Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Who is Morton Halperin and why is he supporting the FISA compromise

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 02:48 AM
Original message
Who is Morton Halperin and why is he supporting the FISA compromise





Morton H. Halperin. McNaughton’s deputy had general supervisory authority over the project. In 1969, he moved from the Pentagon to Henry Kissinger’s National Security Council staff. The FBI, acting without a court order, wiretapped numerous conversations between Halperin and Ellsberg. (AP/ Wide World Photos)

Hunt and Liddy were, of course, “the plumbers,” who had been recruited by the White House to stop leaks in the Pentagon Papers case. They had burglarized the psychiatrist’s office in September 1971, prior to their break-in at the Watergate in June 1972.

Nor was that all. Without a court order, the FBI had wiretapped telephone conversations between Morton Halperin and Ellsberg. The tapes and logs of the wiretaps had “disappeared” from the files of both the FBI and the Justice Department.


http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2007/0207pentagon.asp


Question 1) Who is Morton Halperin

a) Close Friend of Daniel Ellsberg

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halperin

b)Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

Halperin served in the Department of Defense in the 1960s as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and was dovish on the Vietnam War, calling for a halt to bombing Vietnam. When Nixon became president in 1969, Henry Kissinger, his new National Security Advisor announced Halperin would join the staff of the National Security Council. The appointment of Halperin, a colleague of Kissinger's at Harvard University in the 1960s, was immediately criticized by General Earle G. Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover; and Senator Barry Goldwater.

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began tapping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969 after only nine months but the tapping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

c) Number 8 on Nixon's enemies list

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/370010_wiretap09.html

I was No. 8 on Richard Nixon's "enemies list" -- a strange assemblage of 20 people who had incurred the White House's wrath because they had disagreed with administration policy. As the presidential counsel John Dean explained it in 1971, the list was part of a plan to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies." My guess is that I earned this dubious distinction because of my opposition to the Vietnam War, though no one ever said for sure.

d) long time critic of Bush's illegal wire tapping

Two years ago, I stated my belief that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program and disregard for domestic and international law poses a direct challenge to our constitutional order, and "constitutes a far greater threat than the lawlessness of Richard Nixon."

That was not a casual comparison. When I was on the staff of the National Security Council, my home phone was tapped by the Nixon administration -- without a warrant -- beginning in 1969. The wiretap stayed on for 21 months. The reason? My boss, Henry Kissinger, and the director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, believed that . . .

e) a target of illegal government wiretaps

. . . I might have leaked information to The New York Times. Even after I left government, and went to work on Edmund Muskie's presidential campaign, the FBI continued to listen in and made periodic reports to the president.


f) major academic and Director of U.S. Advocacy Open Society Institute

Halperin holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Yale University. He received his B.A. from Columbia College
The recipient of numerous awards, Halperin also serves as the Senior Vice President and Director of Fellows at the Center for American Progress. He is Chairman of the Board of the Democracy Coalition Project. He is also the Chairman of the Board of the Health Privacy Project at Georgetown University. He serves on the boards of DATA and the Constitution Project (where he is also a member of the Liberty and Security Committee)<1>, and is the chair of the Advisory Board of the Center for National Security Studies

g) Director of the ACLU Washington office

He spent many years at the American Civil Liberties Union, serving as the Director of the Washington Office from 1984 to 1992, where he was responsible for the national legislative program as well as the activities of the ACLU Foundation based in the Washington Office. Halperin also served as the Director of the Center for National Security Studies from 1975 to 1992, where he focused on issues affecting both civil liberties and national security.Halperin, as Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) office in Washington, defended the right of the The Progressive magazine to publish details on how to construct an atomic bomb.






Question 2) Why is he supporting the FISA compromise

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/370010_wiretap09.html

a) There is another piece of legislation that is much worse that already has the necessary votes

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate already had passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

b) It creates Congressional oversight (where it used to be exclusively the territory of the Executive branch)

What's more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.)

c) It expands protections for Americans overseas

Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.



Concluding sentiments by Halperin


The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that the Democrats (including Barack Obama) are giving in by backing this bill.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn't perfect. But I also believe -- and here I am speaking only for myself -- that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason it has my support.
Morton H. Halperin is the executive director of the Open Society Policy Center. Copyright 2008 The New York Times.




Here are Halperin's previous testimony before the House Committee of the Judiciary as the Director of U.S. Advocacy
Open Society Institute


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_hr/090507halperin.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/03/b1507441.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/nsa_surveillance.pdf


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NattPang Donating Member (993 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
1. I was curious about this Part
And hope someone that is frantic now
about the vote tomorrow,
can explain this.

a) There is another piece of legislation that is much worse that already has the necessary votes

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate already had passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

b) It creates Congressional oversight (where it used to be exclusively the territory of the Executive branch)

What's more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.)

c) It expands protections for Americans overseas

Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. His comments seemed to have attracted no attention on the internet either
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phrigndumass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 07:09 AM
Response to Original message
2. Sometimes the best you can do is to stop them from doing even more damage
Congressional oversight is necessary, glad to see that clause in there.

K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. His statement is signficant for a couple of reasons

1) It shows that it was in fact a compromise. Even if you don't agree with the bill and feel it should be defeated it is clear that the revised bill includes positive aspects.

2) Critics of the bill have not been stating fairly what is in the bill. This is the first time I had heard that Americans overseas will now be protected by the 4th Ammendment. This understanding has never been apart of any administration's perspective or any legislation previously.

3) Up until now it has been the Executive branch dictating to the Congressional. Now Congress has a meaningful oversight role.

4) Halperin is very unusual, absolutely unique. He is a civil rights advocate and expert (headed the ACLU Washington office and defended a 1st ammenment case for publishing a book "How to build an atom bomb", was the target of illegal wire taping and is an expert in national security.

5) It shows that progress is not a straight line, that the issues that he has been fighting for since the 1970s do not live and die with a single piece of legislation.

6) Beyond the legislation the real reality of how well the country fulfills the spirit of the constitution lies with who is in the White House and the quality of appointees, both in national security and as prosecutors and judges for FISA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-15-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
53. Thank you grtantcart for helping us see the light!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. Halperin sums it up nicely right here:
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 07:46 AM by TexasObserver
"The compromise legislation that will come to the Senate floor this week is not the legislation that I would have liked to see, but I disagree with those who suggest that the Democrats (including Barack Obama) are giving in by backing this bill."

Politics is the business of compromise, and as bad as I hate this bill, it's better than the bill we might be getting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. exactly
and while allowing the government to intercept domestic to foreign survelliance is not helpful I would trade permanent Congressional oversight for a one time telecom pass on civil immunity any day of the week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. interesting. thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. your welcome
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
8. I find it very interesting that someone who has had a dog in this fight before most
on this board were born actually has a reasonable view of the "compromise."

I didn't know there was a second, more malevolent bill out there being used as a blackmail device.

I'm going to be sooooo glad when these mofo's are out of jobs.

K and R -

Thanks for posting this, GC!.

c
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. and he has been a frequent witness against Bush's warrantless program
and the previous bill in the House of Judiciary hearings. Also a prominent voice in ACLU.


But this guy not only had a dog in the fight they had a bug up his dog's ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #9
10.  bug up his dog's ass......
:rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
11. thanks-- this fills in a few holes. It's always...
a problem for us out of the loop to see things the way the insiders do. Some think this is a good thing, but more often it causes us to piss against the wind and cause even more trouble.

(When good congresscritters vote badly, there's usually a reason in the background somewhere)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. It surprises me how quick we are to abandon our own leadership
and then wonder why we don't win elections.


One of the aspects that has not been commented on is that the lawsuits on behalf of the non profits against the telecoms would have resulted in huge landfall for the non profits had the suits been successful (and yes some of the money would have trickled down but the legal fees would have been in the tens of millions). I wonder how enthusiastic these "non profits" would have been had there not been the prospect of hundreds of millions of dollars awarded in a civil suit but a fine paid into the treasury?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. That's the most disappointing part for me
It's unfortunate. I really wish we would learn how to fight. It's becoming obvious that this party, as a whole, will not learn that lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Except that DU is not a fair representation of the party

today hundreds of thousands of folks are walking neighborhoods and taking this government back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. That's good news
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
30. Off to go ring a few doorbells now - thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. That is not true.
DU has a wide spread of voices.

Halperin and Hoyer and all the others who said we had to do it because something worse might happen....won today.

No need to make excuses.

I am surprised to see you doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. A wide spread of voices doesn't mean a fair or equal distribution
I have witnessed other circumstances that have caused this board to melt down that wasn't reflected in public opinion.

A message board can't be used as a gauge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Melt down. A term used to make others seem less knowledgeable.
A term used to imply that we got all worked up over nothing at all.

In fact the Democrats gutted the fourth amendment today.

May I get your opinion which of these groups is not "in sync" with public opinion?

" The proposed bill would grant unnecessary and unconstitutional powers to the Executive Branch. We urge you oppose it, and to vote against any legislation that contains the defects described above.

Thank you for considering our views.

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Arab-America Anti-Discrimination Committee

Association of Research Libraries

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Center for Democracy & Technology

Center for National Security Studies

Congressman Bob Barr, Liberty Strategies

Defending Dissent Foundation

Democracy for America

Doug Bandow, Vice President for Policy, Citizen Outreach Project

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fairfax County Privacy Council

Friends Committee on National Legislation

League of Women Voters of the United States

Liberty Coalition

MAS Freedom

OMB Watch

Open Society Policy Center (Halperin's group)

OpenTheGovernment.org

People For the American Way

Privacy Lives

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Multiracial Activist

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation"

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2333

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. A term used to say that you got all worked up, period
Do you honestly think that our 4th amendment rights have been untouched until today?

I've seen your list in other posts and it doesn't change my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Bush got a victory today.
You should not be proud of it.

I guess you will put down each of those groups I posted just like you did my opinion.

You are pretty good at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Where did I say anything about being proud?
Could you please read what is written and stop adding to what a person is saying. This is not the first time that this has occurred between us. This type of reaction is what I'm referring to as a melt down. Logic just flies out the window.

Yes, Bush got a victory. Bush has been getting victories since we reclaimed the majority in 2006. Why are you so upset about it now?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. I have had this kind of reaction every time we sold out and caved in.
Why haven't you?

I had fits about the Iraq War, I had melt downs about the bankruptcy bill, I had temper tantrums over the new trade bills passed with little good in them for our country.

I would rather have a melt down than excuse their behavior.

Yes, we have had words every time you have put me down for caring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. How do you know I haven't?
I'm not and never have put you down for caring. I have and will continue to put you down for putting words in my mouth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Don't ever be surprised to see me defend any of Senator Obama's
position 4 months before the General Election.


As Halperin points out it was never as black and white as it was presented.

Until Halperin's article was posted not a single of the critics pointed out that there were any benefits let alone the fact that Americans now have the protection of the 4th ammendment overseas. A single point of view was prevented and it was presented in such a way that anyone sticking up for the presidential nominee was roundly called out as a sell out.

The November election is not a tea party and the stakes will reflect in much higher stakes than those that were represented in this flawed legislation. Despite overwhelming evidence in the polls that Senator Obama is considered more intelligent and better able to lead the country, he is leading by a slim majority of 5-6 points.


So if the nominee, who has to carry the burden of running in a country where 30% of the population is not going to even consider him because of his race, has not one but two Muslim sounding names, the association of impolitic pastor, the 'most liberal' voting record in the Senate, whose previous job as a 'community organizer' sounds vaguely suspicious to half the country, carries an 86% ACLU voting record (highly unpopular in vast tracks of the country), requires some room to manuever tactically so the much more conservative middle of the country can get to know him and be more comfortable with him then do not be surprised to see me making a maximum effort to understand and support his position.

What is surprising is that this issue became so emotionally charged that there were people who were comparing it with the IWR that caused the actual death of hundreds of thousands of people and millions of refugees. There were people who labelled it as the worst sell out on the constituion on the same thread lamenting the fact that Obama was no FDR while FDR actually sent tens of thousands of actual Americans into concentration camps in a real concrete action of constitutional betrayal.

And yet when efforts were made to discuss the merits their could be no discussion and that people who tried to do so were betraying the basic principles of the party and we should simply submit to the discipline of the ACLU.

How disappointed you must be to see a substantive article arguing the merits of the compromise, alas not a capitulation at all, who has outstanding civil rights credentials, outstanding national security credentials, one of the harshest critics of both Bush and the earlier legislation, outstanding UCLA credentials and was an actual target of illegal wiretapping. Unlike you and the other posters that took the most aggresive posture possible however I understand that there were always two sides to this argument, never tried to demonize those that didn't agree with my position and was never surprised by the facts that they brought to the discussion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. "the discipline of the ACLU"...disappointing term
I really don't know what to say to that.

You make me sound like a very bad Democrat indeed, and I do resent it.

I am every bit as good a Democrat as you, and have been so for many many years of my life.

Don't do that to others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Its those that are critical of the FISA bill that have been charging those sticking up for
Obama as being everything from a "sell out" to a "nazi".

Just a few replies up you started the whole conversation by saying that you were "surprised by my responses" because I stood by Obama indicating that such a stand had no rationale, or no courage.


I haven't challenged you or anybody else's standing as a Democrat, I do challenge your strategic sensibilities in what you are saying during a Presidential campaign.


Now go back up to my OP and find one negative thing that I have said about anyonem, anywhere. I simply stated who Mr. Halperin was, his background and what he thought of the FISA legislation. Not one sentiment against anybody who disagreed with him for whatever reason.

The vicious rancour that has been launched against those who have dared to stand up for Senator Obama and his position on the FISA bill has been unrelenting and over the top. And now you accuse me of questioning others for being loyal Democrats? Astonishing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
31. and here is just the latest example of calling us Nazi sympathaziers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6477238

Can you give a single example where those defending Senator Obama have been accused of anything remotely similar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
51. ACLU is an important check, but they don't always have positions correctly.
I know their position on electronic voting can be off, especially state by state. Arguing against states that want to use paper. Goes to the disability argument used and abused, but won't elaborate here.

ACLU can be academically ivory tower, like professors, or sometimes the last chance for the rule of law. Turley can even be debated.

Big point is that FISA has a temporary fix for the court, to be revisited. And given what Bush announced today with FISA as a good terrorist fighting tool, you know the ad they might have run. Yes, I'm worried about the voters and fear card. Had this been not so one-sidedly presented, emotionally pitched, the damage would have been less.

I am concerned by the fickleness of the fan base, and as always, the reality of this election.

FISA is being pitched in the emotional way the IWR vote was used. That was not a vote for war, per say, but led to the easy I Hate War emotion, blaming Kerry for the vote and not Bush for misusing the authority. Now with FISA we have Save the Constitution or end of civilization. Easy to create an emotional, righteous movement echoed/pushed by the media. Both the alternative, self-serving kind and MSM, not giving direction and fullness of the arguments.

Arianna? Site of Bittergate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Much beating around the Bush
All of these miseries are due to the single factor of not impeaching, investigating and prosecuting the administration itself. The telecoms immunity might make matters worse for some theoretical and apparently undesired prosecution of Bush but in fact they are already left out in the cold, but as parties to the crimes the Dems even less want to prosecute.

The grand reasons to despise this big surrender and flight and CYA operation, the rational pragmatism of the above former victim, alas may none of them loom so immediately large for Congress as what punishment- punishment not donations and rewards- the telecom businesses in their districts can quickly dish out by moving shop and casting voters into the unemployment roles. That too, more than upsetting voters by "wasting time" on impeachment, would distract heartily from the victory march to a historic majority.

All these little battles for principle long ago cast aside make the head ache. The real question these hopeless vortexes avoid is the simple legitimacy of this government. Avoid that and nothing at all makes sense and these matters of workaday policy and principles suddenly become difficult, complex and hamstrung.

Bush is a fraud and criminal. Pick your point of attack, it is absolute. The government is based on fraudulent election systems and big money interests that control policy for the sake of controlling all treasure. America, capitalism, all policies big or small, all 200 year old myths, all are in the void FISA fighters are dancing around. All because the single clear remedy to restore the semblance of reason and light to these policy discussions is to remove- now- the fraud at whose desk all these things stop, begin or flee from.

Better to just freeze governing, but that is catastrophic and irresponsible too. Only the big hammer of direct law and dutiful power can even begin to avert the madness of dealing with such an abominable WH, a fraud, a coup, and a betrayal every way and always whether that makes others and American flaws in general look bad or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Well if your going to rewind history then you have to go back to the IWR


but I think you have hit the nail on the head - the real reason there is so much passion on the subject is because of the disappointment of the Democrats not stopping this war when the could have.


But there is only one issue now and that is who is going to win the election on November 4th. All of the hard work and all of the sacrifice will be gone and so will all of the power of the Executive Branch if we do not triumph on that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavlovs DiOgie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:52 PM
Response to Original message
32. K&R!
It's good to see some rational sense regarding this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
33. Rec'd. I wish THIS post would make it to the front page of DU. Thank you very much, GC.
I really appreciate you posting this. I feel that I can respect Morton Halperin's opinion, given his resume.

My own argument against the hysteria surrounding this FISA vote is that the entire edifice of the National Security State needs to be dismantled -- a work of years, decades, if not generations. Even had this one bill been voted down, the mechanisms and the mindset that grants the government the power to do whatever it wants in the name of "national security" would remain.

And THAT is the root evil.

I support Obama for the very simple reason that I am absolutely determined not to give the White House to another republican. Obama was never my first choice, (Kucinich was first, Edwards second) but he's who we got. I like Obama well enough, I appreciate his intelligence and his campaign savvy.

But I never expected Obama to be a savior of our Republic -- he's simply a skilled politician who will no doubt do a few good things to mitigate some of the ongoing damage to the masses perpetrated by the Plutocracy. He's no revolutionary, he's firmly based in the System as it is. Being a realist, I certainly don't expect a revolutionary to be allowed to run for president.

So, another insult to our freedom has occurred -- nothing new, these insults have been accumulating for many, many years under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Nothing will REALLY change until enough people on the ground demand it and are willing to sacrifice and incur pain to do so. (see: women's suffrage, Gandhi, the Civil Rights movement, etc.)

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 11:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
34. This needs a kick... (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
36. Thank you for posting this
Halperin missed another important measure that this legislation includes. It protects the 1st amendment rights of US citizens, they can not be monitored simple because they are members of an organization that may have ties to terrorism (or anti-war).

I've said for days that this legislation, though not perfect, is better than what we have or what we faced. It does not infringe upon US citizens civil rights, it further protects them by repeating throughout the bill that the 4th amendment rights of US citizens cannot be infringed, that probable cause is required.

Relative to review, I would venture to guess that those courts now hearing the FISA litigation will require that "substantial evidence" that the monitoring was legal and will be able to view even the most classified of materials to make a determination that substantial evidence does support the certification. They may even rule the provision unconstitutional if they find it impedes justice and interferes with their duties.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Interesting do you have a source on the 1st ammendment?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Sure, it's found in provision 703
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 11:51 PM by merh
‘SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

‘(2) PROBABLE CAUSE- In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) may consider past activities of the target and facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target. No United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


Damn piece of shit bill that protects our freedom of speech, how dare they pass it, how dare Obama vote for it. :sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
39. Did you see this thread?
Edited on Thu Jul-10-08 12:08 AM by merh
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3586356

Jul. 09, 2008 | On July 3, Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in California made a ruling particularly worthy of the nation's attention. In Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. v. Bush, a key case in the epic battle over warrantless spying inside the United States, Judge Walker ruled, effectively, that President George W. Bush is a felon.

Judge Walker held that the president lacks the authority to disregard the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA -- which means Bush's warrantless electronic surveillance program was illegal. Whether Bush will ultimately be held accountable for violating federal law with the program remains unclear. Bush administration lawyers have fought vigorously -- at times using brazen, logic-defying tactics -- to prevent that from happening. The court battle will continue to play out as Congress continues to battle over recasting FISA and possibly granting immunity to telecom companies involved in the illegal surveillance.


If the AG certifies that the monitoring was legal you can bet your bottom dollar that the Plaintiff's will challenge that cerfication and cite this ruling. The trial courts will be sure to review the "blanket certifications" to ensure that substantial evidence exists.

The courts are not all crooked and they take their jobs and the constitution damned serious. Congress cannot pass laws that infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cookie monster Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 12:24 AM
Response to Original message
40. Is he related to Mike Halperin? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #40
45. I think that you may be referring to Mark Halperin who works for ABC I believe

It is his father
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarjorieG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
52. Time, I think, and not our friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 07:36 AM
Response to Original message
41. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 09:35 AM
Response to Original message
42. Excellent read. Thank you. Wish I could rec. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
43. DOWN WITH Morton Halperin! He Destroyed The Constitution! HE KILLED DEMOCRACY!
:sarcasm:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #43
46. and a nazi too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Here, Quick, Put This ON!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. no it fits you a lot better than me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gblady Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
44. thanks, grantcart....
love the smell of rational thought in the morning!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
48. I'm kicking this up again, because I'm hoping more people will read it. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-10-08 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. I'll kick your kick
it is so worth the read
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC