Conventional Folly

One of the defining characteristics of our bi-polar politics is the willingness, nay, eagerness, of the dedicated rank-and-file to shed all elements of doubt and reason in favor of throwing themselves in full support of the party structure, no matter how counter-intuitive it may seem on the surface. Republicans who have spent the last decade decrying John McCain as anything but a real conservative are more than happy to shuffle along in zombie-like fashion as the man poses as the reincarnation of George Bush, and Democrats are so desperate in their Quixotic search for a different (any will do, thank you) direction they ignore the glaring signs that Obama is anything but.

Glenn Greenwald personifies this delusional nature, writing about his shock -- shock! -- that the corporate sponsor of the Convention, AT&T, would act like, er, a corporate sponsor.

Last night in Denver, at the Mile High Station -- next to Invesco Stadium, where Barack Obama will address a crowd of 30,000 people on Thursday night -- AT&T threw a lavish, private party for Blue Dog House Democrats, virtually all of whom blindly support whatever legislation the telecom industry demands and who also, specifically, led the way this July in immunizing AT&T and other telecoms from the consequences for their illegal participation in the Bush administration's warrantless spying program.

Greenwald knows, whether he indicates it or not, that this party is but a drop in the bucket, a trifle compared to the billions already showered on all members of Congress in the past year by the telecommunications industry thanking them for their dutiful service to the poor, cash-strapped conglomerates of this great nation.

Greenwald uses the term "Blue Dogs" with derision, but it is plain for all paying attention that the vote to extend immunity for clear violations of the law was as inevitable as it was infuriating, and merely indicative of the state of American democracy. Lefties like to pretend that the Democrats are simple beings, led by only one cause, that of the people. That Democrats alone are immune to the influence of power, prestige, and corporate money showers is delusion bordering on lunacy.

Amazingly, not a single one of the 25-30 people we tried to interview would speak to us about who they were, how they got invited, what the party's purpose was, why they were attending, etc.

Really, Glenn, was it that amazing? Or was it an entirely predictable and natural offshoot of American democracy? There was no democracy to be had within the Convention, and what little there was outside was kindly put in its rightful place.

Individuals arrested at the Democratic National Convention will be processed at an industrial warehouse with chain-link cells topped by razor wire, a facility some have compared to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Groups planning marches, concerts and other events during the Aug. 25-28 convention dub the center "Gitmo on the Platte," for the nearby South Platte River...Video footage of the north Denver warehouse on Denver's KCNC-TV showed coils of razor wire topping chain-link cells. A sign read: "Electric stun devices used here."

This is what passes for democracy in America. Protests require permits, are constrained to preposterous "free speech zones," and performed under the threat of detention in a razor-wire rimmed Gulag. The chances that the participants inside the Pepsi Center would allow the wishes of these insignificant Americans to influence the party platform were about as high as President Bush allowing the whims of dying Iraqi children influence his foreign policy.

Inside the Pepsi Center, emotions ran exceedingly high, undeterred and unfettered by the loonies outside. Speakers were determined to leave no platitude unsaid, no empty phrase (change, anyone?) unuttered, secure in the assumption that their captive audience wouldn't dare call them on specifics or demand that the platform reflect their wishes.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the area of foreign policy. People have been successfully convinced by the Obama team that he represents a stark shift in direction from the past eight years, so much so that they have given up the formality of listening to actual words spoken and actions undertaken. Obama's foreign policy team is chock full of the typical imperial fare, nicely rounded out by last weekend's selection of Joe Biden as running mate, one of the most firmly-ensconced members of the foreign policy establishment, strongest purveyors of unbridled American expansionism, and avid supporters of the War in Iraq.

Anyone actually listening to the speeches of Biden and Obama would have been pummeled by images of continued American militarism under an Obama presidency, including -- but surely not limited to -- expansion of the war in Afghanistan, continued stoking of the flames in Iran, and diligently renewing the Cold War with Russia. If one didn't know better, one would think the Republicans just held their Convention in Denver.

But all this is par for the course. Politicians chant empty mantras like change (every challenger for the last several hundred years has offered a change of direction) without ever being held to such promises. Obama says "change," his supporters jump, and no one thinks to ask what that "change" might entail, or how it might manifest itself. By all outward signs, change will come in the form of continued militarism in a prettier package -- more engaging speeches and more empty gestures to international organizations (before ignoring them). Liberals don't oppose war, they oppose unsuccessful wars. Had the Iraq occupation gone as planned, Biden would still be all for it, as would all Democrats who spent all of five minutes questioning the decision of the "anti-war" candidate to take the "pro-war" figure as his running mate before climbing on board with nary a peep.


Related:

Change Personified, August 25
Renewing Afghanistan, July 21

Sphere: Related Content

Invertebrate Evolution

In a shocking turn of events, House Democrats have indicated that they do indeed have a semblance of a backbone. Granted, when all is said and done, it is unlikely to pass in its current form, but the Dems plan to unveil their version of amendments to the FISA statute on Thursday.

The summary:

FISA Amendments Act

Bill Summary

March 11, 2008

The revised House legislation to amend FISA grants new authorities for conducting electronic surveillance against foreign targets while preserving the requirement that the government obtain an individualized FISA court order, based on probable cause, when targeting Americans at home or abroad. The House bill also strongly enhances oversight of the Administration’s surveillance activities. Finally, the House bill does not provide retroactive immunity for telecom companies but allows the courts to determine whether lawsuits should proceed.

Title 1: Surveillance Authorities

· Provides for surveillance of terrorist and other targets overseas who may be communicating with Americans.

· Requires the FISA court to approve targeting and minimization procedures – to ensure that Americans are not targeted and that their inadvertently intercepted communications are not disseminated. These procedures must be approved prior to surveillance beginning – except in an emergency, in which case the government may begin surveillance immediately, and the procedures must be approved by the court within 30 days. (This may be extended if the court determines it needs more time to decide the matter).

· Provides prospective liability protection for telecommunications companies that provide lawful assistance to the government.

· Requires a court order based on probable cause to conduct surveillance targeted at Americans, whether inside the United States or abroad.

· Requires an Inspector General report on the President’s warrantless surveillance program.

· Prohibits “reverse targeting” of Americans.

· Explicitly establishes FISA Exclusivity – that FISA is the exclusive way to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance inside the U.S. Any other means requires an express statutory authorization.

· Sunsets these authorities on December 31, 2009 (same as the PATRIOT Act sunset).

Title 2: Litigation Procedures for Telecommunication Company Liability

· Does not confer retroactive immunity on telecom companies alleged to have assisted in the President’s warrantless surveillance program.

· Provides telecom companies a way to present their defenses in secure proceedings in district court without the Administration using “state secrets” to block those defenses.

Title 3: National Commission on Warrantless Surveillance

· Establishes a bipartisan, National Commission – with subpoena power – to investigate and report to the American people on the Administration’s warrantless surveillance activities, and to recommend procedures and protections for the future.

Most glaringly, they have not included a clause granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies, a clause demanded by the Bush administration and included in the Senate version of the bill passed in February. As I stated in a previous post, immunity is the most contentious issue surrounding the amendments to FISA. I've already laid out my objections to that particular argument so I won't redress them here.

Instead of immunity, the proposal would allow the defendants in civil trials to present classified evidence in their defense to the presiding judge. This would be done in secret and the documents would not be publicly available. Inclusion of the clause comes from the administration's claim of "state secrets" which would have prohibited the phone companies from presenting these confidential documents in court, which would go a long way in establishing that they acted in good faith and are therefore not liable.

As it stands, good faith seems to be what defenders of immunity have gravitated toward, saying that regardless of the legality of their actions, the telecoms were acting in good faith and had assurances from the Justice Department that their cooperation in the Terrorist Surveillance Program was legal and legitimate. The proposal would grant them the opportunity to prove that the Justice Department had steered them as suggested and perhaps limit their vulnerability in civil trials.

Third, the proposed legislation would establish an oversight committee and require and Inspector General to report on the program. Seems good in theory, though we pretty much have evidentiary proof that the Bush administration will obfuscate and obstruct to the full extent of its imagination, so that clause is likely a wash.

In spite of the unlikelihood the legislation is passed as is, the Democrats are at least illustrating a little grit on a significant issue.



A couple of additional thoughts per previous discussion of the misinformation regarding immunity and FISA:

• Julian Sanchez presents a pretty thorough debasing of the main pro-immunity talking points here.



• It should be noted that during the period from 1979 through 2006, the FISA court has rejected all of 5 applications for a warrant while approving 22990. The rate of rejection: .022 percent. That's 1/50 of a percent. It seems that the court itself, if the process is seen through properly, is not, and never has been, a hinderance on surveillance authorities.



• For all their posturing, the Republicans aren't even taking part in this debate short of empty proselytizing and instilling fear in the public. This refusal to take part in the proceedings begs the question: If allowing the PAA to lapse was a tragedy, wouldn't working toward a substitute be a priority? In the US Congress, it's a bit hard to expect the other party to simply accept the other chamber's bill without discussion, and trying to stifle any ounce of debate is reckless.

Sphere: Related Content