More on FISA Posted by Michael Cohen

Here at Democracy Arsenal it's all FISA all the time!

Over at Salon, my good friend Glenn Greenwald has made some rather incendiary charges about the FISA bill that seem to reflect much of the debate going on in the liberal blogosphere over this bill. I think it merits a response:

Glenn argues:

The very idea that Democrats would lose elections if they didn't support this bill is false on numerous levels. They could have easily removed the issue simply by voting to extend the PAA orders for 6-9 months. More importantly, Karl Rove's central strategy in the 2006 midterm election was to use FISA and torture to depict the Democrats as being Weak on Terrorism, and the Democrats crushed the Republicans and took over both houses of Congress.

I would invite Glenn to review the past forty years of American political history to see why the first part of this statement is pretty hard to swallow. As for the notion that Democrats won in 2006 because they fought the Republicans on terrorism; this is not really accurate. They beat the Republicans on Iraq, which unlike 2004 (when Democrats lost) most Americans saw as separate from the war on terror.

It is worth noting that even today most Americans favor the GOP when it comes to fighting terrorism and think by a 53-39 difference that John McCain is better able to handle the issue than Barack Obama. This is the one political issue on which Republicans have the greatest political advantage. If our intelligence capabilities were eroded in August because of the failure to agree to a FISA compromise this would have been a campaign issue in November; and I'm hard pressed to believe that it would have favored Democrats. In fact, considering that 61% of Americans think it was wrong for the Supreme Court to give habeus corpus rights to Gitmo detainees, I think I know the answer.

But the second part gets to the issue I'm trying to focus on here. Simply extending the Protect America Act (PAA) would not have allowed this situation to go away, because there is virtually no chance that the White House would have signed off on a PAA extension that didn't include retroactive immunity.

The Democrats were in a bind here; make concessions to the GOP on retroactive immunity or let the PAA expire and get beat up in the fall election by Republicans saying that the Democrats have weakened America's defenses against terrorism (a point by the way that would actually have a kernel of truth). Oh and also letting PAA expire would have weakened our ability to eavesdrop on potential terrorists. Does any progressive believe that weakening the Democratic majority in Congress and possibly electing John McCain as President would be good for progressives or the hope for enacting progressive legislation next year? Honestly, this is just cutting one's nose to spite their face. If you think that retroactive immunity is the single most important issue facing the country then I suppose you might think I'm wrong, but I prefer to take a broader view.

Now on to Greenwald's even more incendiary charge:

What the Democratic leadership is saying is quite clear: we will continue to trample on the Constitution and support endless expansions of the surveillance state because that is how we'll win in swing districts and expand our Congressional majority. . . . The only objective of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer is to have a 50-seat majority rather than a 35-seat majority, and if enabling the Bush administration's lawbreaking and demolishing core constitutional protections can assist somewhat with that goal, then that it what they will do. That's what they are saying all but explicitly here.

Ignoring the larger question as to why Democrats might want to have a 50-seat majority (maybe to enact progressive legislation, like say measures to fight climate change or enact universal health care) this just flies in the face of reality. If Pelosi and Hoyer et all wanted to enable the "Bush Administration's law-breaking" then why did they resist passing the Senate Intelligence bill last Spring? A move, by the way, that was praised at the time by Mr. Greenwald.

Here again is what the New York Times had to say about the Democrats resistance to rubberstamping a bill highly favored by the White House:

The decision by the House Democratic leadership to let the law lapse is the greatest challenge to Mr. Bush on a major national security issue since the Democrats took control of Congress last year.

By refusing to pass the Senate bill, the Democratic Congress was able to get a BETTER FISA bill in the end - a view shared by an opponent of the current FISA compromise bill, Senator Pat Leahy.

All of this is ignored by those who prefer to beat their chests, call this bill a "capitulation" and fail to acknowledge the political realities that exist today in Washington. They ignore the fact that no matter how unpopular George Bush might be; he is still President of the United States and he still gets some say in how this legislation will look. They ignore the provisions in this legislation that will lead to improved oversight of domestic surveillance, they ignore the tools to modernize FISA and data collection writ large. Read here for a more detailed discussion of some of the important legal restrictions and modernization tools included in this legislation and here for another perspective on some of the problems in the compromise bill. And they ignore the fact that some Democrats, like Speaker Pelosi, might actually believe improving the intelligence community's ability to gather intelligence is a critical national security objective.

Pelosi had another reason for backing the compromise: unlike some on the left, she actually believes domestic surveillance laws needs updating in light of the new terror threats. "We can't go without a bill," she said on the House floor Friday, "That's simply just not an option." Existing U.S. surveillance law, passed in 1978, needs to be improved, she believes, not just to protect Americans at home but to protect U.S. troops in the field. "Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence," she said

Finally, as I've said before the fact that White House has agreed to bind itself to FISA oversight is an important concession that should not be underestimated. Now many have argued that this was a key element of FISA for the past 30 years. This is certainly true, but clearly the White House and key Republicans disagreed and this was holding up the passage of FISA modernization legislation. Making this understanding a part of statutory law will bind future Presidents, either Obama or McCain. And while I have confidence in Barack Obama on this issue, I would also add that nothing in John McCain's background leads me to believe that he has much disrespect for the rule of law as this Administration or that he adheres to the belief in a unitary executive. So this seems to be an important tool in obligating future Presidents to the centrality of the courts in conducting domestic surveillance.

Now again some will argue that the concession on retroactive immunity is simply too much to bear and that this legislation is thus horribly flawed. Clearly I don't agree, but I can't say that I don't respect the argument. I am bothered too by the lack of accountability for both telecom companies and the officials who put this surveillance system in place. (Although I am pleased to note that the IGs of various agencies will be forced, under this legislation, to issue a report on its legality).

I understand that people can disagree; but respect for genuine disagreements seems to be a one-sided game. Take as a final example, Greenwald's argument that progressives should raise money to target Democrats who supported this bill.

If, as a result of their destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law, they see that they lose seats -- that John Barrow and Chris Carney are removed from Congress and Steny Hoyer's standing in his district is severely compromised and that list of targets continues to grow -- then they'll conclude that they can't build their Vast and Glorious Democratic Majority by dismantling the Constitution and waging war on civil liberties. The Democratic Party in Congress is enslaved to the goal of winning more "swing districts" by supporting extremist measures -- such as the FISA "compromise" -- that please the right-wing. They need to learn that they won't benefit, but will suffer, when they do tha

"Dismantling the Constitution," "waging war on civil liberties;" honestly this is pure insanity. Does anyone truly believe that Democrats in Congress are intent on "dismantling the Constitution?" Seriously, Greenwald and others need to get a grip. You want to disagree with those Democrats who supported this bill, fine - I'm not here to tell you that you're wrong. But to suggest that progressives should then raise money to lessen the Democratic majority in Congress and subsequently ignore the fact that the only reason we are even having this debate is because of the lawless practices of George Bush; well if you think this is a good idea, you need to have your head examined.

This is the sort of "logic" that underpinned Ralph Nader's 2000 run for the White House, and we all know how well that worked out. There is a significant difference in how the two parties view the issue of domestic surveillance. This recent Congressional debate demonstrated that fact. Those who would imperil a Democratic majority ignore this highly salient fact at their own peril.

I have said this once and I will say it again until I am blue in the face; this is an imperfect bill, but Democrats were NEVER going to get a perfect bill out of this President and this divided Congress. They were NEVER going to get a bill that didn't feature retroactive immunity. They got a bill that was a policy improvement and a political victory. This is the way Washington works; there is a no such thing as a perfect bill and even if Barack Obama is elected in November and he has a strong congressional majority simply ramming legislation down the throat of the Republicans is a neither politically smart, nor a terribly effective way to run a country. We have a political system that embraces political compromise and rejects one-sided solutions to serious policy challenges. This bill is a good example of that approach to governing.

We should stop making perfection the enemy of good.

Comments

[Dan Kervick]

But the second part gets to the issue I'm trying to focus on here. Simply extending the Protect America Act (PAA) would not have allowed this situation to go away, because there is virtually no chance that the White House would have signed off on a PAA extension that didn't include retroactive immunity.

Well, then, whose fault would it have been then if the country ended up with no functioning domestic surveillance law? Democrats would be able to argue that the White House is playing politics with the security of American citizens, and that in order to shield big money corporate honchos from responsibility for their violations, Bush was willing to shut down vital and legitimate intelligence gathering, and leave the country more vulnerable to terrorist attacks.

If Democrats voted to extend PAA, and Bush then vetoed it, how is it that Democrats would have been blamed for "letting PAA expire"? Your political calculation makes no sense at all.

[Michael Cohen]

Dan, that political calculation only makes sense in a country where Republicans are NOT favored by a majority of Americans on who is better able to deal with terror; and it only makes sense in a country where some Republicans are NOT willing to shamelessly demagogue on this issue.

You might be right; but that's not a risk I would be so willing to take. In the heat of a House race with 30 second negative ads I think the GOP counter argument would be far stronger. I hope one day to be wrong about that, but I don't think it's happened yet.

[MarkW]

I will concede that you have a legitimate argument about the political necessity of this legislation. I don't think it's a slam dunk. My optimistic side thinks that if the Democrats engaged in some heavy-duty voter education between now and November, they could raise people's awareness on civil liberties issues and totally defuse this issue. But I will concede that it would be risky, and that the downside--a McCain presidency and loss of the House to the Republicans--is sufficiently bad that the risk should be avoided.

I don't think you've made a remotely persuasive case about the merits of the legislation. Neither you nor the links you provided really makes a case based on solid evidence that the incredibly broad surveillance authority which the legislation now gives to the President is a genuinely necessity to protect against future attacks. Keep in mind that the Bush Administration has been engaging in this surveillance--without any legal authority to do so--for nearly seven years. In that amount of time, if this authority were truly so necessary, they ought to have amassed numerous specific cases where they directly used this sort of surveillance to prevent terrorist attacks which could not have been stopped by any less intrusive means. Yet neither you nor anyone else can point to even one case of this sort.

I also do not share your sanguine attitude about the "oversight" provisions. Marty Lederman, who knows a lot more about the legal issues here than you, or me, makes a very good case that these provisions will be totally ineffective. As for your optimism about McCain's "respect for the rule of law," his ballistic response to Boumediene, and Matt Welch's excellent book on McCain wherein he describes the Senator's "fllippant attitude toward the constitution," would seem to suggest that you are mistaken about him.

[MarkW]

I'd also suggest to you, Michael, that you rethink your perspective on the political process. For all your hosannas to compromise, and your disdain for "ramming legislation down the throat of Republicans," it is a fact that almost all of the important legislation in modern American history, from the New Deal reforms in the 1930's forward, has come at times when the Democrats had sufficiently large congressional majorities that they were able to more or less ignore Republican griping. The one major exception is civil rights legislation, where the opposition from racists in their own caucus meant that liberal Democrats had to make common cause with Republicans like Jacob Javits, Donald Riegle and Everett Dirksen--most of whom would be completely unwelcome in today's Republican Party.

[Dan Kervick]

I don't know Michael. In this case the Bush administration has already let it be known that this whole dispute was, for them, about telecom immunity. And this follows several months of an intense lobbying effort by the telecommunications industry. It seems to me they had set themselves up here for an easy attack of holding up the war on terror in order to help out some rich and powerful friends. That's the "old top-down politics" of lobbyists, money and corruption - an issue tailor made for Obama's message.

This doesn't look good for Pelosi either, given that she and her husband own stock in AT&T valued at somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 dollars, and the epicenter of the whole dispute over telecom complicity is the AT&T Folson Street switching station in her home city of San Francisco.

We need these and other lawsuits and trials to go forward, because that's the only way we're going to come close to learning about the full scope of what has happened during this awful era. And the threat of heavy financial penalties for violators is the best way to deter future private sector collusion with rogue administrations.

Obama says he opposes the immunity portion of the bill. So lets see how hard he fights against it. To me this is a signal test of the Obama experiment. Does the new Obama model of powerful, distributed, small donor grass roots fund-raising deliver on its promise to build a new era of effective progressive politics, with progressive leaders no longer in hock to the rich and powerful, and free to act against the lobbyists and in the public interest? Or do we just get another sad, depressing lesson that money talks, and plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

[Michael Cohen]

Dan, forgive me for saying but this sort of argument infuriates me. There are lots of ways to test whether Obama's political model can deliver results, but to base that conclusion solely on this decision is too simple. There will be things about Obama you will like and not like; you have to judge them in total, not as one off examples.

Also, I believe Pelosi is a multimillionaire - so I don't 250,000-500,000 means all that much to her. Plus, she has always me a fairly principled politician.

[Dan Kervick]

Yes, Pelosi is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, so I agree that the AT&T stocks are a drop in the bucket to her and her husband, and it is unlikely that the financial connection is a motivator for her. And I like Pelosi, and have grown to respect her more over the past year or so. Nevertheless, the appearance is bad.

As for the rest, I don't know why it infuriates you. Sure, it's not the case that everything in the world hangs on this one issue, with the viability of the entire Obama model riding on the case of telecom immunity. But a new approach is tested from time to time, and this is a big test. If the approach fails one test or two, that doesn't show it is an utter failure. But if we get a pattern of failures of such tests, we will have something to worry about. Personally, I'm looking to see just how afraid Obama is of the telecoms. If he is able to stand strong against telecom immunity, then I will be encouraged. That will be an indication that he might also be able to take on oil traders and financial markets, the health care industry, the weapons industry and other uber-powerful private interests. If he is not able to stand firm, I will be discouraged, and wonder which will be the next public interest matter to fall victim to intense corporate pressure.

[Michael Cohen]

Dan, as i said in my earlier post Obama has to go along with this for fear of undercutting the House and Senate leadership. This would not only be bad form, but would really undercut Obama come January if he wins. From a political standpoint I dont think Obama has a choice - he has to work with these people. They've stuck their neck out on this one and it would be unwise for him to slam them.

With that context it's simply wrong to suggest that he is a victim of corporate pressure. Nothing is ever that simple, which of course is the point I'm trying to make.

[Martin Gifford]

Michael Cohen wrote: "Dan, that political calculation only makes sense in a country where Republicans are NOT favored by a majority of Americans on who is better able to deal with terror..."

Michael, that's because the Democrats haven't even tried to counter the Republicans on this issue. This vote proves that the Dems are still stuck in the 2002 mindset, and don't trust themselves, the people, and the truth. They could easily make the Republicans look terrible by saying the Republicans are using the tragedy of 9/11 to destroy the constitution, to spy on you without warrants, and to protect telcos.

MarkW wrote: "...a McCain presidency and loss of the House to the Republicans--is sufficiently bad that the risk should be avoided."

Mark, the Republicans are on the nose and the nation is ready for change. Obama has a ton of intelligence and charisma, and McCain has none. So the Democrats will win easily. Fighting against the destruction of the constitution, spying without warrants, and protecting telcos would only improve their victory margin.

[Tricia Christensen]

I may be a wide eyed idealist but I seem to remember Obama mentioning something about the difference between preserving the status quo and doing what is right. What concerns me greatly about support of this
bill from any and all Democrats is that we may finally be turning the corner on Republican control, and that Obama, as de facto head of the party should lead said Dems into the new land of doing what is right.

Perhaps I drank too much Koolaid, but my soul aches at the thought of this compromise.

Best,
Tricia Christensen

[Scott P.]

Dan, that political calculation only makes sense in a country where Republicans are NOT favored by a majority of Americans on who is better able to deal with terror;

Democrats have been polling substantially better than Republicans on that issue for months now.

and it only makes sense in a country where some Republicans are NOT willing to shamelessly demagogue on this issue.

Republicans will demagogue shamelessly on the issue regardless of what the Democrats do, so they might as well stand on principle.

Finally, as I've said before the fact that White House has agreed to bind itself to FISA oversight is an important concession that should not be underestimated.

That concession is worthless. The White House already violated the earlier FISA law with impunity, and have repeatedly declared that no law can interfere with the inherent authority of the Executive. The 'compromise' merely cements that state of affairs by preventing discovery that would definitively prove their wrongdoing and by enshrining the principle that no one acting under instructions from the Executive Branch will be liable for any violations of the law.

[morzer]

I'd suggest that some of the people venting about Obama's "test case" remember that politics is the art of the possible. The FISA bill is imperfect, as one would expect from the current White House. It is also potentially a means of creating a wedge issue, as the Republicans are trying to do, on national security. Given this, it is better to take the improvements that have been made, not fight for the impossible, and take a possible card off the table for November. If you don't like this, remember that you have made your own compromises, and are simply lucky not to have them shown up at the national level. There is something very hypocritical about denouncing Obama on one issue, while conveniently forgetting the wider context. It's time to move on to more important battles, not throw it all away on one suicidal charge to glory.

[Greg Martin]

The issue of telecom amnesty goes beyond partisan politics and pragmatic deal making. It is about accountability. And it's about setting precedence for the executive branch to break the law and then have Congress creating a new law that excuses anyone who enabled them to break the law. This is not a small issue upon which to make a calculated position on based solely on political gain. It's about our system of government - checks and balances.

If lawsuits against telecoms are dismissed, we will never know how the Bush Administration violated the law, we will never learn who they targeted for wiretapping and what explanation they gave for breaking the law. It erodes to a dangerous degree our political institutions and gives unprecedented and dangerous power to the executive branch - whether run by a Bush Administration, an Obama Administration or a McCain Administration. To reduce this issue to one of political calculation demonstrates how horribly cynical you've become by our current politics.

This has nothing to do with political party or weakness on terrorism. It's about power - is it vested disproportionately to the whims of the administrative branch or is it given to the people through an open and transparent system of checks and balances.

I find it completely demoralizing that you can rationalize this so easily.

Furthermore, since Obama had already stated he would filibuster a bill with telecom immunity in it..if he doesn't, he's facing the "flip-flopping" credibility issue in the election. That seems to have escaped your twisted political calculation.

[glasnost]

Making this understanding a part of statutory law will bind future Presidents, either Obama or McCain

This - and by "this", I mean your mentality, Mike - is completely explained by a favorite discussion topic used by Paul Krugman around 2003. Around then, the punditocracy and a lot of leftists thought that George Bush was some kind of moderate. I wish I could remember the quote, but Krugman had a quote that illuminated the psychology of how players deeply enmeshed in a system refuse to come to terms when they have a genuinely revolutionary opponent. They keep making compromises, and those keep getting broken over their heads.

That's you, Mike. You're so concerned with defensive political calculations that you have either lost track of, or surrendered to, the psychology of the bad guys.

Making this understanding a part of statutory law will bind future Presidents, either Obama or McCain

This was already part of statutory law, and the Bush Admin ignored it. And soon a court will rule that because someone got a piece of paper from the Bush admin, that was ok. So, tell me, how does statutory law bind any President, when said President has been officially pardoned for IGNORING STATUTORY LAW!!!!!!!!!??????????

Wave your argument of political expediency around if you must, but don't sell us this stupid bull*hit about how this bill represents a tidy solution to the criminal tendencies of our executive. It does no such thing. Nor does it set an example against future criminals in power, whomever they may be. The example is more like the one set by the Alien & Sedition Acts.

[ppperez]

Wow, are you kidding?

First, and most importantly, Democrats never had to get a FISA bill out of the Republicans, with or without telecom immunity. FISA has been updated repeatedly to keep up with technology and terrorism. And the current version of FISA is itching to be abused, even without the expanded wiretapping authority in the new bill.

Second, they didn't have to do it for political appearances, either. Voters trust Democrats more on national security. I don't know of anyone who was clamoring for more secret, undocumented wiretapping--at best, people are just assuming it was going on anyway, and learning to live with it.

Third, the ActBlue FISA/telecom immunity fund is being used to target sitting democrats with primary election challengers from other Democratic candidates, not to bolster their Republican challengers.

And finally, I don't think many people think Democrats are "intent" on dismantling Constitutional protections. I don't think many Republicans are, either, for that matter. It's that it looks like Democrats are indifferent to protecting the Constitution and civil liberties, and if they have to trample it to win votes (or whatever, cuz this doesn't seem like it'll be a successful strategy) then they will. And are doing so.

[Dan Kervick]

Dan, as i said in my earlier post Obama has to go along with this for fear of undercutting the House and Senate leadership. This would not only be bad form, but would really undercut Obama come January if he wins. From a political standpoint I dont think Obama has a choice - he has to work with these people. They've stuck their neck out on this one and it would be unwise for him to slam them.

With that context it's simply wrong to suggest that he is a victim of corporate pressure. Nothing is ever that simple, which of course is the point I'm trying to make.

These are connected. Why do you think so many House and Senate leaders, whose views you correctly argue Obama must take into account, have supported telecom immunity? That part of the bill has it's origin in an intense lobbying effort that was begun last year by telecoms. And some things in politics really are simple. Clearly, the country was not crying out for corporate immunity from lawsuits related to civil rights violations. There is no popular movement for telecom immunity whatsoever. And yet now we have the president and the House of Representative behind this immunity. I simply can't believe that is because a majority in the people's house were suddenly convinced on the merits that it is in the public and national interest that large telecommunications companies be shielded from accountability for their actions.

[Dan Kervick]

Michael and morzer seem to have the same political perspective on the political power relations at work here. But as I and several of the other commentators have tried to argue, they are underestimating Democratic power. Rather than see in battles such as this one an opportunity for a political victory, they seem to see only the risk of political defeat. This extreme risk-aversion and habit of timidity is part of the reason why Republicans have walked all over Democrats in recent years, and continue to do so even as their political popularity plummets. It is also helps perpetuate public doubts about the ability of Democrats to lead.

The Republicans are the ones who should be facing the political heat here. They are the ones who are playing politics with the war on terror, and who are turning vitally important legislation on US domestic surveillance into another excuse for corrupt giveaways to corporate pals. And the great champion of this policy is the lamest of lame duck presidents. That Democrats could be outmaneuvered here by this coalition of the politically weak is extraordinary.

[DCX2]

"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."

- The 4th Amendment

"There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"

- George Orwell, ”1984”

[Autumnal Harvest]

The Democrats were in a bind here; make concessions to the GOP on retroactive immunity or let the PAA expire and get beat up in the fall election by Republicans saying that the Democrats have weakened America's defenses against terrorism (a point by the way that would actually have a kernel of truth). Oh and also letting PAA expire would have weakened our ability to eavesdrop on potential terrorists. . . there is virtually no chance that the White House would have signed off on a PAA extension that didn't include retroactive immunity.

OK, let's follow your logic here. The Democrats have control of the House and the Senate. However, if they didn't give the Republicans exactly what they wanted, the Republicans in the Senate would have filibustered, or Bush would have vetoed the bill, and then the Republicans could campaign on the failure of the Democrats to defeat their filibuster or veto. I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a lick of sense. You're worried that the Republicans are going to complain "We should have an updated FISA bill? Why didn't the Democrats override our veto! They're endangering national security by failing to stop our national-security-endangering veto." Yes, I suppose if you take this view, the Democrats can't be held responsible for any of the bad legislation that they pass, unless they have 60 seats in the Senate, and control of the House, and the Presidency. I've noticed this view in this blog many times in the past, and can't see it as anything but a complete abdication of responsibility by the party that controls both houses of Congress.

We should stop making perfection the enemy of good.

I agree with that principle, but this bill is not good, nor is it in any way a compromise. If it was indeed a compromise, with some good civil liberty protections, but also some unfortunate violations, I could accept it. However, I've yet to hear any meaningful way in which this is a "compromise." The only argument you give that the Democrats obtained anything is

Finally, as I've said before the fact that White House has agreed to bind itself to FISA oversight is an important concession that should not be underestimated. . . Making this understanding a part of statutory law will bind future Presidents. . .

How is this conceivably an "important concession"? As you note, this was already the case. The Bush administration's claims that it was not bound by the law were flat-out lies. This understanding was already "a part of statutory law," binding on the President, and was understood as such by everyone, right up until the point that the President was caught breaking the law, at which point he gave a clearly invalid defense of his lawbreaking. For the lawbreaking executive officials to sign off on a new law that has the exact same restrictions that they've been secretly breaking for years is hardly a concession. If that restriction didn't stop the executive in the past, and a massive illegal violation of those restrictions in the past resulted in zero penalties, why would that restriction stop the executive in the future?

Ignoring the larger question as to why Democrats might want to have a 50-seat majority (maybe to enact progressive legislation. . .)

Yes, perhaps progressive legislation such as a massive expansion of warrantless wiretapping in clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, validation of executive lawbreaking, and telecom amnesty.

[Frederick Brown]

I've read Greenwald for a long time and never has he sounded as if he needs "his head examined". Actually you, Mr. Cohen, sound like a callow appeaser. When does the go along to get along ever stop? How many crimes will the Republicans commit and be allowed to walk away from scott free? How many lives have to be torn apart and lost before you start thinking like someone that needs their head examined?
I know the answer, when Democrats have a bullet proof majority and the White House, right?
Then what of the criminals that have brought this country such ruin these last 8 years? They are allowed to sail into the sunset with their ill gotten booty because we've given away all means of discovering the depth of their criminality? No thank you, I'll take my chances on holding them to what's left of the rule of law.
Call me crazy.

[jc]

Let me just say, they will lose their jobs after this vote....
Replace pelosi NOW!!!
The last thing we need is a bunch of clowns that will not stand up for what is right.

WE have our rights and to hell with the WH and the morons in it.

[dms]

Could someone, perhaps the author, explain this paragraph to me?:

"Dismantling the Constitution," "waging war on civil liberties;" honestly this is pure insanity. Does anyone truly believe that Democrats in Congress are intent on "dismantling the Constitution?" Seriously, Greenwald and others need to get a grip. You want to disagree with those Democrats who supported this bill, fine - I'm not here to tell you that you're wrong. But to suggest that progressives should then raise money to lessen the Democratic majority in Congress and subsequently ignore the fact that the only reason we are even having this debate is because of the lawless practices of George Bush; well if you think this is a good idea, you need to have your head examined.

Especially how the bolded part relates to any of his other arguments.

[Martin Gifford]

In an article titled "Behind the Compromise on Spying", Massimo Calabresi wrote: "In negotiations with Pelosi's office, the telecoms offered a compromise: Let a judge decide if the letters they received from the Administration asking for their help show that the government was really after terrorist suspects and not innocent Americans."

So, Michael Cohen, do you think that politicians should be negotiating with alleged criminals about changes to the law to help them avoid prosecution? Do you think that's a responsible political strategy?

[Dan Kervick]

Following upon with the remarks of dms, it is important to make the following observation against Michael's straw man argument.

The constitution doesn't get dismantled because some party, whether the Democrats or the Republicans, sets out to dismantle the constitution. Let us stipulate that most of the politicians in both parties have a due respect for the constitution, and do not seek to undermine it. Rather, the constitution gets dismantled one little piece at a time, from the accumulated effect of many small failures.

Preserving fundamental liberties is a very hard thing. Almost every governmental process naturally tends toward the erosion of liberty. Thus the observation that the preservation of liberty requires eternal vigilance. It will always be politically difficult to stand up to the exhausting body blows delivered against freedom by well-meaning, but overreaching government administrators and magistrates. There will never be a time when fealty to constitutional traditions is not fraught with political risk. The forces blasting and grinding away at privacy - and at freedom of speech, at freedom of conscience, at freedom of inquiry, at freedom of association, at security in one's person and home - these will always have some reasonable argument on their side: protection against terrorism; protection against dangerously subversive ideas; protection against ordinary criminality.

When the edifice has crumbled to the ground completely, each brick and stone will have inscribed on it the words "I understand your concern, but I'm not willing to take the political risk in this particular instance."

[dms]

Thanks, Dan.

But I still don't understand how this makes sense:

But to suggest that progressives should then raise money to lessen the Democratic majority in Congress and subsequently ignore the fact that the only reason we are even having this debate is because of the lawless practices of George Bush;

The first part of the argument is false and the second is a non sequitor. I just don't get how some seemingly sentient human being makes a statement like that.

[dms]

Besides which, as is patently obvious, the lawless practices of George Bush are what Mr. Cohen are asking us to suck up and ignore.

[dms]

Thanks, Dan.

But I still don't understand how this makes sense:

But to suggest that progressives should then raise money to lessen the Democratic majority in Congress and subsequently ignore the fact that the only reason we are even having this debate is because of the lawless practices of George Bush;

The first part of the argument is false and the second is a non sequitor. I just don't get how some seemingly sentient human being makes a statement like that.

[dms]

Thanks, Dan.

But I still don't understand how this makes sense:

But to suggest that progressives should then raise money to lessen the Democratic majority in Congress and subsequently ignore the fact that the only reason we are even having this debate is because of the lawless practices of George Bush;

The first part of the argument is false and the second is a non sequitor. I just don't get how some seemingly sentient human being makes a statement like that.

[wtf]

'Does anyone truly believe that Democrats in Congress are intent on "dismantling the Constitution?"'

I think that is exactly what they are doing and I don't give a damn about their intent.

Cohen, you have lost your freaking mind. Seriously, your little essay here is full of the most twisted and contorted logic I had ever seen. You don't have your facts right and your wishing upon a star attitude is exactly the type of position that has gotten us in this mess.

Good god man, think, use your brain, that's why you have one.

[wtf]

Jeezus, I hadn't even read your inane comments yet...

"Dan, as i said in my earlier post Obama has to go along with this for fear of undercutting the House and Senate leadership. This would not only be bad form, but would really undercut Obama come January if he wins. From a political standpoint I dont think Obama has a choice - he has to work with these people. They've stuck their neck out on this one and it would be unwise for him to slam them."

Fear of undercutting House\Senate Leadership, it'd be Bad form, Dem leadership would undercut Obama in January as payback?????

Do you listen to yourself..ever???

I thought Obama was the CHANGE candidate? Now he is just go along\get along...because otherwise the Dem leadership is going to screw him for not being Republican enough? Yeah, that's the ticket I bought from Obama during the primaries.

You need to get a grip man, you have lost all sense of priority and principle. Now wonder you don't understand this issue.

[Antdevamp]

You see necessary compromise, and context, and rosy eyed best case scenarios without starting open intrawar with the Blue Dogs or other Dem Mods who have stuck their neck out in the name of expediency and 'The Slow March to Election'.

I see cowardice in pursuing the alleged criminal behavior of the Bush White House when they authorized this Wiretap program seven months before 9/11.

That 'Democratic Majority' you allude to will be a joke if we have to deal with 30 traitors in our midst. So yes, I'm for reviewing The Bush Administrations alleged crimes, and yes, I'm for getting DINOs out of the party. It all starts with Lieberman.

[Dan]

Democrats continually voted for Iraq War legislation to "take the issue off the table" and appear strong and, well, the majority is pro-war. That's failed.

Caving on an issue just makes you look weak. Remember, virtually no one votes on actual particular issues. They vote on signaling. And caving signals weakness.

Obama, for example, said that he would talk to foreign dictators. When he first said that, it was unpopular. By continuing to say it, he has actually changed some minds, with the most recent polling showing it is now the majority position.

You win votes by leading on issues, not by caving in.

[uqwsgfzaj udgk]

hextj punzev apdt kgjveirt ueozvhndj udqvma nluwa

[Ugg London]

This is very useful article, I like it, thank you!
Uggs london
Never frown, when you are sad, because you never know who is falling in love with your smile.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[wholesale cheap lingerie]

Everything is very open and very clear explanation of issues. was truly information. Your website is very useful. Thanks for sharing.

[seo-vancouver]

While I have confidence in Barack Obama on this issue, I would also add that nothing in John McCain's .

[Dog bark collar]

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic. By the way, if you have time, please give me a few seconds by visiting my website at spray bark collar citronella anti bark collar

[sun]

Thanks for the article. This keeps me informed about the topic. By the way, if you have time, please give me a few seconds by visiting my website at
master of social work

[sun]

This keeps me informed about the topic. By the way, if you have time, please give me a few seconds by visiting my website at music degree online

[sun]

By the way, if you have time, please give me a few seconds by visiting my website at cags

[sun]

My 2 year old son has been in the hospital for bilateral pleural chylous effusions since Jan 29, p/o Fontan in November of 2009. He has tried diet, diuretics, thoracic duct ligation and now pleurodesis on the right side. rn bsn

[sun]

My 2 year old son has been in the hospital for bilateral pleural chylous effusions since Jan 29, p/o Fontan in November of 2009. He has tried diet, diuretics, thoracic duct ligation and now pleurodesis on the right side. masters public administration

[sun]

I want to be a part of this mags. I have idea to make a good design and to make a good layout for this mags. We need to make other people to feel interesting by see our mags cover, then they will buy it criminal justice bachelors

[sun]

I can’t seem to get this to work – it only imports the first account (the first line) regardless of how many I have listed – tried both manually entering the data and uploading a text file. Any help would be appreciated emergency management degrees

[swissgear backpack]

Its in reality a great post. I am sure that anyone would like to visit it again and again. After reading this post I got some very unique information which are in actual fact very helpful for anyone. This is a post having some crucial information. I wish that in future such posting should go on. swissgear backpack

[bag supplier]

Thanks for sharing this interesting information with us. I will certainly be back to check out your blog in the near future and see what else you have to say on the subject.