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

[JimSullivan]

Hi John:

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).

[swift goat pet for truth]

The Fourth Amendment. The Constitution.
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.

[StephenNeitzke]

Nice one, Professor Seery, even if a bit condenscending at the end. Seems to me that we're well beyond teaching the constitutional criminals and their accessorie­s-after-th­e-fact (e.g., the LA Times editors) that they've committed and supported crimes against the nation. Not just vague unconstitu­tionalitie­s, but felony conspiracies against citizen rights, in violation of 18 USC 241 -- felonies forfeiting all govt immunities and criminally prosecutable by the federal bench, no matter that the criminal holds public office. Seems to me that we're also beyond having nothing more to do than to write hand-wringing and clothes-clutching pieces. When do people with your leadership credentials begin to address remedies? Do you think this mess of political party corruptions will fix itself, or that it will be fixed by our massively corrupt and fraudulent electoral system? When do people with your leadership credentials become leaders? Will that be sometime AFTER the corporate and governing fascists have neutered Constitutional rights with the North American Union -- and made their trillions by dumping the Dollar and conjuring the Amero? When do we begin the remedies discussion?

[weslenforever]

They don't have to pass ANY bill. The temporary mess they passed in August will expire in February and the original FISA bill will be back in effect. That's what they need to let happen. Don't they even remember that they passed that messed up bill in August because of a phony trumped up terror threat on CONGRESS ITSELF? Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, who looks at Bush like he's her hero, and Steny Hoyer need to step down and they need to elect REAL Democrats to those posts,seniority be DAMNED.

[missmarple]

I feel the same about the San Diego Union which I buy on Friday for the Theater Coupons and on Sundays for the TV Guide. I am called regularly with subscription offers and tell them quite nicely that I get the real news from the Blogs and really don't need the Right Wing Talking Points that the SDU espouses.

[taikan]

The editorial might be more persuasive if it didn't rely on a false premise, i.e., that FISA needs to be "fixed."
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.

[ljsfolly]

So the FCC allowing the owners of tv stations, radiio stations to be allowed to own newspapers and magazines should also be brought out into the light. Free and open media is what I always thought we have in the United States but as I have grown older and so many mergers and bias' have come to the forefront and I wonder where I will be able to turn to read/watch/hear fair and balanced information. Already we know without much thought the stations on tv/cable who are republican slanted and which have a mix so the programing is reflected bias by who is the moderator. I have honestly told people as it is true, that I get my news from The Daily Show with Jon and Countdown with Keith O. When the news media becomes so narrow and divided then where is truly the free press?

[drblack]

I would make it illegal to own more than one media outlet. One TV or Radio station or newspaper. That is it.
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)

[drblack]

Just ask yourself...who owns the LA times and where is their money invested.
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?

[Halsey]

I've done the best I can...by cancelling, with extreme prejudice..my long-time subscription to the LA Times. I used to love that paper..
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...

[bigfated]

A free and independent press is important to our democracy now more than ever....pa­rticularly since this war-criminal, treasonous president and his neo-con cohorts have all but destroyed our justice system...making it highly unlikely that he will be called upon to pay the price for his criminality. It will be the intense pressure of the press that will bring these murderers and yellow-bellied cowards to justice---if it is to happen at all. It certainly won't be the incredibly gutless Democratically controlled Congress that will do what needs doing. Where is Tom Paine when we need him?***(Possibly hiding in the halls of MSNBC---calling himself Olbermann?)

[bick]

as long as they're giving out retroactive immunity, how about retroactively raising the speed limit to how fast i was going when i got pulled over?

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!

[RicKelis]

The Bush cadre has been in the process of adopting fascism since the beginning of their reign of terror - consider the basic definition of fascism:

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)

[1fliteup]

I think it's called fascism!!! however in a different manner now albeit the major multinational corporations, most of whom are all moving to foriegn nations. The other day I had to call Sprint regarding a cell phone matter, guess what, I was talking to someone in the office IN JAMICA. Accountability for any of these telecom companies are non-existent, just the way Bush wants it. We are in Iraq because of it. There are more corporate contractors there than there are troops.

[lisakaz]

Orwell would be impressed with the crap put out by the MSM and Bu$hco. Maybe that group that wanted to mail the Constituion to the WH should send them to the LA Times?