The next time you hear Steny Hoyer, Obama surrogates and their various apologists tell you how important the new FISA bill is because it contains an "exclusivity" provision and thus ensures that the FISA court is brought back into Government eavesdropping, just go read what Judge Walker said about the current FISA framework to realize how misleading that claim is. They're presenting as a "gift" something you already have, and telling you that you should give up critical protections in exchange for receiving something that you already have -- namely, a requirement that the President comply with eavesdropping laws. What they're doing is tantamount to someone who steals your wallet, takes all the money out, gives the empty wallet back to you, and then tells you that you should be grateful to them because you have your wallet.
So writes Glenn Greenwald at the link
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/This should be essential reading for all those who would choose to understand what is really at stake with FISA.
This FISA bill, especially the provisions regarding "retroactive immunity", ask the Congress to go against the recent court ruling of Judge Walker, the third judge and a Bush-appointed one to "reject the Bush administration's claim that Article II entitles the President to override or ignore the provisions of FISA".__In his ruling, the judge is careful to note that no President has any "inherent authority" to operate beyond the bounds of FISA, a supposition that has been thrown out there under this administration's theory of "the unitary executive".__What Congress is being asked to do is not important for whether or not telecom companies are punished, but because Congress should not step in to rule against the courts and to interrupt proper discovery and due process or in order to essentially pardon what may very well have been illegal activities. They should not interfere with the judicial process. They should not pardon or condone illegal activities of any kind. They should not give precedent to any theory that says the President has some "inherent authority" to do such things or to command such illegal activities. They should not, in any way, support this theory of "the unitary executive". They should not do this under the threat of fear tactics. They should not do it under threat of veto. They should not do it because a lot of work has already been done or some "delicate compromise" has been struck. They should stand up for the proper balance of power and the proper checks and balances and the proper rule of law.
Our liberties, our law, our Constitution, our balance of powers are much too precious. And make no mistake, that is what is at stake in FISA - not some small little thing.
We should be all on our phones, in my opinion, to voice our objections to this blatant change in the way our government operates and that affects us all.
A great instrument for doing this can be found at
http://tools.advomatic.com/7/fisa 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(163 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
