More FISA, Less Sarcasm

For a more substantive take on the whole FISA/telecom immunity issue than I've been able to muster, check out my friend libertarian tech policy analyst Tim Lee's Slate article from a few days ago which runs down most of the relevant information. It is, however, worth dwelling here a bit on the precedent. If the executive branch comes to a private company and asks it to do something illegal, the executive branch has powerful ways of making the company see things its way. Being on the good side of the incumbent administration is a good place to be.

But still, companies will think twice about cooperating with illegal requests if they're sure that doing so will come around and bite them in the ass in the long run. But if you create the situation the Bush administration is proposing -- where failure to comply with illegal requests has negative consequences, but agreeing to comply with illegal requests lets you off scot free -- then no company going forward is going to have any reason to refuse to comply with any sort of illegal requests. In essence, the immunity provision would gut whatever other restrictions the new FISA law might contain. Meanwhile, it's good to see Steny Hoyer standing tall:

Now, the president asserts that the expiration of the protect America act will pose a danger to our country. The former National Security Council advisor on terrorism says that's not true. Former assistant attorney general says that's not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that's not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the protect America act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. So i tell my friends, we are pursuing the politics of fear. Unfounded fear. 435 members of this house and every one of us, every one of us wants to keep America and Americans safe. Not one of us -- not one of us wants to subject America or Americans to danger. The president's assertion is wrong. I say it categorically. The president's assertion is wrong.

As I argue in Heads in the Sand, it's important to approach these things from a self-confident point-of-view rather than a defensive one. When Bush says something outrageous, you have to act like you're outraged not like you're frightened that his outrageous statements will cause the voters to punish you. Confidence alone, obviously, isn't nearly enough to win political fights but it is a necessary precondition of doing so.

Comments

I've got no sympathy for people who knowingly violate laws. If you can't do the time, don't commit the crime.

Posted by ostap | February 15, 2008 10:18 AM

Matt,

Did you see Keith Olbermann's special commentary last night?

Posted by jay | February 15, 2008 10:20 AM

exactly: when rep. lantos died earlier this week, i flashed back to a memory of him talking during the impeachment debacle about the importance of the rule of law. the bush years have been a giant attack on the rule of law by the authoritarian thug party; failure to take a stand on this issue (indeed, the sell-out by so many senate dems) would suggest that both our parties could care less about the rule of law.

this way is madness.

what i hope the wimp dems realize is that bush is a toothless little man about whose opinion no one who isn't already deranged cares, while the lockstep congressional republicans aren't worth paying any attention to: it's the rule of law that matters.

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 10:21 AM

Hey, can the Executive Branch (and maybe even Fourthbranch) tell GM it's in our national security interest to hire a bunch of people and pay them well? That would be awesome.

Posted by El Cid | February 15, 2008 10:22 AM

It can't be repeated too many times-- the existing FISA law already shields companies from liability if they comply in good faith with a gov't request they believe to be legal.

As to the spying that the GOP and Harry Reid are trying to bless, a district court judge held that “AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal.”

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 15, 2008 10:22 AM

El Cid, now you're talking!

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 10:32 AM

If the President orders a private paramilitary service provider to kill someone, can the shooter, the executives, and/or that company be prosecuted for murder? Is the answer different if the killing takes place in the United States, in Iraq, or in France?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 15, 2008 10:35 AM

Dear Cranky,

Who is the shooter? Scooter? Blackwater? Cheney? or you? I don't like your chances but I think the others are all set.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | February 15, 2008 10:38 AM

Hey, can the Executive Branch (and maybe even Fourthbranch) tell GM it's in our national security interest to hire a bunch of people and pay them well? That would be awesome.

If we all wanted to buy ugly, overpriced Chevys and Pontiacs that might work great, but we don't, so all that would accomplish is driving GM into bankruptcy sooner, and unemploying everyone.

Posted by right | February 15, 2008 10:42 AM

> Dear Cranky,
>
> Who is the shooter? Scooter? Blackwater? Cheney?
> or you? I don't like your chances but I think the
> others are all set.

I am actually employed by Blacksludge as a staff augmentation contractor in Cheney's office. I just post here to set you guys up for rendition to Gitmo when the time comes.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 15, 2008 10:43 AM

I look forward to hating your book.

Posted by iron pimp hand | February 15, 2008 10:44 AM

"Hey, can the Executive Branch (and maybe even Fourthbranch) tell GM it's in our national security interest to hire a bunch of people and pay them well? That would be awesome."

Have you even been paying attention? GM has been paying people who majored in lunch in high school too much for too long -- that's why the company is hemorrhaging money. So now they are going to offer these same people tens of thousands of dollars each to quit.

Meanwhile, the car companies that lefties actually buy their cars from -- Toyota and Honda -- are paying their workers fairly but not outrageously and are able to profitably manufacture and sell cars in America.

Posted by Fred | February 15, 2008 10:51 AM

Fred, have you even been paying attention? Toyota and Honda aren't burdened with health-care costs for currents and retired workers, because they are based in sensible societies that recognize that health insurance is not something that is best handled through markets. this makes an enormous difference.

they are also not run by idiots, which is more than you can say for the american way of selecting auto company ceos and board chairs for the last few decades.

but of course to you, it's all about dissing the people doing the actual work.

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 10:57 AM

Dear Cranky:

My real name is Fred. No need to put me in Gitmo. I work there too. But please tell howard that I don't pay attention.

Posted by Peter Driscoll (Fred) | February 15, 2008 11:05 AM

The Democrats' refusal to pass the legislation is bad for America, but it is good for President Bush. If there is a terrorist attack in the next 10 months, we all know who has blood on their hands: Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi. Bush is absolved of responsibility - he tried to get the powers necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, a bi-partisan Senate agreed, and the House Democrats in a extreme partisan fashion refused to give him the power to stop terrorist attacks.

Posted by Al | February 15, 2008 11:08 AM

i actually doubt that's the real al at 11:08 (i have no doubts about it being the real fred at 11:05, though!), but i suggest you have a gander here:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/15/poe/index.html

look at update II: mitch mcconnell (get ready) actually spoke the truth on NPR this morning, with the money quote being this one:

" It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector."

remember, mitch mcconnell said that, not me....

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 11:15 AM

Good strategy and morally correct behavior for the Dems, but they need headlines that say "Bush fans fear to pressure Dems". Too bad Bill C. doesn't (hasn't) used is bully pulpit for that instead of using it to get a third term! Oops this post isn't about the election.

Posted by jvoe | February 15, 2008 11:16 AM

jvoe, seek and ye shall find. CBS News:

"Bush spy bill stance called fear-mongering."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/national/main3829931.shtml?source=mostpop_story

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 11:20 AM

The Democrats' refusal to pass the legislation is bad for America, but it is good for President Bush. If there is a terrorist attack in the next 10 months, we all know who has blood on their hands: Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi. Bush is absolved of responsibility - he tried to get the powers necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, a bi-partisan Senate agreed, and the House Democrats in a extreme partisan fashion refused to give him the power to stop terrorist attacks.

With Al you can't really tell if he's just explaining what he thinks the spin will be or if he actually believes it himself.

As I've said before, the remarkable thing about movement conservatives is that if you're big daddy you can shit in their mouths, tell them its chocolate, and they'll thank you and ask for more.

Posted by mpowell | February 15, 2008 11:22 AM

Al, newsflash, Bush has all the power he needs to stop terrorist attacks. McConnell even says so.

And this might be a newsflash to you, as well. Bush had all the power he needed to stop terrorist attacks before 9/11/2001. The Unitary Executive was focused on rewarding those that put them there through its Energy Bill at the time, so wasn't quite paying attention.

Oh, and by the way, McConnell also admitted that this is all about immunity for the private sector. Not, American lives or anything like that. Just corporate profits.

"BUSH: Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities, and could re-open dangerous gaps in our intelligence.

NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?

MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector."

Posted by po | February 15, 2008 11:22 AM

No, that's the real me - I still disagree on political issues, howard.

And, no, po, saying that "some of the authorities would carry over" isn't saying that Bush has "all the power he needs to stop terrorist attacks". The Senate Democrats passed a bipartisan bill that would give Bush all the powers he needs. The House Democrats acted partisanly, and now some of the power will expire. If there is a terrorist attack over the next 10 months, we know where the fault lies.

Posted by Al | February 15, 2008 11:41 AM

well, al, since it's the real you, i can come right out and say: one of your worst, most ridiculous comments ever.

actually, of course, mcconnell couldn't be completely honest: all of the authority carries over for a while, not just "some."

the idea that we needed to destroy the 4th ammendment in order to save it is something that no lawyer should ever utter: perhaps you should reconsider your career choice?

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 11:45 AM

Toyota and Honda aren't burdened with health-care costs for currents and retired workers, because they are based in sensible societies that recognize that health insurance is not something that is best handled through markets. this makes an enormous difference.

I know this keep getting farther off topic, so I'll just make this one comment and stop, but this is factually incorrect. In Japan, large businesses like Toyota and Honda do, in fact, pay for their current employees health care. As to retirees, I think you are correct that the government pays for retiree health care in Japan. But it should be noted that the government can pay for retiree health care in the USA also - it's a little program called Medicare. Unfortunately, the American car companies have stupidly agreed to pay for retiree health care over-and-above Medicare. As far as I'm concerned, the government should pay for retiree health care - let the retirees just have Medicare!

Posted by Al | February 15, 2008 11:49 AM

Yeah, if a terrorist attack happens on Bush's watch, we'll blame him, just like we should have for all of his other mistakes. 'bout time he was held responsible for something, don'tcha think (probably not, but then you're use to the politics of low expectations)? But you just go on bashing the Democrats.

Posted by po | February 15, 2008 12:01 PM

the idea that we needed to destroy the 4th ammendment in order to save it is something that no lawyer should ever utter

But we are talking about communications between foreign countries and the United States - i.e., cross-border activities - and there has always been an exception to the 4th Amendment for border searches. The bill does not implicate solely domestic surveillance.

Posted by Al | February 15, 2008 12:08 PM

"Toyota and Honda aren't burdened with health-care costs for currents and retired workers, because they are based in sensible societies that recognize that health insurance is not something that is best handled through markets. this makes an enormous difference."

So you're saying that the Japanese government pays the health care costs for Toyota's and Honda's American workers? Didn't Fred specifically refer to cars manufactured and sold in American by these companies? There is a reason why Honda and Toyota can manufacture cars profitably in the U.S. and Ford and GM can't. The reason is that Toyota and Honda aren't saddled with unaffordable, UAW-negotiated pay and benefits costs.

Posted by Juan | February 15, 2008 12:21 PM

Umm yeah - this wouldn't have anything to do with the fat legal fees that will accrue to trial lawyers (all big donors to Dems) when they start suing telecom companies.

This has nothing to do with "law", and everything to do with getting some spoils for a part of the coalition.

Posted by James Robertson | February 15, 2008 12:30 PM

James, I find it a bit unusual that you would deign to advocate changing the law simply to prevent private interests from receiving restitution through the courts. It's almost as though you hate trial lawyers and Democrats more than you have any respect for the law and integrity of the legal system.

Posted by Tyro | February 15, 2008 12:38 PM

"There is a reason why Honda and Toyota can manufacture cars profitably in the U.S. and Ford and GM can't. The reason is that Toyota and Honda aren't saddled with unaffordable, UAW-negotiated pay and benefits costs."

I love this conservative meme. Yes, it's utterly amazing how those nefarious lefties at UAW managed to negotiate contracts with GM and Ford all by themselves! The management negotiators were all disabled by the powerful UAW mind-melding ray and tricked into signing labor contracts that doomed them to completely foreseeable unprofitability. The union reps even secretly sabotaged the blueprints for GM cars to make them ugly, dangerous gas-guzzlers! Horrors!

American businesses are utterly powerless against unionized supervillains. Where's Captain Capitalism and his randroid army when we so desperately need them?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 15, 2008 12:47 PM

Howard:
It really isn't about the telecoms(though that is an added benefit to Boosh). It is all about the possibility that one day Bush and Co. could go to jail for breaking the law. It is to cover Shooter's (aka Darth Cheney) butt.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 15, 2008 12:53 PM

Actually, you might be talking about communications between foreign countries and the US, and on that narrow subset of vacuumed up electronic communications you'd be correct. Problem is, we're talking about US citizens, regardless of where they might be, and the allegations that the Unitary Executive, with assistance from the telecommunications companies, began wholesale spying on all electronic communications traffic traveling over US networks before, during and after 9/11/2001.

PAA is nothing more than a power grab the Unitary Executive against the First and Third branches of government coupled with never before seen retroactive liability protection for those telecos who cooperated (and thereafter handsomely profited).

Posted by po | February 15, 2008 12:54 PM

But they and their defenders scream and yell about how INTOLERABLE it is that illegal immigrants are "breaking the law!"

Without so much as the smell of burning rubber.

Or sulphur.

Posted by Hart Williams | February 15, 2008 1:02 PM

Not making re-election—or election or appointment to another office—their top priority would free up some of the Members of Congress to speak and vote conscientiously.

Posted by Sedgequill | February 15, 2008 1:03 PM

Movies inspire and encourage. After I saw "Dead Poet Society", I was ready to stand on that desk, and seize the reins available to me.
The "I have a dream" speech is another. "To kill a mockingbird, Mr. Smith, The Great Dictator, Monsieur Verdoux, Moore, Waldman, Palast etc. There are many.

Perhaps our Democratic representatives should start watching inspiring, if not educational, films prior to going to battle. It should be obvious to them that America and the world sees the Republicans as little more than evil bunglers.

Envision wise leaders.

Posted by anonyMoses Hyperlincoln III | February 15, 2008 1:10 PM

Tyro - I'm simply cynical about the motives involved, and looking at how this came to the telecom companies. Just after 9/11, the administration asks for help - just how bad do you think the PR would have been for them had they said no - never mind any worries they might have had about retribution.

Now, having "done the right thing" (as best as they could see it at the time), they are looking at valueless legal cases - because no one has found anyone who can say that they were harmed by this. Instead, we'll have class action suits with nebulous plaintiffs, and the telecom companies will end up settling (on the grounds that settling will be cheaper than fighting). The trial lawyers involved will walk away with 80% + of any awards - meaning, the supposedly harmed plaintiffs aren't really the point.

So yeah, I'd like to see immunity, in order to prevent junk suits whose sole purpose in life is to make societal leeches like John Edwards rich.

Posted by James Robertson | February 15, 2008 1:11 PM

al, you're right, let's leave toyota for another time.

meanwhile, there are two interlocking issues: the first is that the bush administration pressured the telecoms into violating the law regarding domestic surveillance. the second is the attempt to provide them immunity for violating the law regarding domestic surveillance.

put them together and we're talking abot the evisceration of the 4th ammendment.

joe klein's conscience, i don't necessarily disagree with your analysis of the underlying issue, but the proximate issue is the rule of law.

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 1:13 PM

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_blaine_k_080213_the_powerful_and_obn.htm

Posted by Blaine Kinsey | February 15, 2008 1:14 PM

james robertson: you do realize that your position is nuts? you do realize that we are a county that (in theory) values the rule of law? you do realize that presidents do not have the divine right of kings? you do realize that just because a president wants something doesn't mean it has to happen?

there was a law in existence, and at least one telecom (qwest) obeyed it without any public calumny (then or now).

meanwhile, the fact that you call john edwards a social leech for holding companies accountable pretthy much confirms that you are nuts - or you simply love authoritarianism.

Posted by howard | February 15, 2008 1:18 PM

You know, Al, despite the best repeat-until-true efforts of our war-criminal president to make it sound otherwise, there is still something called the FISA court that Bush and any of his henchmen can go to to get this little thing called a warrant to eavesdrop on anyone. They can even start doing it and get the warrant up to three days later.

So if there's another terrorist attack, yes, I'll know exactly whom to blame - mostly, the terrorists who carry it out (isn't that what your side always says when it's convenient?). Secondly, George W. Bush, just like the first one.

Posted by Rick Massimo | February 15, 2008 1:23 PM

"Just after 9/11" -- prove it. Word has it that the Unitary Executive ordered the telecos to cooperate before 9/11/2001.

"because no one has found anyone who can say that they were harmed by this" -- because no one has been allowed to question anyone about what was done and retroactive immunity would just prevent that altogether.

As for the right thing, go ask Qwest why it did not comply. Hint: their lawyers read the law and determined what was being asked was not being asked in "good faith" under FISA (which has a good faith exception).

Posted by po | February 15, 2008 1:24 PM

James, there's no indication from you that they're junk suits, just that you are more hostile to lawyers than you are to lawbreaking. This reflects a combination of nothing other than (a) slavish devotion to Bush's talking points rather than independent thought, so reflectivew of the immature, uninformed republican base, and (b) an irrational desire to spite groups you dislike (lawyers) even if its hurts the country and reflects a contempt for the law. Neither are particularly admirable character traits, and the last is reflects nothing other than an irrational hatred that you would pull the country down with, rather than give up.

Posted by Tyro | February 15, 2008 1:42 PM

"james robertson: you do realize that your position is nuts? you do realize that we are a county that (in theory) values the rule of law? you do realize that presidents do not have the divine right of kings? you do realize that just because a president wants something doesn't mean it has to happen?"

I'll happily be in favor of what you want here, so long as we institute loser pays rules. Let the trial lawyers put some skin in the game, so that the volume of junk suits drops.

Posted by James Robertson | February 15, 2008 1:46 PM

Al:
Do you know what the FISA court is? It is a secret court that issues search warrants to the government for the very reasons you are concerned about. In fact, the FISA laws allow the government to begin surveillance without FISA court approval, as long as the surveillance was needed immediately and the government brought the situation before the FISA court within a limited time frame (I believe it's 48 hours, but it could be longer) to apply for a warrant.

What it does not allow is the warrantless surveillance of all communications while the government does a witch-hunt.

Would you think it's alright for the government to go on a house-by-house search and when they find something possibly illegal, only then get a warrant?

Here in America, you have to have reasonable cause to search, and in an emergency situation, where National Security is a concern, the search can begin while the warrant is applied for in FISA court. The government doesn't need more freedom than the people.

Posted by Terry In Iowa | February 15, 2008 1:50 PM

The "skin" trial lawyers have "in the game" is the vast amounts of time and energy it takes to fight typically extremely well financed insurance companies. Sure, some class actions are simple cut and paste exercises. That kind of stuff gets the news. But the vast majority of cases that actually go to trial are quite costly. If it is a contingency fee case, which you seem to have the most problem with, then the trial attorney's "skin" you want to see all over the pavement can be viewed as little pieces of the attorney's life frittered away because some corporate executive, and his high-priced legal counsel (hanging out in the vast riches of his highrise playgound), decided to put profits -- corporate and legal -- ahead of doing the right thing and delayed .

Go on hating trial lawyers. Even those in the GOP however turn to them to fight the power when the power fights them. Just ask Trent.

Posted by po | February 15, 2008 2:03 PM

What has immunity got to do with protecting Americans from terrorists? If we support George Bush's idea that retroactive immunity will protect us against a terrorist plot then going with the idea Bush and Company favor Osama and crew get a pass on 9/11, and we need to pull completly out of Iraq and Afhganistan. Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater must then fold up and return all the funding they received because there was no need for their services, and the recount that was supposed to occur in Florida November 2000.............

I don't think anyone has shown Georgie Boy the implications of his flawed logic.

Posted by Idealthoughts | February 15, 2008 2:08 PM

What has immunity got to do with protecting Americans from terrorists? If we support George Bush's idea that retroactive immunity will protect us against a terrorist plot then going with the idea Bush and Company favor Osama and crew get a pass on 9/11, and we need to pull completly out of Iraq and Afhganistan. Haliburton, KBR, Blackwater must then fold up and return all the funding they received because there was no need for their services, and the recount that was supposed to occur in Florida November 2000.............

I don't think anyone has shown Georgie Boy the implications of his flawed logic.

Posted by Idealthoughts | February 15, 2008 2:09 PM

This has nothing to do with "respect for law". If it did, Democrats wouldn't be offering to extend (and indefinitely extend, so long as each extension is temporary).

If the Democrats were actually fighting for a principle, they wouldn't be offering that. Thus my cynical response.

And the fact that trial lawyers occasionally add value doesn't mitigate the need for loser pays rules.

Posted by James Robertson | February 15, 2008 2:13 PM

Loser pays is the British way. Here in the US, everyone pays their own way. What you got against American rules?

Ah, perhaps your perceived penchant for warrantless collection of evidence by the Unitary Executive gives us a clue. See, that smacks of the British ways the Founding Fathers waged a revolution to stop (sure we didn't have electronics back in those days, but stopping a passing horse and buggy and taking away the rum after rummaging through the contents of the buggy would be similar -- no real reason, let's just look at everything). Some of their other grievances included things like extraodinary rendition and holding someone against their will for perceived crimes without bringing them before a magistrate or other disinterested judicial officer to determine whether they were being held lawfully (habeas).

Posted by po | February 15, 2008 2:26 PM

OK, James Robertson, you're quickly exposing yourself as someone who doesn't know enough about the issues involved here to even bother arguing with, but I'll give it one more shot:

The Democrats do not have a problem with the law as it stands. (They should, but they don't.) That's why they keep extending it. Heck, Harry Reid wanted to extend it for a year.

The "problem" is, the law as it stands does not have retroactive immunity for telecoms in it. This is what Bush and his noise machine have been whining about consistently for months. It is not the Democrats who want to change the law; it is Bush. This is the Protect America Act, which Bush rammed through Congress in August because we'd all die in an imminent terrorist attack if they didn't. Now, however, Congress wants to extend the law, but because it did not and does not carry retroactive immunity, Bush, who said in August that we'd all die if this law wasn't passed, will now veto it.

So what the Democrats in the House have said is "Fine. You want to play chicken? We can too. You would rather let this supposedly life-saving bill expire rather than take out retro immunity? Go tell the American public." Good for them. If Bush actually cared about the security of the nation, he wouldn't let this expire.

By the way, while Steny Hoyer's speech was good as far as it went, what's it going to take for someone on our side to use the word "lie"?

Posted by Rick Massimo | February 15, 2008 2:31 PM

Same question:

If the President orders a private paramilitary service provider to kill someone, can the shooter, the executives, and/or that company be prosecuted for murder? Is the answer different if the killing takes place in the United States, in Iraq, or in France? How about 10 people? 100? A Presidential order to commit rape?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 15, 2008 2:46 PM

Al,

High employee costs are not the root of the dwindling profitability of GM and Ford. The heart of their problem is steadily dwindling revenues from sales. High employee costs do exacerbate the problem, but they are not the root of it. The root of the problem is that, over time, GM and Ford's management are not selling their products as well as Toyota and Honda are IN THE AMERICAN DOMESTIC MARKET, and have lost significant amounts of domestic market share. A company like GM, which has high levels of fixed costs (even when you factor out employee pay and benefits), can't afford to have its volume of sales steadily decrease in the long run. This would be a problem even if GM employees were paid exactly the same as Honda and Toyota employees.

Posted by eltoro | February 15, 2008 3:23 PM

Eltoro,

You are ignoring the effect that uneconomically high fixed labor costs have on the quality of the cars. In order to keep the price of their lower-margin sedans competitive, Ford and GM have to cut corners with chintzy interiors, fewer transmission speeds, etc. Toyota and Honda can put a few thousand dollars extra per car into quality and sell them for the same price. That's why Ford and GM have focussed on higher-margin SUVs and trucks where they have more room to absorb their too-high labor costs.

GM and Ford are both able to manufacture and sell cars profitably in other markets. They are just hemorrhaging money in North America.

Posted by Fred | February 15, 2008 4:22 PM

"GM and Ford are both able to manufacture and sell cars profitably in other markets. They are just hemorrhaging money in North America."

Fred,

Notice that many of these cars sold profitably in foreign markets are made by good old expensive American workers, with their so-called unreasonably high pay and benefits. The problem isn't that excessive labor costs engulf revenues from otherwise strong sales, but rather that weak sales by GM and Ford in their home market, which have resulted in a long-term loss of market share, can't sustain a business that is both highly labor-intensive and highly capital-intensive. So while reducing the labor costs of GM and Ford to the levels enjoyed by Toyota and Honda will greatly improve the bottom line of GM and Ford in the short run, if the management fails to increase revenues for those companies, they are doomed in the long run, because production machinery and other equipment create large fixed costs also. Increasing profits are a function both of cutting costs and of increasing revenues, but long-term profitability depends more on increased revenues.

Posted by eltoro | February 15, 2008 5:51 PM

While it is true that Honda and Toyota enjoy some financial advantages by building a lot of their cars where the state picks up the tab for health care costs, this has little to do with the fact that the Big 3 (sic) generally make shitty cars that people don't want to buy...

Posted by McKingford | February 15, 2008 7:47 PM

"Notice that many of these cars sold profitably in foreign markets are made by good old expensive American workers, with their so-called unreasonably high pay and benefits."

How many? IIRC, the bulk of these cars are manufactured overseas, in or near local markets, with local workers. Just like how Toyota and Honda manufacture cars in the U.S. that they sell in the U.S.

Posted by Fred | February 15, 2008 9:17 PM

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." One comment in this debate was as follows: "But we are talking about communications between foreign countries and the United States - i.e., cross-border activities - and there has always been an exception to the 4th Amendment for border searches. The bill does not implicate solely domestic surveillance." This comment contained incorrect conclusions in both sentences.

Most court cases regarding searches at the borders and at airports have relied on the argument that a person crossing the border and/or traveling by air does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and that the mere act of crossing the border or preparing to embark on an airline creates a low threshold for "probable cause". This has led to a series of rulings that upheld physical searches and seizures without warrants under circumstances that otherwise would not be considered reasonable. However, although many of these court decisions rely on an expansive definition of "probable cause" and an expansive definition of "reasonable" (and despite a vague assertion in a Presidential signing statement dated December 20, 2006 appended to the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act"), probable cause is still required before the Government legally may open the private mail or intercept electronic communications of U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents, even in situations which might not necessarily require a warrant.

Attorney General Mukasey's alleges that "(t)he increased volume of applications for judicial orders under FISA impaired our ability to collect critical intelligence, with little if any corresponding benefit to the privacy of people in the U.S." On November 8, 2007, the Senate Judiciary Committee received direct testimony from Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, about his personal knowledge of wiretapping by the National Security Agency (which directed the Terrorist Surveillance Program), including massive unfiltered electronic surveillance of Internet traffic and telephone calls to and from U.S. citizens. This disclosure has been an integral part of a pending lawsuit against AT&T, yet this information had received little media attention prior to the scheduling of Mr. Klein's appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Monitoring an electronic communication is a search. As specified by the Fourth Amendment, the Government must have some reasonable basis for directing a search at a particular target. Although a reasonable search does not necessarily require a warrant, probable cause is a prerequisite for any reasonable search. Contrary to what Mr. Mukasey posits, a search is not reasonable merely because the underlying motivation (e.g., the possibility that a search may uncover dangerous illegal activity) for the search is reasonable. Otherwise, there would be no legal barrier to a police state.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Mukasey have whined that, prior to passage of the Protect America Act of 2007 (PAA of 2007), FISA hindered the ability to collect information from foreign intelligence targets because "foreign-to-foreign" communications might be routed through a location in the United States, and the acquisition of such communications therefore was considered to be "in the United States" under the FISA statute. Both Mr. McConnell and Mr. Mukasey both know that the contested issue is not foreign terrorists. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2007, Mr. McConnell stated that he would oppose any language that would amend FISA only to exclude "foreign-to-foreign" communications from the scope of FISA because the intelligence-gathering agencies cannot demonstrate with certainty that those people with whom their targets will communicate would be exclusively outside the United States and because such language would not enable intelligence-gathering agencies to monitor communications of foreign intelligence targets outside the United States who may communicate with a “sleeper” or co-conspirator who is inside the United States. These are specious arguments because FISA, as it existed prior to the PAA of 2007, did not require intelligence-gathering agencies to predetermine whom their foreign intelligence targets would contact, and also did not require intelligence-gathering agencies to guarantee that communications from foreign intelligence targets would be exclusively between persons located outside the United States. The surveillance powers sought by the President and his subordinates via the PAA of 2007, and via pending FISA legislation, far exceed the authority necessary to circumvent the alleged impediments imposed by FISA relative to foreign intelligence targets. Despite their obfuscations, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence want to be able to conduct electronic surveillance without warrants and without probable cause in a wide variety of circumstances involving U.S. citizens and other legal U.S. residents, which would have required warrants under FISA prior to passage of the PAA of 2007.

Posted by Blaine Kinsey | February 16, 2008 12:00 AM

CORRECTION: I have been notified via e-mail that I unwittingly gave some misinformation about Mark Klein in a previous post. In November 2007, Mark Klein, a retired AT&T technician, visited Washington D.C. to talk to Senators, congressional staff members and journalists about his personal knowledge of wiretapping by the National Security Agency (which directed the Terrorist Surveillance Program), including massive unfiltered electronic surveillance of Internet traffic and telephone calls to and from U.S. citizens. This disclosure has been an integral part of a pending lawsuit against AT&T, yet this information had received little media attention prior to Mr. Klein's visit to Washington. I erroneously wrote that Mr. Klein testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on November 8, 2007. Mr. Klein's trip to Washington coincided with a Senate Judiciary Committee "mark-up" hearing that had been scheduled on November 8, 2007 (and that was postponed one week) to discuss the pending FISA legislation, and I had misinterpreted some contemporaneous news reports to indicate that Mr. Klein was going to testify at this Senate hearing (which was not really a hearing). I reviewed several contemporaneous news reports about Mr. Klein's trip to Washington in November 2007, and these reports are vague with respect to any members of Congress who may have met with Mr. Klein, but Mr. Klein provided information to staff members of Senator Dodd, some other congressional staff members and journalists in November 2007. Mr. Klein tried to provide information to some Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Senators Feinstein, Senator Leahy and Senator Specter), but Mr. Klein was ignored publicly by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Mr. Klein never testified before any congressional committee. I am attempting to correct an article I wrote that included this misinformation, and I apologize to readers for my error.

Posted by Blaine Kinsey | February 17, 2008 8:02 PM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 4:45 AM

MESSAGE

Posted by ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 4:45 AM