The Los Angeles Times Retreats from the Rule of Law

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.

Comments

[cynubie]

Mr. Seery,
We do live in dark times; as such one has to watch all the tentacles of the beast while ever wary of the beak. Allow me to further muddy the water with a couple of observations:

"Now the Senate will wait until January to consider two versions of FISA reform...a­long with amendments designed to finesse the immunity issue. Only after a Senate bill has been passed can a conference committee reconcile it with a bill passed last month by the House.
That time lag could contribute to a time crunch like the one that produced the deeply flawed Protect America Act, which Congress enacted last summer in a pre-recess stampede. A stall in enacting a new FISA fix might even tempt the administration to dust off its original proposal to make the Protect America Act permanent. That would be a disaster for Americans' privacy.

Ideally, immunity would be considered apart from new privacy protections for Americans. The choice Reid spared his colleagues this week was thus a difficult one: either provide the telecoms with legal protection or dare President Bush to make good on his veto threat."

I realize the Hon. Mr. Dodd has chosen to ride the white horse in this showdown, but his signature is also on the OK from committee to go forward with no paper trail ballots. By going with the filibuster, Mr. Dodd increases the chances for Cheney & Co. to get the REALLY crappy bill that is currently tentative law enacted into permanent law. It is at this point that I again have to see if Mr. Dodd (whose campaign swells from major corporate endorsements!) threatens filibuster of the Protect America Act as well.
You are correct Mr. Seery, I too see paths before this country that could make the corporate fascism of Rollerball a reality, but beware the head fake--this administration knows no shame and has no conscience--it only takes prisoners to torture.
Respectfully submitted,
Francis Jens Erickson

[BigFella]

Didn't the ownership of the Tribune Company (parent of the L.A. Times) change hands just a couple of days ago? I hope this does not portend more of the same under the stewardship of Mr. Zell.

[clevelandchick]

Dark times, that's what we've come to when a newspaper comes out in favor of trashing the 4th amendment and let's face it doing so to protect their own hide - I don't know who owns the LAT but even if they aren't part of some huge media conglomeration now - they want to someday. And rather than take heat for protecting the people's interest as a member of the 'fourth estate' they' rather promote the idea of protecting their own hides to protect their bottom line.

No outside force can destroy the United States...w­e can only do it to ourselves. Thanks LAT, one more step to the world Orwell warned us about. As long as you make a profit you don't give a damn, right?

[Dap]

Dear Mr. Seery,

Exactly! It's what I've been trying to get accross also ever since I started commenting on Huffington Post, this type of action by the Bu$h administration *CANNOT* go unanswered!

Agape.

Happy Holidays to You and Yours.

[oldpotsmuggler]

Thankyou!

[Newsguy]

Of course the L.A. Times supports corporate lawbreaking and retroactive Congressional sanction of it. After all, Sam Zell's Tribune company may need such a favor sometime in the future, and it never hurts to establish precedent.

BTW, Times columnists are falling all over themselves to bow and scrape and put their heads up Zell's ass these days. It's a disgusting spectacle

[iwishicouldvote]

Great article and I love your bio :-)

[FogBelter]

Mr Seery, it's obvious to all but the most partisan or the most naive that the greatest threat to the American People comes from their own elected officials and the Corporations who own them.

Islamo Fascist Terrorists are mere gnats compared to that.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Well, why would they do that, I WONDER? Hmm,
oh, let's see, because the telco's deal in
transmitting the public's information back
and forth, ostensibly without interference or
observation in the name of privacy, and if
THEY were to become publicly accountable,
well, what would that mean for the future
of organized yellow journalism? What, indeed...
They're going to have to go and dig up ol'
Randolph, at this rate... if the phone company
can't spy on ya no more, then how will they
get by with 'investigative journalism'? Ruh roh.