Keith Olbermann, Glenn Greenwald Feud Over FISA

A war of words has broken out between two of the progressive blogosphere's most beloved figures: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and blogger/author Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.

In a post yesterday, Greenwald charged that Olbermann's "blind devotion to Barack Obama" had let him to excuse and defend Obama's support of the FISA 'compromise' legislation. Greenwald noted that Olbermann has previously condemned the idea of giving immunity to telecom companies that spied on Americans, calling it a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism" and comparing it to the actions of the Third Reich.

"But," Greenwald wrote, "[n]ow that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed."

Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise. [...]

Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

There's much more -- you can read Greenwald's full post here. And Olbermann responded with a post last night on Daily Kos.

He explained his segment by citing former Nixon aide (and frequent Countdown guest) John Dean's argument that the FISA compromise "clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits." (He added, "I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns)."

More Olbermann:

Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.

When Markos was on (Monday? Again, blurs) he made the simple but essential point that if this is Obama's rationale for this, maybe he should explain it. I think it can be argued that if he's caught the same hole in the bill that Dean has, his best course is actually to shut up and take the criticism and hope the Republicans don't see the loophole.

I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he's taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing.

I do think Mr. Greenwald's suggestion of some kind of betrayal on my part is simplistic and childish. I'll take the Dean interpretation of this. If it isn't the Senator's game plan, he'll catch hell from me about it later.

Quick Poll

Who's right?

Glenn Greenwald

Keith Olbermann

Comments

[EuroRant1]

Sorry ... everyone is making sense on both sides of this issue, but the only portion to this argument that confuses me is those 4 words within the 4th Amendment that states:

(The 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.)

"SHALL NOT BE VIOLATED"

Can someone out there please explain what "shall not be violated" means. Does "Shall not" mean the same thing as in the 10 Commandments ... (Thou SHALL NOT kill) ... or has this changed in meaning as well?

[sophistwatch]

Quite true, but I think most of us are making an allowance for the "war" factor.

If, as it appears, this whole thing is a farce, your point is all the more relevant.

Keep reiterating your point.

[afgail]

What comes next? Guilty until proven innocent? What have you got to worry about if you haven't done anything wrong? How many of the people the Innocence Project have sprung from jail were innocent and had done nothing wrong? All of them. Now almost 200 people proven innocent but spent decades in jail for something they didn't do. Don't fall for the neocons stupid slogans.

[aubrey8]

oh, allowances for the phony and unnecessary war factor......of course, what else could unlawful wiretaps be used for? man, the gullible people never seem to run out.

[NewRiver]

It just means if you're not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to worry about.

[joust1]

Keep on chanting that mantra untill they finally come for you, because no one else is left to tell them that you are innocent.

[kevenseven]

An horrifically unAmerican sentiment, common to creeps and fas_cists.

[ReadyNow]

I love it how folks love the wide intepertation of the 4th amendment....but can't stand the 2nd amendment...The right to bear arms is as important to indvidual liberty as the others...maybe more important

[repearwo]

It means shall not, but upon a warrant issued with probable cause.

I do not think you want a person to commit a crime and hide the evidence in his home and get by witht he crime becasue the Constitution said the security of his Home shall notbe violated. THe words that follow those four are just as important.

If there are things that need to be kept secret for National security reasons, one branch can not make the rules for what is kept secret or how. The mention of a warrant means that the courts are to be involved in the determination of any, secret ot not, necessary violation of ones home or other items listed. The executive Branch is responsible for executing Laws of the Legislature. So the FISA sets up a secret court to which warrants may be submited, and an overseer to check to make sure that warrants are in fact properly secured.

So yes, it does mean what it says as long as you do not take it out of context. The same is true of the book from which the 10 commandments come.

[WAstateliberal]

Read it again. Searches and seizures must not be unreasonable, and warrants, if issued, shall be based on probable cause.

Reasonable searches and searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The question then becomes what is reasonable. Check out the case law, start with Katz v. United States and work your way up. If you have Loislaw, use Globalcite. If not, you can use free cites like findlaw.com.

If the Fourth Amendment was simple there wouldn't be thousands of cases on it. As an appellate attorney, the Fourth Amendment presents itself in about 20% of my cases each year (that's really high).

[Mekarri]

the violation has already happen while we all set on our collected ass. Talking about Brittney and paris hilton. So stop with all the fake outrage. None of us did anything to stop bush from taking over our country by stealing the elections. Obama is our best and last hope in this country and if you can't see that after 4000 deaths and 7 years of bush then you are blind and stupid.

[mmerose]

Later. Someday. It has been turning out to be never for a long time, down a long slippery slope of Dems finding excuses. I think its legit to challenge KO for giving Obama a pass on this.

[JohnTalbutt]

Keith has had Constitutional scholars make the case against immunity on his show far better than Greenwald. As someone who has been named a subversive in a Congressional Committee and had unwanted visits by the FBI at his place of work, I value Keith's contributions to the fight to preserve the Bill of Rights. Greenwald may be well meaning but his approach is jejune.

[kevenseven]

Yet KO excused the idea of O bama ducking this one for purely political reasons.

I don't excuse him for this display of cowardice.

[americanalien]

Both Keith Olbermann and Glenn Greenwald rocks but KEITH RULES ALWAYS!!!

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

STOP. DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200. You are not republicons. You do not eat each other or your young.

Take a step back. Check the egos at the door and work through this like adults.

[lizr]

thank you anastasia!!

[JohnTalbutt]

Who has done more to expose the drift toward fascism of the Bush Administration than Keith Olbermann? What difference will it make if telecoms do or do not have this or that form of immunity if McCain is elected?
How does Greenwald advance the case against immunity by attacking Olbermann for not attacking Obama?

Read the comments here and decide if anyone is benefiting more from Greenwald's blurb than McCain.

"We must be responsible for the final results of our actions". Che Guevarra

[lizr]

Who is looking to make a name for himself?

[afgail]

Greenwald is taking a principled position. How is KO giving Obama a pass on this one not 100% of the same crapola we've gotten from Republicans defending their numerous wrong headed decisions?

[Titonwan]

I see your nothing but an apologist windbag too:)

[sclucie]

still waiting on the name of that telecom - i'm guessing about $1000 a year, To telecom companies who have consistently complied with government surveillance. Are you tough enough to give up your cell phone?

[sophistwatch]

Let me start by pointing out that there is a logical and chronological order of events that both need to be closely examined before we can discuss the legality or illegality of retroactive immunity.

First we need to know who approached the telecoms and what they were told. If they were offered immunity based on lies or manipulated intelligence, we are talking about the BA committing and act of fraud in order to dupe the Telecoms into doing something they otherwise would not do if they had known the truth.

If the BA threatened them or tricked them into participating in this program, then the Telecoms may well be entitled to some protection from civil suits ONLY because they were victims of fraud in the inducement. They would not be protected from criminal suits.

On the other hand, if there is proof that the BA did not commit a fraud upon or coerce the Telecoms, and it is clear that they went ahead with the President's request knowing that they were breaking the law, all bets are off. They have no immunity, civil, or otherwise.

We simply must know under what conditions they agreed to participate before any form of immunity can be intelligently discussed.

Olbermann and Greenwald should join together to demand the answer to those questions from Obama and the rest of the Senate before they vote on the proposed changes.

[CitizenFace]

These telecoms aren't some Mom 'n Pop operation, they have lawyers. Any lawyer, or even someone with basic knowledge of civics for that matter, knows that only a warrant can make a wiretap legal. No lawyer worth his salt would grant a warrantless wiretap in good faith just because a government official says "pretty please."

[sophistwatch]

I guess you have not read the Senate Phase II report. Find it and read pages 96 & 97 and tell me about your "pretty please" theory. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[RedWolverine]

I know many of you may not like listening to Right-Wing Radio, but if you listen to this whole video, you will know who won this debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3W5sUD11UVs

[XME]

I tried, but couldn't stand listening to jerks long enough to make it through the video.

[americanalien]

Keith Olbermann will deliver a short special comment on Obama and FISA on next Monday's program. A MUST WATCH FOR ALL AMERICANS. Did I also mention that Keith is an American Hero?

Keith Rules Forever!!!

[GeorgeKaplan]

Did I mention that he is dead wrong on the Telecom Immunity Bill?

[JohnTalbutt]

You are for it or just not paying attention?

[dajay]

Keith is an American Hero? that is pretty funny.

[JohnTalbutt]

He is to millions of people who opposed the war and the Bush Administration and found nothing but Bullshit on TV. Sorry you were asleep the past few years.

[VitaBrevis]

Yeah! He is a LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND.. Follow the yellow brick road. When will we hear that Obama has walked on water....cause Keith lets him walk on fire with nary a blister.

His nose is so far up Obama's backside it is sickening to watch.

Keith will soon be toast. One must have some degree of fairness and his approach is my way or the highway.

Wanna be journalist who will never make the cut. I am boycotting all his sponsors.

[RiseHillary]

good idea............I stopped watching MSNBC.

[RiseHillary]

Do you think he will wag his finger threateningly into the camera lens and say "Mr. Obama, You must denounce your flip-flip-flop behaviour in the strongest terms" ? or does he just use those pompous threatening gestures with women? as in "Mrs Clilnton you must denounce GF in the strongest way possible !" I haven't watched him since and even avoided primary night returns on MSNBC because of KO and CM...........both sexist arses!

[RedWolverine]

Can I explain something. Companies agree to help the government protect the American people from terrorists, they are told by the government that what they did is legal.

Now people on the Left want to allow trial lawyers to bring massive lawsuits against these companies. I'm a libertarian, but I can't think of a single instance in my life that would convince me that this isn't absurd.

[GeorgeKaplan]

Yes... so next time they get that call they will think twice before they hand over the keys to our private information.

[RedWolverine]

You can't be serious. They were told it is legal, and they wanted to help protect America. Now you want to let them get sued by headhunter lawyers that can get billion dollar lawsuits.

Talk about an irresponsible position.

[cmhmd]

C'mon.
"told by the government that what they did was legal"?
Qwest knew better. Why?

The lawsuits are not the point. The accountability that they will lead to and the eventual prosecutions of the Officers of BushCo are the point.

"I'm a liberterian"? Except for the Bill of Rights?

Cheers

[rkrenke]

The old trial lawyer argument. . .yes, it must be those nasty trial lawyers who are at fault for this mess.

[NTO08]

Greenwald is on the winning side of this battle...having the left feuding over this will only make the right solidify...watch it.

[JohnTalbutt]

If Greenwalds purpose is not to have the left fighting he is an idiot.

[Titonwan]

This is Glenn's science project, sonny boy. You should have half the patriotism and one eighth the brains and be grateful. Blowhard apologist.

[Probus]

I think Olbermann and Dean have made the distinction between the value of civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions. They think that even if the telecoms have immunity from civil lawsuits they can still be prosecuted for criminal acts. But many on the left think that the dems and Obama have given up too much here with this bill and I have to agree with that. At the end of the day this is still about the 4th amendment so it is critical that Obama not vote for this bill. I hope that the 15 senators (all dems) who voted to block this bill talk to Obama so he can see what is at stake here with this bill. We all want Obama to win but not like this, not by sacrificing our civil liberties.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

"Olbermann and Dean ... They think that even if the telecoms have immunity from civil lawsuits they can still be prosecuted for criminal acts."

Dean is smarter than that. He said that the Bill was poorly written and did not provide for criminal immunity. The Bill didn't have to do that. Bush will do that when he pardons the telecoms in the same way that Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon before any criminal prosecution took place.

Olbermann is smart. But he is very busy and he knows that he is smart. He has simply jumped to a conclusion based upon a partial statement that he heard from Dean.

When Olbermann gives his special comment on Monday night, let's hope that someone has gotten around to telling him that the granting of civil immunity will not guarantee that a right to prosecute the telecoms will be preserved. Let's hope that John Dean tells him.

[Jason357]

I've said it a million times, they always promise to go back and fix this kind of junk, like Campaign Finance, but NEVER quite get around to it. f immunity isn't such a big deal, than it shouldn't be a be deal to insist it isn't in there.

[Titonwan]

But it is! To the neocons. Wonder why?

[Probus]

I respect what Olbermann has done in terms of speaking out against Bush when it wasn't popular to do so. No one can question his liberal credentials. But I respectfully disagree that Obama should be politically expedient here and vote for the FISA bill. While I respect John Dean's knowledge and experience on Constitutional issues I think he and Olbermann are in the wrong here. The FISA bill is exactly what Bush wants. It violates the Constitution and it provides immunity to telecoms in civil lawsuits. Olbermann has suggested that if Obama is elected president he can overturn the damage this bill does and prosecute the telecoms criminally. Yet we have to ask ourselves what happens if Obama votes for this bill and McCain becomes president? It would be disastrous. It is a risk Obama shouldn't take at the cost of our civil liberties. I am deeply disappointed in Obama's decision to support this bill. But I think this election is too important to sit out. I will cast my vote for him even if he has exercised bad judgment here.

[Liberal2]

"... respect what Olbermann has done in terms of speaking out against Bush when it wasn't popular to do so. No one can question his liberal credentials...."

Sure I can, Bush is an stupid person in a job that requires intelligence. That mismatch makes him dangerous. That dangerousness is easy to condemn. But Obama is more than able to walk and chew gum...now Olbermann must be insightful about the morality and ethics of a position. He failed the test.

Let's say Bush ordered Blackwater to kill you. It would be illegal, obviously. But Blackwater would argue the fact that it was the president that authorized the hit should make it legal. Should your family have the right to a civil suit against the CEO of Blackwater for being so incredibly stupid as to think an order from the president makes murder legal?

[Josephus]

I TiVo and watch Keith nightly. I'm also a subscriber to Salon.com and regular reader of Greenwald. Anyone who has read Greenwald's position on this issue with his voluminous documentation knows that he is right. Keith is wrong. The fact that Keith is trying to defend the indefensible only makes matters worse.

Keith took Dean's quotes out of context, Greenwald didn't. Keith also spinned what Markos said into something else. If you saw or read Markos' interview with Keith in its entirety it is unmistakable that Markos was not in complete agreement with Keith's spin on what Obama is doing re: FISA. As Markos noted...we (progressives) are still going to vote for Obama regardless.

Moreover, Keith by his own admission was unfamiliar with Greenwald nor had read Greenwald's critique in its entirety so he was in no position to respond to it the way he did. It would seem that those apologists for Keith's position here, followed suit and didn't read Greenwald's piece either.

As Greenwald proved, Keith has violated his own stated principles with this issue. He should do what he demands of others and admit he is wrong.

Of course all of this obscures the issue regarding Obama's vote.

[Rjmartinelli]

When did Greenwald mention Dean?

I'm having troubles finding the reference.

[racom]

From his post Friday, 6/27,
Olbermans words,
" He says that he refrained from criticizing Obama's support for the FISA bill in reliance on John Dean's comments, and "John Dean is the smartest person I've ever met" and "John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns)" -- so that settles that (for what it's worth, I also have a high opinion of Dean's legal acumen; hosted his appearance at FDL's Book Salon; don't disagree with him about this bill at all; have communicated with him about many issues; and he has said many complimentary things about my work in the past, so waving the flag of Dean's Unassailable Authority establishes nothing).

[Josephus]

Greenwald quotes Dean at length in his post on this issue at Huffington.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/27/olbermann/

[Josephus]

Here is the very first thing Dean said to Olbermann about the House bill that Obama now supports:

DEAN: Well, I think, you've got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it's very troubling and it's not a good day for civil liberties, particularly.

[kevenseven]

Kids, Bush can pardon the telecos on the way out the door for their criminal conduct.

But he cannot provide protection against civil action. Only Congress can do that.

Olberman is missing the boat here. Immunity is protection for BushCo.

[Rjmartinelli]

The administration's current stance is that the telcoms didn't do anything wrong. They're not letting anyone release any of the information that may or may not incriminate them.

In order to pardon them, Bush would have to release the evidence proving criminal conduct and guilt first. That doesn't seem to be their priority.

[kevenseven]

No, Ford did not release any information regarding Nixon's crimes.

[V4Vigilance]

"Kids, Bush can pardon the telecos on the way out the door for their criminal conduct."

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!! WRONG!

Not if they haven't been convicted of anything yet. Note the article refers to "President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally".

[Ramirez]

No.

A president can pardon a citizen at any time, even before conviction or before any charges are brought. An example would be Ford's pardon of Nixon.

[Liberal2]

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!! WRONG!

See Bush I for the precedent (Iran-Contra)

Also, "President Obama" won't be able to put the Telcoms in prison. Only fine them. So it would be the stockholders who woulod lose. I say sue the pants off the CEOs who agreed to the illegal wiretapping. The stockholders didn't approve anything. Your theory of crime and punishment is equivalent to hitting the kid next to little Johnny, in the hope of scaring him into being good.

[kcampbell]

Wow. Really put your foot way up there, huh? New at this, aren't ya? Didn't count on anyone bringing up Nixon or Iran-Contra , huh? Nah. How could you. Oh well