Unconscionable

As I note in my profile, I am interested in politics and so some of my post may be related to such. Well, this is one of those posts. Senator Jay Rockefeller took to the Washington Post op-ed page yesterday for one of the most extraordinary examples of self-delusion and rationalization ever to grace that newspaper. A defense of the telecommunications companies complicity in cooperating with the President’s warrantless surveillance program by the chair of the senate intelligence committee was a chilling message about our national leaders commitment to fundamental principles of our citizens rights under the constitution.

 

Here’s a link to the op-ed.

 

And here are the jaw-dropping thoughts of one of this nation’s senior Democratic lawmakers:

 

“Today there is significant debate about whether the underlying program -- the president's warrantless surveillance plan -- was legal or violated constitutional rights. That is an important debate, and those questions must be answered. In the meantime, however, these companies are being sued, which is unfair and unwise. As the operational details of the program remain highly classified, the companies are prevented from defending themselves in court.” - - Incredible. Rockefeller admits that there is a “debate” over whether the plan is legal and/or constitutional, but then asserts that the companies shouldn’t be held legally accountable for something they did that may be legal/unconstitutional.

 

“So we crafted legislation to do two important things: modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act so the program is monitored by the courts with proper checks and balances, and keep the focus over legality where it belongs -- on the government.” - - Again. Rockefeller isn’t really saying that for the past thirty years FISA was NOT monitored by the courts? Yes, that’s exactly what he’s saying. Of course, FISA was monitored by the courts and did have checks and balances – such as they were for a judicial panel that never once rejected a warrant sought by federal prosecutors. The last bit about “legality” would be funny if it weren’t so sad. Legality? Didn’t Rockefeller write in a previous paragraph that legality was an open question…still up for “debate?”

 

“First, there is no automatic amnesty. All Americans, including corporate citizens, must follow the law and be held accountable for their actions. The bill authorizes case-by-case review in the courts only when the attorney general certifies that a company's actions were based on assurances of legality, and the court is specifically required to determine whether the attorney general abused his discretion before immunity can be granted.” - - accountability…except for telecommunications companies. Relying on the attorney general to “certify” assurances of legality? Why would anyone rely on this cabinet secretary’s assurances that the earth revolves around the sun? It is the AG’s previous certifications of legality that got everyone into this mess. Now you are going to rely on the same institution to help extricate everyone from their complicity in undermining the Fourth Amendment? Rockefeller is a very trusting guy. Too trusting. And why rely on the assertions of the AG who can’t be trusted and has a conflict of interest in any decision made. Where are the courts in all of this oversight?

 

“The fact is, private industry must remain an essential partner in law enforcement and national security. We face an enemy that uses every tool and technology of 21st-century life, and we must do the same. If American business -- airlines, banks, utilities and many others -- were to decide that it would be too risky to comply with legally certified requests, or to insist on verifying every request in court, our intelligence collection could come to a screeching halt.” - - This is the most astounding and unsettling of Rockefeller’s claims. Rockefeller doesn’t want private companies to act as a bulwark against government overreaching. Rockefeller doesn’t want companies asking too many questions about the legality of government warrants. Rockefeller is content for everyone to rely on executive assertions of legality – just like the administration’s insistence that they don’t torture. If they say it, it must therefore be true.

 

The fourth amendment is inconvenient. The whole ordeal of going before a judge to get approval to search a person or enter their home. It’s a hassle for police and prosecutors. In the age of terror, Rockefeller suggests, the 4^th Amendment has become too inconvenient.

 

Many Democrats have become frustrated with this President and the war in Iraq. The conventional wisdom holds that Congress’ unpopularity has to do mainly with their inability to end the war and bring the troops home. I think such an opinion gives too little credit to Democrats and the public. Most are realists and understand that so long as the President wants troops in Iraq, Congress is unable to reverse the situation owing to the constitution’s separation of powers.

 

No, Congress’ unpopularity is due primarily to frustration of rank and file Democrats have with their party and leadership being constantly and continually outmaneuvered, outflanked, out-strategized, and out-communicated with respect to the war and this administration’s actions. Congressional Dems won a sweeping electoral victory last year based on the unpopularity of the war. And yet, after they took office the administration managed to increase the number of troops in Iraq, won a reprieve of nine months (the infamous Petraeus report), and then meekly accepted the general’s assurances of progress in Iraq. Congressional democrats still don’t know what happened or is happening with the administration’s warrantless spying nor of the politically-based prosecutions of Democrats in many of the 93 US attorney jurisdictions – or of the politically-motivated firing of US attorneys that didn’t play ball.

 

Rockefeller’s op-ed is in the same vein. These Democratic surrender monkeys have already capitulated to George W. Bush without first finding out the who, what, when, where or how of the story. That is what drives Democrats to distraction. Not their inability to withdraw the troops from Iraq, but their inability to do anything at all. Even something so basic as to determine if the 4^th amendment is still in effect.