Here.
The FISA abomination passed today. It is a terrible piece of legislation, both policy-wise and politically (for the Democrats). It grants immunity to the telecommunications companies that illegally handed over information to the Bush Administration, meaning that there will be--once again--no consequences for those who enact and carry out the Bush Administration's illegal policies. The "compromise" is that there must first be a finding to determine if the Bush Administration told the telecos to hand over the information. I never had much sympathy for the Nuerenburg defense. I have even less sympathy for it when the "order" wasn't so much an order but a non-binding request.
As if this weren't enough, Senator Obama voted for the bill and voted for Cloture on the bill (voted to block a filibuster), despite his earlier claim that he would filibuster any bill that granted the telecos immunity. He is, of course, hanging his hat on the idea that the telecos must first show that they were directed by the Bush Administration to hand over the information. The fact, however, that he (correctly) supported the amendments that would have actually stripped the bill of teleco immunity (they failed) should be evidence that he recognized that this bill as much as grants immunity.
Many Obama supporters argue that his support for the bill shows that he--and the democrats--are tough on national security. Glenn Greenwald, however, points out that the congressional Democrats' spinelessness is being interpreted as--surprise!--just that: spinelessness. He points to the AP headline--"Senate Bows to Bush, Approves Surveillance Bill"--and writes:
Their rationale for doing that is that it prevents the Republicans from depicting them as "weak," because nothing exudes strength like bowing. Here's more evidence of the brilliance of the Democratic strategy to show how "strong" and "tough" they are by bowing to Bush and all of his demands.
Greenwald's post is, of course, terrific as usual. I'd recommend giving it a good read. One point in particular deserves extra attention. He writes:
[the reaction to the FISA bill] illustrates why I've been so ambivalent about campaigns such as those to demand that John Yoo lose his tenure. Although Yoo ought to be far outside of the mainstream of American political thought, he simply isn't. The Democratic-led Congress yesterday just passed a bill by a wide margin that institutionalized Yoo's signature theory -- namely, that when the President orders something, then it is legal and proper, even if it's against what Congress calls "the law."
Why should we pretend that John Yoo is some sort of grotesque authoritarian aberration when his defining belief in presidential omnipotence is, to varying degrees, shared by the leaders of both parties? Yoo has long been mocked for his belief that the President -- simply by uttering the magical phrase "National Security" -- has the power to break the law, but Congress, yesterday, just passed a bill grounded in exactly that premise.
It's a sad state of affairs when Democrats control both houses of congress, have a favorable political climate going for them, but can't stop a bill that further erodes our civil liberties and gives immunity to blatant lawbreaking. Hillary voted against the bill; this is yet another reason why I think she'd make a great Senate Majority Leader--certainly a better one than Harry Ried.
|