Keith Olbermann got it right tonight: The president is telling bald faced lies about the wiretapping bill currently before congress. He is deliberately using the threat of violence against the citizens he supposedly represents in order to attain political and ideological goals. He claims that FISA must be amended in precisely the way he demands or else Americans will die. And yet he himself is willing to veto those amendments if they do not also include retroactive immunity for the telecomm companies. Thus, as Sen. Kennedy reminded us late last year:
“The president has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA.
“But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retroactive immunity.“No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the president at his word, he’s willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.”
It really is that simple.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, this need not be an all or nothing debate. FISA has been repeatedly modernized over the past 30 years, including several updates in the past decade. Without these amendments, the law simply reverts to its previous state. This isn't about FISA. It is about covering up the lawbreaking of the past 6 years.
Glenn:
Every President until George Bush was able to defend the nation by engaging in surveillance under FISA. That even includes the Great and Powerful Warrior Ronald Reagan, who vanquished the incomparably nefarious Soviet Union while adhering to FISA. It was only George Bush who claimed that we would All Die unless FISA was modernized, and it was modernized -- repeatedly, to his satisfaction and at his direction.
FISA and the Protect America Act both equally allow eavesdropping on the Terrorists Who Want to Kill Us. The material difference is that FISA requires warrants for eavesdropping on Americans (after the fact, if necessary) while the Protect America Act allows the President to eavesdrop on any Americans without having any oversight at all. The difference does not relate to the ability to eavesdrop on the Terrorists but on the nature and level of oversight from that eavsdropping. Moreover, the FISA Court is and always has been a rubber-stamping tribunal that does not ever block any surveillance on any suspected Terrorists.Thus, we're not all going to die under FISA. We're not "going dark." FISA is a modern law that was re-written at George Bush's direction and which he himself said allowed for full surveillance on all of the evil Terrorists and all of their complex, super-modern means of communications. None of this has anything to do with the Government's ability to listen in When Osama Calls. It is only about whether the nation's largest telecoms will have pending lawsuits, brought by their customers for breaking the law, dismissed by Congress. Is that really so hard to understand and explain?
This is a nation of laws, not of men. He is a president, not a king. And this is not who we are, nor is it who we should become.
UPDATE: I'd like for a moment to focus on one very small part of today's events in order to demonstrate just how badly wrong things have gone in our country these past few years. Just before the Republicans staged their "dramatic" walk-out today - god forbid congress force anyone in this administration answer any questions about anything! Who do they think they are? A coequal branch of government?!? - House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the following:
We will not stand for this, and we will not stay for this. And I would ask my House Republican colleagues and those who believe we should be protecting the American people, to not vote on this bill. Let’s just get up and leave. (Applause)
Now I want you to think carefully before you answer the next three questions. Don't rush to any judgments. Use Google if you have to. Feel free to browse the National Archives or the US Code if that will help.
QUESTION ONE:
Below is the oath of office taken by all members of Congress. Please indicate, in six words or less, who or what the members of congress swear (or affirm) to defend:
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
QUESTION TWO:
Below is the oath of office taken by the President of the United States during his or her Inauguration. Please indicate, in six words or less, who or what the president swears (or affirms) to protect and defend:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
QUESTION THREE:
Using as much or as little time as you need, browse this transcript of the US Constitution at the National Archives. In which specific article and section does this document give either the president or the congress the power and authority necessary to begin, in Rep Boehner's words, "protecting the American people."
Take your time. I'll wait....
Got it?
Here are your answers:
QUESTION ONE: Members of Congress swear (or affirm) to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. No mention is made in this oath of defending people.
QUESTION TWO: During his or her Inauguration, the President of the United States swears (or affirms) to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. No mention is made in this oath of defending people.
QUESTION THREE: Although Article I, Section 8 include numerous provisions granting congress the power to raise and regulate an army and a navy. Article I, Section 9, however, makes clear that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it;" and, "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Again, no mention is made of the need for congress itself to defend the people.
Moreover, in the first ten amendments to the constitution, numerous restrictions are placed on the power of government to act, including:
Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This last quotation, of course, gets to the very heart of the matter here. It is this Amendment that is most directly at stake in any discussion about government surveillance powers. Please keep that in mind as you answer this final question:
Question Four:
Both the president and every member of Congress have taken an oath to "defend the Constitution of the United States," including its various Amendments. Explain how the actions of the Bush administration, together with its defenders in Congress, in the area of warrantless wiretapping are consistent with this oath of office. Please be as specific as possible.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
