Through a Glass, Darkly

According to this eye-opening Washington Post op-ed, in Vladimir Putin's Russia it's possible for government officials and well-connected individuals to commit crimes with impunity. I'm glad I don't live in a country like that!

Here if the government were to ask telecom firms to illegally cooperate with an illegal surveillance operation, we'd ensure the rule of law continues to operate by changing the law so that complying with such requests will be legal in the future and also bestowing retroactive immunity on the cooperating firms. And if the Vice President's top aide were convicted of a crime, the president would need to step in and commute his sentence. It's these kind of procedures that keep our country safe and free!

Comments

too snarky, matt. differences of degree matter. i'm not so wide-eyed; i'm a public defender, so i regularly see a double standard, but framing the putatively guilty is quite different from acting with impunity, most or all of the time. we have problems. i don't think we will convince the public that they need to be ameliorated, if we offer hyperbole.

Posted by bigbadwolf | June 22, 2008 7:17 PM

Differences of degree DO matter. However, it's clear that the degree of difference between a place like Putin's Russia and the U.S. is substantially less than it would have been, say, eight years ago.

Clinton provided far more data to Starr and the bogus Whitewater team than Bush has provided on matters of natiional policy.

Posted by Tim Connor | June 22, 2008 7:24 PM

While I tend to agree with progressive bloggers on the substance of the FISA thing, I am starting to get very much annoyed by the constant bitching and moaning and whining of the past four days.
Enough already.
We strongly disagree. We want to fight and filibuster it. But this is not the end of the world or even the worse thing this very Congress has done.

Posted by benjamin | June 22, 2008 7:25 PM

Request: FISA needs a post on it's own - nothing about Russia or Libby.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 22, 2008 8:05 PM

We've just received a very unwelcome message from the Presidential candidate we've committed ourselves to, Ben. That's the reason for all the heat recently. I personally am disappointed but not very surprised, but some less cynical Democrats are extremely unhappy.

Posted by John Emerson | June 22, 2008 8:52 PM

People are missing the point.

The only reason for the constant criticism of Putin and Russia is to gin up another cold war - that and the fact that a bunch of Russian Jewish oligarchs got their asses kicked out of Russia by Putin - and they have friends in the media business like Rupert Murdoch.

Russia is full of criminals. So what? We knew that for the last hundred years. Nothing's changed since the fall of the Soviet Union.

So why the harping? Because the "Cold War" is over - and some people hate that. And some people want to take advantage of that to get rich.

M: "Christ, I miss the Cold War." - Casino Royale

George Kaplan: "God, I miss Communism. The Red threat... people were scared... the Agency had some respect and I got laid every night." - Hudson Hawk

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 22, 2008 9:14 PM

John,

Right.

Firstly, this took me by surprise

Second, I don't understand the politics of it. Telecom immunity is not a winning issue for the Republicans, and they would not be able to beat Obama in a head on fight over this before the public. Maybe I'm wrong, and one thing I'll give Team Obama, is that they understand politics a lot better than I do, but I have not even seen a good explanation

Third, Obama's "when I become president I'll be careful" is as bad a response as possible, first, he may not become president, second, the telecom immunity can't be undone and third, eventually there will be a different president who may not be as careful.

This is a very disappointing episode for Obama. A lot of enthusiasm for him has been drained. He's the politician. If he thinks he gained more from independents than he is losing from the democratic left, then that's his decision to make and he'll balance the pros and cons, but there is a definite loss he's taking over this issue.

I wish there was some transparency. If Reid or Pelosi was outmaneuvered, I'd like to see someone say that and then I'd understand, otherwise this is baffling and costly for Obama.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 22, 2008 10:13 PM

Well done on citing those sources, RSH. The last Bond movie and an early 90s flick that was better as a video game clearly prove the existence of a massive Jewish mafia conspiracy to revive the Cold War. That's some brilliant investigation on your part.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 22, 2008 10:43 PM

Totally, Angry Sam. Peope who quote popular culture in an attempt to contextualize political commentary are such tools.

Posted by scythia | June 22, 2008 11:32 PM

Hudson Hawk?

Really?

Posted by calipygian | June 23, 2008 12:00 AM

Is Big Media Matt consitutionally incapable of making a post about Russia that isn't in some way excusing the current regime?

Seriously, why the Russia apologia? It makes no real sense as far as I can tell.

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 23, 2008 1:09 AM

Hektor--it makes a lot more sense than all the whining about FISA, which has done absolutely no damage to anyone's actual civil liberties as near as I can tell. Where are all the innocents prosecuted under this?

This is a classic example of over-reaching hysteria on the left, and of Obama's basically pragmatic common sense. Those who are "shocked" are going to have to get used to the idea that their perspective on this and many related issues is considered reflective of lunatic fringe attitudes by most folks, apparently including those who will be running the next Administration.

Posted by robert powell | June 23, 2008 3:16 AM

Whining about FISA? Oh, the humanity.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 23, 2008 8:53 AM

Sure, its EXACTLY the same thing! Glad you are continually demonstrating intellectual honesty. Mazel tov on a brilliant post!

Posted by FreddyBak | June 23, 2008 9:38 AM

Sure, its EXACTLY the same thing! Glad you are continually demonstrating intellectual honesty. Mazel tov on a brilliant post!

Posted by FreddyBak | June 23, 2008 9:40 AM

Is Big Media Matt consitutionally incapable of making a post about Russia that isn't in some way excusing the current regime?

Please point me to the quote in the post where MY excuses the Russian regime.

Posted by Rambuncle | June 23, 2008 10:14 AM

Why all the long faces about FISA? Oh sure, a GOPer congress would have done exactly the same thing. But hey! With the Dems running congress, women and minorities finally got to share in the opportunity to screw us out of our civil liberties.

Posted by kafka | June 23, 2008 10:48 AM

Why all the long faces about FISA? Oh sure, a GOPer congress would have done exactly the same thing.

Depressingly enough, these more sweeping FISA revisions couldn't make it through a GOPer Congress. It only became possible after Dems took control and combined piglike greed for telecom cash with pants-wetting cowardice of what the mean ol' GOP might say about them.

Posted by mds | June 23, 2008 11:08 AM

He's mocking the article for its concerns, by saying that we already live in that country, and thus it can't be that bad.

Matt seems to be a committed anti-anti-Russian, from his posting history.

Posted by Hektor Bim | June 23, 2008 11:29 AM

Matt seems to be a committed anti-anti-Russian, from his posting history.

By all means, link to a sampling of that history. I think we all need to hold MY's feet to the fire over his support for antidemocratic regimes.

He's mocking the article for its concerns, by saying that we already live in that country, and thus it can't be that bad.

Actually, for the non-stupid, or those with grade-school literacy or above, he's sarcastically noting that legitimate criticisms of overreaching Russian government power could also be applied to us here in the Land of the Free. Which should be considered as a warning to us, not as a laurel and hearty handshake for Putin.

Posted by mds | June 23, 2008 1:42 PM

Right, mds. We're practically living in a Gulag. Where's that remote, and my bowl of Cheetos?

Posted by robert powell | June 23, 2008 2:11 PM

Anyone conflating the political/criminal climate in Russia and the US needs to get out more.

Ref. FISA - the Western European law enforcement use of "intrusive" monitoring makes FISA look like patty cakes. The Germans, Brits and French are kicking in a lot of doors and dragging out wannabe jihadis by the dozens based on various monitoring programs.

Posted by danceswithgoats | June 23, 2008 5:27 PM

I agree with Benjamin. The basic thrust of the Pelosi-Hoyer compromise is sound, even if the actual negotiating was a rout of state power against liberties. I regret that that is so, but if the law "eviscerates the Fourth Amendment" as the alarmists (see Greenwald) claim, then there is yet another branch of government whose job it is to make that determination.

Does anyone deny that the proper place for changes in public attitudes about the balance of liberty against security measures to be registered is in fact the legislature? The public's will on that score should be put into effect by its representatives, who will pass laws that in theory embody those attitudes. The judiciary then has its bite at the apple.

The notion that an event such as 9-11 should not factor into the public's weighing of these inevitably competing imperatives was always simply imaginary. Benjamin Franklin made his view of the relative worth of liberty to security known, but he notably did not seek to write his view into the document he shaped.

Here is the Fourth Amendment:

"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."

This is self-evidently a very high standard, and a brief discussion of the legislative judicial history of the government's attempts to use the proliferation of communication technology to extend public security be found here: http://www.cybertelecom.org/Security/bigbrother.htm.

My reading of the text would suggest that any search of any qualifying piece of personal property including communications is illegal if it is not specifically and individually described and affirmed under oath by the officer seeking the warrant as justified by probable cause.

Can we pause for a moment to appreciate the profound depth and sweeping scope of that protection? Basically, the authorities need to know ahead of time what they will find if they want to search anything you don't want them to. (With a few exceptions, including communications and property that is not really yours, ie school lockers and work computers.)

We are certainly right to cherish this remarkable protection of our persons and effects. But does not an immediate question arise in trying to figure how this limitation on public power relates to the purpose laid out in the preamble: to establish domestic tranquility (no less -- to say nothing of simple public safety) and to provide for the common defense?

Well, Congress certainly has over the years (see the link above). They have set about trying to establish legislative grounds for providing authorities with the means to take actions deemed in the public good. At times they have certainly overreached, and been set right by the courts. But here I would suggest that in fact by a strict reading, all of these efforts should have been reject in deference to the clear language in the text. But they weren't. The public interest in a reasonable interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has consistently overridden what is a clear prohibition on non-pre-approved searches. We as a society have found that the need to provide authorities with some room to operate in behalf of public safety in violation of a strict reading of the Fourth Amendment, provided strict conditions are met, is desirable. It is our Constitution, our democracy, and our
safety at issue, after all.

So when September 11th came along, it is not curious that the public view of the extent of latitude the public felt it should provide the authorities changed. This took immediate form in the USA PATRIOT Act, and it continues through the debate we have today.

Many of us, myself included, have felt that perhaps we have moved too far in providing leeway to the Executive. I believe the bill just agreed upon certainly provides too much power without preserving enough of the protections of the Fourth Amendment.

But to suggest that these type of interpretive calibrations are of themselves tantamount to the evisceration of the Amendment is simple absolutism. The public's view of the reasonableness of searches under various conditions must come into play in the application of the text.

We have experienced the alternative to this, wherein the president acts outside of his legislative authority. If the legislature moves to provide reasonable discretion to the government (which I agree the compromise we now have does not), then the president will have no excuse in future attemts to act outside his delineated authority. The additional benefit of this approach is that acts of the legislature are subject to judicial review, whereas illegal acts of the Executive are essentially beyond the scope of checks and balances to address. Impeachment, as we have found out, is not an effective measure as it is a purely political process, as the Framers recognized.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/21/obama/index.html

Posted by Mike | June 23, 2008 5:53 PM

Angry Sam, Scythia and Calipygian.

Since when it is unreasonable to refer to pop culture to illustrate - as opposed to "make", which is quite different - a point?

Well, when the assholes complaining are unreasonable, I guess.

OK, ok, everybody hated "Hudson Hawk", I get that. It still had the best quote I could use to illustrate my point. It's not like there aren't plenty of neocon assholes writing op-eds trying to start a new Cold War that I couldn't quote, but I'm too lazy to look them up - IMDB is easier.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 24, 2008 1:12 AM

Hack,

Better reading comprehension skills, please. Or at least click through my links.

Posted by scythia | June 24, 2008 2:06 AM

I guess FISA is not such a good example.

I would give other:

An attempt to use federal District Attorney to harrass Democrats like activists registering poor people to vote or the governor of Alabama. It was a "pure Putin".

Next, numerous billions spend in Iraq with the sketchiest of accounting, if any, including a totally unaccounted expenditure of 9 billions in CASH. This really smacks Nigeria.

Third, carving out "law free zones" where law, somehow, miraculously, does not apply at all, be it murder or Iraqi civilians or rape of American workers. I would call it "beyond Putin".

Next, a considerable operation to plant false stories in the press, using an entire network of people retired from the military, who served as press consultants and simultaneously got generous payments from the military for planting the fiction as facts. This would be "not quite Putin, more subtle but with a similar outcome".

How much viscera, blood and flesh is left in the Fourth Amendment, it is hard to tell as the details remain secret.

Next, Putin waged, and perhaps still wages, a dirty law in Chechnya, while our wars in Iraq in Afghanistan are conducted in a "law-free manner". Do we get points for lesser hypocrisy?

Now, the greatest contrast, Putin run roughshod over oil companies to bring them to heel and to extract, rather efficiently, enormous taxes, so oil was almost nationalized. This effort was quite popular domestically, and met with opprobrium in Western press. Our government treats oil companies with reverence and lavishes them with tax privileges -- while allowing other companies to exploit tax loopholes well beyond any reasonable.

Finally, again and again we witness the following spectacle: and American high official, say, vice-Presidents, visits a Baltic country and makes a couragious speech about abuses of democracy in Russia. The next stop is Kazakhstan where the same official ingratiates himself (or herself) in a vague hope that the local satrap will be more favorable inclined to our interests. Actually, Kazakhstan remains very tightly allied with Russia, if less democratic, but Azerbaijan is a success story that we want to repeat: a friendly dictatorship run by former KGB folks.

Posted by piotr | June 24, 2008 9:42 AM