As the good Captain Ed at Hot Air posted today, Barack Obama’s national security adviser disagrees strongly with Barack’s stance against telecom immunity….

As I have so appropriately and repeatedly stated it’s hard to hate America more than a Republican partisan does. It’s only from a person like that we will hear that American courts are incapable of dealing with complicated dilemmas “security vs personal rights of citizens”. Everybody else thinks our system of checks and balances works fairly well.

freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 10:09 AM

So,

“… it’s hard to hate America more than a Republican partisan does…”

Now that’s how you make a manifestly false statement.

It’s only from a person like that

And that’s how you make an ad hominem argument.

American courts are incapable of dealing with complicated dilemmas “security vs personal rights of citizens”.

And that’s how you make a “straw man” argument. It’s not a question of whether courts can address the issue, but whether a telecom company should have to spend millions defending themselves in a civil court because they obeyed the government’s demand for information. Furthermore, for all the braying about “illegal” requests, the immunity in question is not for a crime. It’s about immunity from civil lawsuits. If the request were truly illegal, then the companies should be charged with crimes, not threatened with lawsuits. They’re threatened with lawsuits precisely because they can’t be charged with crimes.

It’s also interesting that you bring up separation of powers when the President does something you don’t like, but have no problem with courts trying to extend their power into issues of national security.

You have all the marks of a liberal on this issue:

– Believe in separation of powers when it comes to restricting the power of the President
– Don’t believe in separation of powers when Congress wants to restrict the role of the courts
– Don’t believe in separation of powers when it comes to asking the courts to decide what laws should be obeyed (the role of Congress) or how foreign surveillance should be conducted (role of the President)
– Label an action you don’t like “illegal” repeatedly
– Want the courts to decide “standards” that the legislature and executive should follow
– Are a whole lot more concerned about keeping the President in line than protecting us from our enemies
– Confuse the right of Americans to be free from unreasonable search and seizure with the ability of the government to spy on known foreign enemies.
– Regard the ACLU “quite highly”

Those who are interested in facts and not just in bashing Obama would be well served to recall once again that it is manifestly false that the companies thought the requests were legal, and

freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Oh, this is fun.

Those who are interested in facts and not just in bashing Obama

As if these are mutually exclusive… Obama, like most liberals, is pretty much fact-free.

it is manifestly false that the companies thought the requests were legal

If it were manifestly false, you wouldn’t have to argue the question. If it were illegal, you would still not have demonstrated that the companies knew this. And your claim that it was illegal is based on your own misinterpretation of the Constitution, misunderstanding of national security and the powers of the Presidency, and misapplication of Constitutional questions to a private company responding to a lawful demand by the lawful government in pursuance of a lawful goal.

But you think a private company has the right to determine for themselves which laws they have to obey? Worse, you seem to think the government should allow a company to be sued in civil court for obeying the laws.

Congressional refusal to indemnify such businesses retroactively is like having your illegal cake, eating it too, and making private enterprise foot the bill.

JM Hanes on March 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM

In a word, SOP.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/03/07/a_12_step_program_for_recovering_liberals?page=full&comments=true

Speakup on March 9, 2008 at 1:01 AM

That was awesome. Thanks. I’m going to give it to my mom and sister along with a pocket Constitution.

Really? You do know that this is the same ACLU that has defended terrorists and child rapists. Right?

Yes. This is what criminal lawyers do. Every suspect is entitled to a fair trial and competent representation. If you didn’t hate America so much, you’d know it’s in its Constitution.

freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 5:18 PM

So now the ACLU is just another (well-heeled) defense law firm? Not an American Civil Liberties group? Please, make up your mind. Which is it? And whose side on they are on? The side of America and its civil liberties (like not having neo-Nazis march though a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie), or on the side of the enemies of America (including the loonytoons calling themselves progressives)? Is there nothing about America that is worth defending, or is it necessary to hope to che’nge everything? And che’nging everything by fiat from the courts, rather than the legislative process? Why do you think the abortion issue went through the courts rather than the legislative process? It would never have passed muster, or in enough states, to make it into law. Is that what you want, the courts overstepping their constitutional powers to review laws, and instead make them? Who elects the Supreme Court anyway? I sure haven’t voted for one SC justice in my 30 plus years of voting, nor had the opportunity to do so.

A 12 Step Program for Recovering Liberals
By Burt Prelutsky
Friday, March 7, 2008

Step #6: Repeat after me, “Separation of church and state” exists nowhere in the Constitution. The first amendment does not require the removal of Christmas trees from the village green, the 10 Commandments from court house walls or “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. All it does is forbid Congress from establishing a state religion, such as the Church of England, and anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar and, most likely, a card-carrying member of the ACLU

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/03/07/a_12_step_program_for_recovering_liberals?page=full&comments=true

Because telecoms, not the government, will be the defendants. Judges cannot simply right any wrong they happen to notice from the bench (See: Separation of Powers). It’s not a question of bullet proof arguments, but of who actually has the standing to make them. That’s the point.

On the flip side, you’ve made no argument at all as to why telecoms should not be indemnified retrospectively, just a vague sense that all of them ought to have refused their cooperation because apparently one company did so — in circumstances which are not entirely clear. Apparently Congress came to the opposite conclusion in deciding to compel such cooperation in future.

You seem to think that separation of powers is an abstract concept that can be set aside whenever convenient. You also seem to think such a violation will go without consequences. It won’t.

freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 7:24 PM

If you believe in separation of powers, why do you think courts should “outline some standards”? That is precisely how liberal dems are taking this country down one notch at a time.

In America, as in elsewhere, people are the same, they do not heed calls of warning.

So, go ahead.

I warned you long time ago about Hussein Barack.

Elect him, but don’t cry later.

Idiots.

freevillage on March 8, 2008 at 5:28 PM

You seem to think the the decision of one U.S. District Court would be binding on every other court in the nation. It would not. You also seem to think that the enormous expense of defending numerous lawsuits in numerous different jurisdictions — which is what would happen if the phone companies are denied immunity — would be inconsequential. It would not.

This is a misguided formulation in two very basic regards. First, the burden for outlining standards resides in the legislature not the courts. Second, if the government made improper demands on business, the businesses who acceded are the victims of an illegal act themselves, not the perpetrators. If reparations are in order as a consequence of such cooperation, it is the government who should properly pay the price.

OK. Make this argument in court. Or expect the court to throw the case away. I mean if it’s such a bullet proof legal argument, how come you don’t trust an American court to come to the same conclusion?

BTW-Just whose side are you on, exactly?

The evildoers’.

Really? You do know that this is the same ACLU that has defended terrorists and child rapists. Right?

Yes. This is what criminal lawyers do. Every suspect is entitled to a fair trial and competent representation. If you didn’t hate America so much, you’d know it’s in its Constitution.

However, the ACLU is one of the most anti-American organizations I can think of. One of the most high profile lawyers to come from the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg now sits on the Supreme Court. Do you believe her and her rulings (supported the age of consent 12 years old, consistently votes supporting partial-birth abortion, etc.)to have helped make America a better place?

First of all, it’s a silly line of argument. Assuming Ruth Ginsburg is the Devil reincarnated it doesn’t say anything about the organization she once belonged to.

I am unapologetically pro-choice. However, I do object to removal of parental consent before a certain age. I can live with restrictions on abortions if the mother can give the child up. Again, I disagree with certain decisions by ACLU. Overall I regard them very highly.

“Now back to the issue. It’s a fact that one company refused to provide the government the kind of information they wanted. They suffered no consequence as a result. I think it’s fair to suspect that other companies should have done the same.”

I’m not sure why it’s fair to assume that they should have refused to do what Congess agrees they should be compelled to do — or that those who did what Congress now officially concludes is the right thing should be punished. The onus for keeping the federal government in check does not rest on private business.

“A court decision could let the companies off the hook but outline some standards. The latter then we can either accept or try and change them through the legislature.”

This is a misguided formulation in two very basic regards. First, the burden for outlining standards resides in the legislature not the courts. Second, if the government made improper demands on business, the businesses who acceded are the victims of an illegal act themselves, not the perpetrators. If reparations are in order as a consequence of such cooperation, it is the government who should properly pay the price. Congressional refusal to indemnify such businesses retroactively is like having your illegal cake, eating it too, and making private enterprise foot the bill.