Why is the Dem Congressional Leadership Abandoning the Constitution and the Rule of Law on FISA?
BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher
June 22, 2008
Okay, the gory details of betrayal have been splashed across BuzzFlash and in other news outlets for a couple of days. After a tease that seductively seemed to promise some backbone on the Constitution, the Democratic leadership in the House (and the Senate's capitulation is a 'comin, based on Harry Reid's recent statements) capitulated, caved, put on their knee pads and gave the White House the unconstitutional green light to spy on Americans, along with giving immunity to Telecom companies for breaking the law for cooperating with illegal WH snooping.
Yes, there are some cosmetic alterations in the bill, just enough to give the Dem Capitol Hill leadership some cover, but even the White House was apparently surprised at how much the Dem leadership gave to a president with the highest disapproval rating in history -- and what they gave was, essentially, retroactive immunity to the Telecoms and Bush (if the Telecoms didn't do anything illegal, then Bush didn't either, right?) and the WH the right to now legally violate the Constitution.
In his first major disappointment (we would have done what he did on the campaign finance issue, given what the Republicans are going to do to evade it through chaneling funds through the RNC and 527s), Obama (who if anything is known as a Constitutional rights stalwart), is going to go along with the bill, but pledges to put up a fight in the senate on Telecom immunity. Of course, the catch here is that he is not going to get enough votes to filibuster the bill, and so it will pass the senate too.
So BuzzFlash is going to offer five possible reasons that the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is once again laying down like a rug so that a president who is as popular as Hitler at a Miami Beach synagogue can ravage our rights.
Then we want you to weigh in with your thoughts below:
1) There has been ongoing speculation that several key Dems in the House and Senate were briefed on the FISA violations -- early on while they were happening -- and didn't formally or informally protest to any great degree. In short, if the House and Senate acknowledge, in legislation, Bush's illegal actions, they would possibly be setting up members of their own party -- some in leadership -- for eventual criminal prosecution, not to mention the embarrassment of the party for enabling the FISA debacle. (This theory also holds true on why the Dems have not more aggressively pursued the issue of WH sanctioned torture and murder of detainees).
2) On the Telecom side, just show us the money. The Telecom lobbyists have been in overdrive attempting to protect their clients, and the Telecom companies have been lavishly handing out campaign contributions. This speaks for itself.
3) The Dems still fear being labeled as enabling terrorism. They long ago lost the framing debate on this issue and have never seemed able to reposition the threat as one that the Bush Administration has utterly failed to appropriately deal with.
4) It's an election year, and a prolonged battle with the White House would obscure other election issues that better favor the Dems. This might explain Obama's concession, along with his campaign's desire to show that he's not "weak" on terrorism. But, for Obama who has been superb at changing the frame of Republican shibboleths, it's a return to accepting the GOP debate points at the expense of the Constitution and our civil rights.
5) The Democrats figure it's easier (most polling shows Americans support the Bush FISA bill, probably because of the effectiveness of GOP talking points, not because they actually know the core issues at stake) to go along, because they assume that they will control the executive branch in November. If this were to come true, the best case scenario would be that Obama would issue an Executive Order that he would comply with the FISA law prior to the Bush-enabling one about to be passed by the senate (after being passed by the House last week).
Finally, we should note that the majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Bush "Get Out of Jail and Continue Spying on Americans" bills -- 128 Dems in the House voted against the bill, with 105 voting for it. Only one Republican, if we recall, voted against it.
But the important issue relating to the above five hypotheses -- and there are more -- is that this abomination of the Constitution was supported and pushed by the House leadership. Steny Hoyer -- Nancy Pelosi's number two -- was the point person on the "negotiations," and it wouldn't have ended up the way it did without Pelosi's green light. Reid, in the senate, has always been ready to go along with the WH demands, even if he's occasionally voiced minor quibbles with it.
So what are your theories as to why, a few short months from an election, the Dems on the Hill are giving up basic Constitutional rights and letting the WH and Telecom companies legally off the hook?
Tell us your thoughts by commenting below:
Technorati Tags: EditorBlog FISA Congress Democrats BuzzFlash



buzzflash
delicious
digg
technorati