix them from within the existing political system aren’t terribly interested in taking tactical advice from people who don’t share those postulates.
Comment by mds —
March 4, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
And yet, here you are, telling people whose tactical advice is to fight for what’s right against a wildly unpopular President to “stop whining” at their own blog.
With all due respect, and then some, I’ve been pushing the Democratic brand since 1996. And can I have some of the crack you’re smoking? Because I guarantee the extraconstitutional powers legalized by making the Protect America Act permanent (never mind immunity) are not going to go away. Yes, Republicans will howl and demand impeachment when a Democratic President tries to use them, but they won’t support repealing them, because they want them to remain available the next time they hold the Oval Office. The brief partial pushback that Nixon provoked has been eradicated and then some. And positive developments on telecom immunity? The House leadership apparently stamped its foot because they were being asked to rubberstamp the White House plan so quickly, when they wanted more time to capitulate. See, I’d continue with this “generational struggle,” if I were getting some indication that it’s bearing real fruit. Donna Edwards? Hooray. Who’s next? And are they going to turn out to be like Webb or McCaskill on civil liberties when they get in there? Nineteen Senate Democrats. That’s quite a barrier to overcome to protect the Constitution.
Regardless, I’m voting for Obama or Clinton in November, even though Clinton will probably lose to McCain. I’ve tossed some money to Bill Foster, among others. But I’m not going to keep shaking pom-poms at a libertarian blog for the wonderful virtues of the Democratic Party if they don’t earn it.
Comment by Thoreau —
March 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
I’m all in favor of rooting out the worst Democrats and replacing them with better Democrats, if that’s possible. And I’m well aware that Rome wasn’t sacked in a day, and that the Republicans have had a long time to entrench themselves.
Still, I always go back to the fact that a massive military-industrial complex has been feeding for decades under both parties and despite some regional realignments of the parties. The rot runs deep, and it goes well beyond party lines. The problem we face is deeply rooted in the fears and economic interests of many people in both parties and from many places and walks of life.
I’m not saying we should give up completely, but when searching for alternatives we should insist that they be real alternatives, not just rebranded versions of the same problem.
Comment by Bruce Baugh —
March 4, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Thoreau is 100% right on with the “real alternatives” thing. “Democrats” is not the right answer to the question “So who, if anyone, is worth supporting right now?” The right answer is people who show signs of caring about law and competence wherever they may be found. At the moment, I think, there are more of them among Democrats, but that’s “among” – they aren’t the only flavor, and they face well-funded, well-positioned opposition. So people whose real point is “we need to get more folks in office who are better aligned with the realities of governance’s real demands” need to be clear just how much “we need Democrats” isn’t a shorthand for that, but partly an endorsement of some of the folks responsible for the current mess.
And they really are responsible. There’s so much that Democratic leadership could have done but didn’t, and that it wouldn’t allow rank and file members to do either. It’s support and there’s no point in haggling over that now.
Comment by Tony P. —
March 4, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
Bruce, I agree that “among” is a crucial point. What puzzles me is why anyone would look among Republicans for “people who show signs of caring about law and competence”. I do not positively deny that such people exist in the GOP, but I am hard-pressed to think of any.
Electing Democrats may not be sufficient to improve governance in this country, but defeating Republicans is necessary. America is currently in the position of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, contemplating the choice between certain death by gunfire and probable death by jumping into the river. It’s a hard call, I agree. It would be great to have a third alternative. But the only way to get to the point of having a third alternative is to escape the Republican gunfire, jump into the Democratic river, and then think about moving to Bolivia.
– TP
Comment by Eric the .5b —
March 4, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
So it’s an escalation to blackmail, then? “Support our guys’ disinterest in opposing the Reds or they’ll go even more right-wing!”
Except when we support them, they…pretty much cave to the Reds.
…Seriously, leave it to the “hope” guys, Franky.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
March 4, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Who’s doing that? Or is this a reflexive, “He’s not happy with Blues, so he must mean he wants to support Reds” thing?
Comment by Tony P. —
March 4, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
No, Eric. It’s a “What are you worried about? The fall alone will probably kill ya” thing.
Bitching and moaning about the available choices is a sign of intelligence. Pretending that you don’t, at this moment, face an unavoidable choice is a sign of something else.
I’m not rooting for the Dems to beat the Reps because I think life will be sweet if the Dems win, but because I know life will be hell unless the Reps lose. Do you disagree?
– TP
Comment by Frank —
March 4, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
Who is doing the blackmail Eric?
Comment by Frank —
March 4, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
“…Seriously, leave it to the “hope†guys, Franky.”
You seem to have me confused with someone who needs to sell you something. I don’t know why you have this need to be lied to but you should take it up with your analyst.
Comment by mds —
March 4, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Well, you do keep coming back to scold.
Comment by dirge —
March 4, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Do they give us a name for that “attorney general’s certification”? If not, I have a suggestion: “Writ of Assistance.”
Comment by Frank —
March 4, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
If you don’t like the answers stop asking the questions.
Comment by Michael L —
March 5, 2008 @ 10:14 am
I’m with Tony P, in 16 on this one. And I’m not a very good swimmer. But at age 64 I’ve been through one “revolution”. That one didn’t last long, partly because it wasn’t seriously political enough. And I’m afraid being seriously political means putting actual bodies in Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court to make a difference. However little that difference is in the beginning. Oh yeah. And it still needs faith (if that word hasn’t been totally blackened by the radical right.)
Comment by Barry —
March 6, 2008 @ 9:02 am
Comment by Thoreau —
March 4, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
“I’m not saying we should give up completely, but when searching for alternatives we should insist that they be real alternatives, not just rebranded versions of the same problem. ”
And the real alternatives are?