Posts
I had no idea of the pros and cons of the FISA bill currently making its way through the Senate, but if Glenn Greenwald is against it, it's probably a good thing:
Therefore, I am duty-bound to urge you to call your senators and tell them that passage of telecom immunity is absolutely essential to the preservation of our American way of life.Today, there is a genuine opportunity -- the first in a long time -- for Senate Democrats to take a meaningful stand against the lawlessness of the Bush administration. Whether they are willing to take this stand largely depends upon how much citizen demand they hear from Americans like you and me.
The Bush administration has been trying to bully Congress into passing a law that would legalize vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers for the President to spy on Americans. The law also provides full immunity to telecommunications companies
which enabled the Bush administration to spy on you without the warrants required by law.
Worse, if telecom amnesty were granted, it would result in the immediate dismissal of numerous lawsuits against the telecoms, thus extinguishing the only remaining means for discovering what our Government really was doing over the last seven years as it illegally spied on our telephone conversations and emails.
Please call your senators and demand they filibuster to stop telecom immunity right now-Glenn Greenwald Salon.com
Call this the Anti-Greenwald Principle: Anything endorsed by that idiot is a bad idea; anything he opposes is a good idea.
It's kind of like the Chappaquiddick Codicil: Never support anything supported by drunks who drown their campaign aides. If Ted Kennedy votes to adjourn, honorable men are duty-bound to vote to stay in session.
BTW, how much does Salon.com pay Greenwald to attach their name to partisan petitions?
UPDATE: A pro-Greenwald commenter weighs in to accuse me of being "simplistic":
The issue is not Greenwald, it's the Fourth Amendment and the right of the people to challenge the government in court. ...And the commenter misses the point that telecom immunity is about protecting private industry from greedy trial lawyers. The issue is billable hours, which is the only motive of the parasitical ambulance chasers trying to get their sticky fingers into the pockets of AT&T, et al.
Really, it's a beautiful con by the legal left: Convince a bunch of gullible liberals that you are "fighting for the cause," then line your own pockets with fat fees.
The pro-Greenwald commenter further asks:
If Greenwald wrote that he loved his mother, would you quit loving yours?No, if Greenwald wrote that he loved his mother, I'd suspect that he'd actually chopped her into a hundred pieces and fed the remains to his cat.
P.S.: Greenwald is a lawyer. Reckon he's getting a referral fee for this advocacy? Or is he being paid by DFA? Either way, he doesn't strike me as a pro bono shill.
Glenn Greenwald is hardly the issue, and your simplistic reasoning, after an admission that you don't undertand the subject, doesn't make you look like a thinking or particularly patriotic American.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not Greenwald, it's the Fourth Amendment and the right of the people to challenge the government in court. You either support the Constitution or you don't, and allowing retroactive immunity for warrantless searches would violate the spirit of freedom and the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search.
There are plenty of people who disagree with me on a lot of subjects, but who agree with me that the Constitution is important.
If Greenwald wrote that he loved his mother, would you quit loving yours? He supports the Constitution. Do you?