Goldstein on FISA . . .

by the Pirate on February 18, 2008

and how the House Democrats are picking the trial lawyers . . . um, I mean, our CIVIL LIBERTIES!—over fairly pedestrian gathering of intelligence:

Protecting the country?s surveillance capabilities in a time of war? Not so much. Protecting trial lawyers? A party imperative.

As the neo-civil libertarians on the left continue to argue (in between crafting smoking bans and environmental legislation that will have the government, in essence, monitoring your thermostat), their real concern here is that the telecoms not be given immunity for their ?illegal activity.? Point out to them that no ?illegalities? have been established, and the answer is always the same: if these big corporations have nothing to hide, than why would they need immunity? ? an argument that studiously ignores two obvious facts, first, that litigation not only penalizes the telecoms financially (would they go to court or just settle?) while enriching the trial lawyers (who get paid either way); and second, that such a threat of legal liability is also a back door way of keeping risk-averse corporations from cooperating with the government. After all, why cooperate if doing so could open you up to a lawsuit, even if you have assurances that what your are doing isn?t illegal?

After all, Jeff points out—along with Andy McCarthy—the intel we lose while Pelosi et al. go out for their recess will likely “stay lost.” Fewer dots to connect, and all that. But it’s okay: it’ll be Bush’s fault if the dots don’t get connected, no?

For decades now, the Dems have worked (with outspoken exceptions) to weaken US security ? either by placing (unconstitutional, in my opinion) restrictions on intelligence agencies (FISA was never supposed to affect military intelligence gathering), or by cutting military spending, or by adopting a cynical tone of moral indignation at the ?loss of freedoms? that they know to be a chimera of their own construction.

Which is their prerogative, naturally ? but something that John McCain should be outraged by (if only for appearances), and seeking to use as wedge issue by trumpeting his concerns to his buddies in the media. Like a shiny maverick riding to the rescue of a weakened nation.

Yeah, well. That’s McCain. I’m still torn between actually voting for the man, and writing in “a ham and cheese panino.”

Take home lesson #1: however awful you think the Rethuglicans are on national security, they are less-bad than the Democrats. Mostly.

Take home lesson #2: never hesitate to shrewishly nag your favorite bloggers into posting more. They’ll pretend to resist, but at some point they will buckle, leading to juicy reads. Hooray for the juicy reads! (And less-hooray for the depressing events they chronicle.)

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: