My OperaA curious week.
Sunday, June 29, 2008 9:17:55 AM
(Soundtrack - Entombed: Left Hand Path.
"I am my own God
Master slave and I will be beyond the grave
No one will take my soul away
I carry my own will and make my day")
Like I mentioned in the previous post - looking at the surveillance state issues from a little distance makes the context for the debate into a natural victory for the ones advocating unlimited executive power.
But in a shorter perspective, there are different considerations and mechanisms that do not necessarily take understandable shortcuts because of how ruined the debate is - in fact, the support for destroying the constitution could not be more explicit.
After Obama's endorsement of the FISA amendment bill (that would delegate the legal definitions of a court, and the issuing of a legislative framework, up to the president's office), there was a stream of Obama- supporters suddenly coming out in favour of the bill.
There were different reasons for this. John Cole of Balloon Juice would at first take it on face value and accept what Obama's campaign said (the standard: "I'm not a lawyer, so I'll trust the political insider who sounds like he knows what he's talking about"- excuse) - that the bill restored FISA under the law (which is the old trite point that since what the president does now cannot be illegal, it's under the law, and therefore it's fine). And that only the "immunity" provision (for the telecoms who did the surveillance illegally) was "onerous", which Obama would wov to oppose, even if it was ensured passage (which even Obama admitted).
Strangely, many supported this "practical" explanation, and came out forcefully to defend it in the usually friendly tone on the left. By as usual calling everyone who would disagree with Obama as nay- saying morons.
Besides, they would argue, this is the democratic leadership's fault - not Obama (Obama isn't a leader.. yet, so he can't be blamed for cravenly selling out the constitution, unless he did so when he's dictator, or something). Bollocks.
Skip forward one day, after the reactions come in, and the argument morphs - now it's not a problem that Obama wants dictatorial powers with the executive branch - the argument is that it's necessary to appease the republicans and vote against the fourth amendment now - so that they will be unable to hurt the democrats by saying they are weak on terrorism in November. And as Glenn Greenwald documents through careful search of perfectly available news- articles - this thinking originates from the democratic leadership - Reid and Pelosi - as well as Obama's campaign. Obama- supporters once again jump on the train.
Skip forward another day, and Keith Olbermann - who earlier would rail against "lawless dictatorial powers" and granting "criminal immunity for lawbreaking" if your wallet is deep enough - for the privileged and connected - when talking about the many attempts earlier by the democratic leadership to front and pass this bill. Keith suddenly changes tune, and finds that this is part of a secret plan of Obama's to be able to "get" the telecoms back in the end. (Comeuppance in the States - not just for Christians!).
The plan would be divined like this - John Dean (from the Nixon administration) would suggest that the new FISA would maybe, perhaps, be unconstitutional in itself, or that there were provisions in the law that might, on closer reading, allow civil liability if not criminal liability. (I'm assuming he's thinking about how the pending lawsuits are based on seeking damages for exposing customer records in violation of federal law (which gives standing), which wouldn't be removed by immunising the telecoms from criminal proceedings regarding FISA, and so open the question of whether the amendment would be legal - but don't quote me on that. Besides, we've heard this before - when the democrats was in minority - just give us time, and we'll reverse all the horrible laws. What are they waiting for this time?)
Keith then seized on that and suggested there was, with Dean as weight behind it, a secret plan in motion by Obama to get the telecoms in the end, and that therefore we should now give up the fourth amendment the democratic leadership needed a majority before they could pull off.
Therefore further exploration of this argument expectedly leaves us back where we started - it's simply good for winning in November. Since that's all that matters - and the democratic leadership has done the following analysis: the left will vote for them anyway, the right are nuts, but the vast majority of America actually hates the fourth amendment, so therefore it's most beneficial for the democrats to please that "center". Not unlike the strategy that lost them the last election, they are simply aiming for the path of least resistance, in the belief that keeling over to every republican demand will strike a balance between being strong on terror, and being balanced and measured in comparison to the "right", and therefore place them in the center (which is why Obama must absolve himself in front of the AIPAC as well, and what makes John Lieberman a centrist - and probably what makes Bush a "man of the people", and not a privileged frat boy with an adopted texan accent).
While in truth, the democratic candidates running against the repbulican party (or their own candidates who could just as well have changed their party without anyone noticing even the change in label) on a substantive (relatively speaking) platform of clear opposition to lawbreaking - with an appeal to conform with the legal framework that the west in general has been based on for several hundred years - are winning easily over otherwise safe candidates, even in republican territory.
Which means that the perception of the "center" that exists in the beltway is, for one, completely faulty. But that also - and get this - the rule of law and opposition to mafia politics is a universal and uniting policy among both republicans and democrats. Who would've guessed?
Skip forward to the day before yesterday, and John Cole at Balloon Juice turned about, and slammed Obama as a craven weakling with a populistic streak of the most contemptible sort. And I throughly endorse that.
Because - the analysis that suggests it's beneficial to trade the constitution for a democratic win in November - that rests on the assumption that the american electorate - and the democratic voters and supporters who are flogging that message - are as weak and useless that they would agree when a politician decides to kill the fourth amendment for political gain. Gain that these same voters would be, obviously,, instrumental in providing.
For once, since they're dealing with calculating politicians and not politics based on cult- worship (mostly), as well as politicians dependent on their followers adopting their narratives - this can therefore be challenged and changed. In other words, it's not inevitable that the democratic leadership should cave on this (although they of course already have, and it will take more than tentative changes of opinion on the web to make an impact).
Meanwhile, Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd filibuster the final vote on the FISA amendment, and a final vote comes down after the fourth of July recess.
Which is kind of epic.
"I am my own God
Master slave and I will be beyond the grave
No one will take my soul away
I carry my own will and make my day")
Like I mentioned in the previous post - looking at the surveillance state issues from a little distance makes the context for the debate into a natural victory for the ones advocating unlimited executive power.
But in a shorter perspective, there are different considerations and mechanisms that do not necessarily take understandable shortcuts because of how ruined the debate is - in fact, the support for destroying the constitution could not be more explicit.
After Obama's endorsement of the FISA amendment bill (that would delegate the legal definitions of a court, and the issuing of a legislative framework, up to the president's office), there was a stream of Obama- supporters suddenly coming out in favour of the bill.
There were different reasons for this. John Cole of Balloon Juice would at first take it on face value and accept what Obama's campaign said (the standard: "I'm not a lawyer, so I'll trust the political insider who sounds like he knows what he's talking about"- excuse) - that the bill restored FISA under the law (which is the old trite point that since what the president does now cannot be illegal, it's under the law, and therefore it's fine). And that only the "immunity" provision (for the telecoms who did the surveillance illegally) was "onerous", which Obama would wov to oppose, even if it was ensured passage (which even Obama admitted).
Strangely, many supported this "practical" explanation, and came out forcefully to defend it in the usually friendly tone on the left. By as usual calling everyone who would disagree with Obama as nay- saying morons.
Besides, they would argue, this is the democratic leadership's fault - not Obama (Obama isn't a leader.. yet, so he can't be blamed for cravenly selling out the constitution, unless he did so when he's dictator, or something). Bollocks.
Skip forward one day, after the reactions come in, and the argument morphs - now it's not a problem that Obama wants dictatorial powers with the executive branch - the argument is that it's necessary to appease the republicans and vote against the fourth amendment now - so that they will be unable to hurt the democrats by saying they are weak on terrorism in November. And as Glenn Greenwald documents through careful search of perfectly available news- articles - this thinking originates from the democratic leadership - Reid and Pelosi - as well as Obama's campaign. Obama- supporters once again jump on the train.
Skip forward another day, and Keith Olbermann - who earlier would rail against "lawless dictatorial powers" and granting "criminal immunity for lawbreaking" if your wallet is deep enough - for the privileged and connected - when talking about the many attempts earlier by the democratic leadership to front and pass this bill. Keith suddenly changes tune, and finds that this is part of a secret plan of Obama's to be able to "get" the telecoms back in the end. (Comeuppance in the States - not just for Christians!).
The plan would be divined like this - John Dean (from the Nixon administration) would suggest that the new FISA would maybe, perhaps, be unconstitutional in itself, or that there were provisions in the law that might, on closer reading, allow civil liability if not criminal liability. (I'm assuming he's thinking about how the pending lawsuits are based on seeking damages for exposing customer records in violation of federal law (which gives standing), which wouldn't be removed by immunising the telecoms from criminal proceedings regarding FISA, and so open the question of whether the amendment would be legal - but don't quote me on that. Besides, we've heard this before - when the democrats was in minority - just give us time, and we'll reverse all the horrible laws. What are they waiting for this time?)
Keith then seized on that and suggested there was, with Dean as weight behind it, a secret plan in motion by Obama to get the telecoms in the end, and that therefore we should now give up the fourth amendment the democratic leadership needed a majority before they could pull off.
Therefore further exploration of this argument expectedly leaves us back where we started - it's simply good for winning in November. Since that's all that matters - and the democratic leadership has done the following analysis: the left will vote for them anyway, the right are nuts, but the vast majority of America actually hates the fourth amendment, so therefore it's most beneficial for the democrats to please that "center". Not unlike the strategy that lost them the last election, they are simply aiming for the path of least resistance, in the belief that keeling over to every republican demand will strike a balance between being strong on terror, and being balanced and measured in comparison to the "right", and therefore place them in the center (which is why Obama must absolve himself in front of the AIPAC as well, and what makes John Lieberman a centrist - and probably what makes Bush a "man of the people", and not a privileged frat boy with an adopted texan accent).
While in truth, the democratic candidates running against the repbulican party (or their own candidates who could just as well have changed their party without anyone noticing even the change in label) on a substantive (relatively speaking) platform of clear opposition to lawbreaking - with an appeal to conform with the legal framework that the west in general has been based on for several hundred years - are winning easily over otherwise safe candidates, even in republican territory.
Which means that the perception of the "center" that exists in the beltway is, for one, completely faulty. But that also - and get this - the rule of law and opposition to mafia politics is a universal and uniting policy among both republicans and democrats. Who would've guessed?
Skip forward to the day before yesterday, and John Cole at Balloon Juice turned about, and slammed Obama as a craven weakling with a populistic streak of the most contemptible sort. And I throughly endorse that.
Because - the analysis that suggests it's beneficial to trade the constitution for a democratic win in November - that rests on the assumption that the american electorate - and the democratic voters and supporters who are flogging that message - are as weak and useless that they would agree when a politician decides to kill the fourth amendment for political gain. Gain that these same voters would be, obviously,, instrumental in providing.
For once, since they're dealing with calculating politicians and not politics based on cult- worship (mostly), as well as politicians dependent on their followers adopting their narratives - this can therefore be challenged and changed. In other words, it's not inevitable that the democratic leadership should cave on this (although they of course already have, and it will take more than tentative changes of opinion on the web to make an impact).
Meanwhile, Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd filibuster the final vote on the FISA amendment, and a final vote comes down after the fourth of July recess.
Which is kind of epic.
