Comments on: Substandard

By: James Baker

James Baker — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:12:41 +0000

What I don’t hear discussed is Obama’s “reversal” on FISA came after he became the frontrunner. If elected he stands to inherit the NSA wiretap files without the political risk that Bush runs if the details of the wiretap programs become widely known. Obama didn’t create the programs; he just inherited them. It is not his fault if 200 million Americans’ calls and emails are being routinely archived (per USA Today).

He can have his justice department mine the archives to find all sorts of crimes and take credit for the results. And he can claim not only was it not his doing that created the overzealous wiretapping but he even voted against it. He can’t loose on this one,

By: Krinn DNZ

Krinn DNZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:56:54 +0000

Julian, thanks for all the effort and sourcing about FISA. It's a good roundup. Regarding specifically the "this is 5 minutes of google search, why do you not know it ?" complaint that frequently comes up when dissecting right-wing arguments: the crew at Sadly, No! have a running gag about that. They theorize that Google is (or is believed by the right wing) to be visible only to smarty-pants liberals, so that particular type of error correction is delivered by "The Great Gazoogle."

By: Karrsic

Karrsic — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:28:36 +0000

Thanks for the clear dissection. We could use more of this! My attempt to counter the absurd wingnut arguments is here:
http://fisa.wikispot.org/Telecom_Immunity_Arguments

Feel free to help make it more concise! : )

By: Jim Pharo

Jim Pharo — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:27:36 +0000

Wanna see how silly “retroactive immunity” is? Try it with someone other than the phone company, like, say, FISA court judges:
“We need to grant FISA court judges immunity so that they will continue to co-operate in the War on Terror. When their country needed them, they stepped up, very patriotically, and did what was asked of them. So let’s immunize them from liability, even if they won’t have any exposure, and even if somehow their extremely broad legal immunities already-granted aren’t adequate, let’s give them some more. Maybe they shouldn’t have to pay their credit card bills, either.”

There. “FISA Court Judges Need Immunity, too!”

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:03:55 +0000

Put it this way: As a journalist with priors of my own, who has worked for a publication with a definite ideology to it, I can understand how an honest writer surrounded by a bunch of smart, heavily credentialed people repeating the same line can come away thinking they’ve got the Truth and everyone on the other side is a disingenuous propagandist. (As I’ve just conceded, of course, that IS what I think about at least some of the folks on the other side of this, and while I think that’s justified, one always ought to be careful.) As Chris Rock might put it: “I ain’t sayin’ it’s right… but I understand.”

By: Jay B.

Jay B. — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:18:40 +0000

I think he’s interviewing a lot of people who have a dog in this fight, and not getting a suitably balanced perspective.

I can’t vouch for him, but the facts — as you point out — aren’t particularly different to find. Unlike the hopeless traditional media, which can credibly fall back on ignorance and an idiotic, fact-free “balance” (or as Joe Klein said, “who’s to say who is right”?), right wingers — many of whom should be naturally opposed to blatant power grabs by the state — simply are opposed to the opposition. I think I may have read something skeptical of administration FISA claims from George Will, but that literally might be it. Bill Safire would have said something, I suppose, but one might have to wake him from his nap. What I see from the conservative media isn’t simply hackdom, but a willingness to demagogue or obscure the issue.

By: Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:50:52 +0000

In many cases, I am prepared to assume that. But I know Matt Continetti, and I don’t think he’s a hack. I think he’s interviewing a lot of people who have a dog in this fight, and not getting a suitably balanced perspective.

By: Jay B.

Jay B. — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:27:40 +0000

It’s a sign of the amount of raw misinformation floating around the FISA debate that even fundamentally smart and conscientious conservative writers often get the story badly wrong.

Julian, you can be shocked, SHOCKED!!! I suppose.

Or you can assume that there’s a reason behind their obvious, tendentious obtuseness on the matter.

Mainly that if you scratch a conservative, an authoritarian will yell at you. Short of that, if you still remain unconvinced that they are not, almost to a person, making bad faith arguments, you might also consider they’re on someone’s payroll who’ll pay them to continue making these asinine claims.

Even more telling: Who are the high-profile conservatives making the anti-amnesty arguments? You can count them on one hand and have fingers left over.

By: Eric Martin

Eric Martin — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:15:10 +0000

Dilan is right.

The telecoms won’t owe a cent – not even attorney’s fees. The government will have to indemnify the telecoms for every penny spent defending these suits and, if applicable, paying damages in connection therewith.

Immunity is needed so that the suits can be dismissed, and discovery prevented. Getting to the discovery phase of the trial is the key to getting the real story.

By: Dilan Esper

Dilan Esper — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:14:47 +0000

Don’t forget on the immunity question that the telecoms almost certainly requested and got indemnity agreements from the government. The immunity question has little to do with the financial exposure of telecoms and a lot to do with whether we ever find out, during discovery or trial, what the government actually did. Conservatives are able to claim it isn’t illegal and it isn’t targeting people it shouldn’t only because they have successfully prevented the release of any information that would contradict their claims.