Comments on: The Obama & Olbermann Master Plan For Criminal FISA Prosecutions

By: wigwam

wigwam — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:11:31 +0000

OT but related: I’ve posted a Dkos diary about this conversation between Olbermann/Dean conversation and three other typical cases where politicians and pundits have gone have said outrageously crazy things when talking about FISA. I don’t know if this is deliberate shuck-and-jive or repitition of right-wing talking points or what. It’s sort of a FISA-insanity syndrome.

By: Leen

Leen — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:46:45 +0000

Bmaz and others have repeated that the telecoms are all ready protected. This “retroactive immunity” is not about them.

By: klynn

klynn — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:33:55 +0000

bmaz thought you might like to read this blog from friends up north…

http://wiselaw.blogspot.com/20.....a-and.html

… no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind — probably more so — when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.

By: klynn

klynn — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:27:41 +0000

Thanks for this post bmaz. Excellent.

Even though this is from the earlier rounds on FISA is still has great content and is from the American Bar Association Membership:

http://www.informationclearing.....e12294.htm

And from the city most impacted by 9-11, the NY City Bar produced this letter juat a few weeks ago (second download under What’s New):

http://www.nycbar.org/index.htm

The letter is supported by its’ 22,000 members.

bmaz, LHP are you able to get a letter supported by a number of our country’s lawyers into the hands of Obama and KO addressing what you state here bmaz as well as why “no” to immunity etc..?

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:43:08 +0000

As applied to the dismissal of the civil suits currently pending, “immunity” is more of a phrasing term we have applied to the debate than a word used in a technical legal sense you are thinking in relation to witness testimony. Here, it is indeed more “law that basically says whatever happened was legal because the Pres said so”. It is theoretically possible for it to be rolled back by a future Congress, but the odds of that are literally about zero, and I believe that the telcos could argue against that by making out arguments that they relied to their detriment on the initial dismissal of the suits (retroactive immunity grant) and are therefore entitled to that benefit. The bottom line is that this is toothpaste that won’t be going back in the tube.

You have to look at civil and criminal separately on limitations. Civil here is two years; criminal five years. There is a long history in the law on finite limitations on actions; generally they are good, necessary and proper things to effect fair application of laws and due process.

By: techmom

techmom — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:30:41 +0000

Is that because testimonial immunity would come from criminal immunity? Or is it that this is not ‘immunity’ per se but law that basically says whatever happened was legal because the Pres said so?

And if so, does that mean it can be undone by a future Congress. I mean since it is not really ‘immunity’ but more of an instant alibi/defense.

Of course the clock is ticking too on statutes of limitations. If they run out the clock long enough it is all moot.

Except for civil rights abuses there should be no limitations, which is why they can still prosecute KKK on those grounds.

By: bmaz

bmaz — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:46:55 +0000

No, in fact it could be argued that it would do just the opposite. This is not testimonial immunity.

By: brendanx

brendanx — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:44:31 +0000

Unfortunately, the desire to start a war and to goose oil prices are not mutually exclusive.

By: techmom

techmom — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:31:00 +0000

I think the telco’s already have no worries about being prosecuted and that the lawsuits will be dismissed.
I do want to make sure that they will testify to Congressional Committees and grand juries as potential crimes by the administration are investigated.

I know that having immunity lessens the number of avenues for discovery but is it not also true that they would need to testify and not take the 5th to uncover the facts of what was actually done?

By: Mary

Mary — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:14:30 +0000

BTW – I really like Keith’s show and he’s not a lawyer and deals with a lot of different things everyday and doesn’ have hours to spend getting briefed in, so I don’t think that it is a biggie that he may have misunderstood the issue or Dean’s statements.

I have to look back at things like the response of some Law Profs to Judge Taylor’s ruling – some who got pieces in major national papers with their drivel – that showed they had no understanding whatsoever of the Motion to Dismiss process. So I cut Olberman slack.