A contemptible editorial in Saturday's Los Angeles Times severely chastises Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for withdrawing the "telecom immunity" legislation in the face of Sen. Christopher Dodd's ongoing filibuster threat. The Times editorial team contends, rather hysterically, that Reid's delaying the bill until January "threatens to undo a bi-partisan compromise" in favor of the Senate version of the bill that countenances and forgives surely the worst violation of the 4th Amendment in our nation's history, all in order to pander to the Bush administration's insistence that those telecommunications firms which colluded with the administration's illegal surveillance activities not be held accountable to the rule of law.
Evidently the Times opinionators think that Reid needs some cheap rhetorical cover (Dodd's "talkathon") and emasculating pressure from the right-of-center to counterbalance the veritable groundswell of support Senator Dodd has received for his law-abiding heroics.
The editors meekly qualify their support for the bill ("while not ideal") but then boldly claim it is necessary "to protect Americans" because Bush won't budge and threatens to veto any version of the "FISA fix" bill that doesn't include telecom immunity.
Give me a break.
Perhaps the Times editors should reacquaint themselves with the plain language of Fourth Amendment. Let it sink in, upon their rereading, that indiscriminate and warrantless surveillance would amount to a clear violation of the people's rights:
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.
May I gently remind the Times editors that constitutional rights are not to be "finessed" in committee bargaining sessions, as they so recommend? At what point will these editors wake up and realize that they have actually published an editorial blithely calling for a "deal" to circumvent the rule of law?
My friends: We are living in dark times, when the Executive Branch has at key junctures simply junked the U.S. Constitution and furtively enlisted private corporations to do their illegal bidding. And now both parties want a massive cover-up and blanket immunity from lawful prosecution. And many politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have become dependent on corporate largesse and thus are willing to sell their souls (and their country) for future campaign donations. It is nothing less than a damnable circle of state-to-corporate corruption. And now a major newspaper -- members of the press who are supposed to serve as our vigilant Fourth Estate -- are simply going along with these corrupt, illegal, and rotten arrangements.
Calling for craven compromise over steadfast constitutionalism, for the ad hoc revocation of the rule of law, for the secret collusion of state and private entities against the civil liberties of groups and individuals whose legal rights were likely violated, all in order to "protect" some nebulous, undifferentiated collectivity called "Americans," reeks of -- shall we utter the proper name for it? -- fascism. I don't mean genocide. I mean the textbook, Political Science 101 definition of fascism. Perhaps the Times editors should Google it.
If the Times editors then need a few remedial lessons in political theory, American constitutionalism, and basic civics, I'm in the area and am quite willing to provide a few night classes pro bono.
This is one of those posts from you that leaves those of us who share your concerns with very little to add.
To me, the Times, like so many other individuals and groups, has lost the broader issue in the back and forth of the political bickering in Washington. Like campaign junkies who follow the campaign--the "race" for the White House--for the sport of it, many of our political commentators have become so caught up in process that they have lost an authentic sense of purpose.
One final thought, this is not a liberal or conservative issue. Our national commitment to the principles of the Fourth Amendment transcends party and ideological lines, which is what makes our current Congress's passivity particularly astonishing (and disheartening).
Quaint, but obviously outdated. The people of the United States of America spoke clearly on that issue in 2004. No more Constitution.
You want civil freedoms, move to Europe.
FISA was enacted in response to the illegal acts of the Nixon administration (and prior administrations) consisting of warrantless spying conducted in the name of "national security." At the time, there was no effective civil remedy for those illegal acts. Congress, apparently not willing to seem weak on "national security," enacted FISA, which was designed as a compromise between our Fourth Amendment rights and the desire of the Executive branch to conduct a certain amount of warrantless spying on Americans in the name of "national security." Thus, FISA already permits warrantless electronic eavesdropping for a limited time period. However, it also requires that the administration later obtain a warrant based on adequate justification for that warrantless spying (i.e., a justification for the limited violation of the Fourth Amendment). Because FISA already allows "emergency" surveillance without a warrant, there is no need for it to be "fixed," and I challenge the editorial board of the LA Times, or any other paper, to explain what additional warrantless eavesdropping authority is needed to protect our "national security."
The President's threat to veto a bill that provides the additional spying authority he desires but does not include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies shows that he really doesn't need the additional authority in order to protect our national security. Rather, in order to ensure future cooperation by the telecoms and others, he wants to establish the principle that providing assistance to the government, even if it assists the government in committing illegal acts, will not be punished.
If the USA had thousands of independently owned media outlets we would be a much better informed and have more Freedom then we do today.( we have almost no freedom beyond make money and spend it)
It would be un- constitutional to give immunity to Telecoms or to allow basket warrants.
That is the bottom line. Is the US Constitution important to our country or not?
but it's gone to hell in a handbasket..
about once a week..I get a call to re=start..filled with all kinds of freebies..I always tell the poor telephone worker why I won't subscribe again...guess they don't put it in their notes...
i mean, it doesn't really matter...i just mail the ticket to the judge with a signing statement telling him of my intention to disregard the law.
hey, if the president can do it, i can, too!
Fascism. A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism. (American Heritage Dictionary)