The Law Of Rule, or Who Rules The Law?

(5 pm – promoted by ek hornbeck)

This morning Marc Ash, Executive Director of Truthout.org, posted an open letter to Barack Obama. You can read the full letter at the Truthout site, but here is what I consider the salient parts of it.

Dear Senator Obama

Monday, 14 July 2008

by Marc Ash, t r u t h o u t

   Dear Senator Obama, I just slogged through a lecture by The New York Times about how it is the “far left” that is most offended by your vote to ratify retroactive immunity for the US telecommunications companies that provided aid and comfort to George W. Bush’s illegal program of domestic spying. Further, The Times implied, “mainstream Democrats” take a more mature and pragmatic view. The piece seemed to read like public relations material. But that’s silly – it was news, of course.

   In fairness, the political center moves around more than a set of goalposts on the White House lawn. So, the relevancy of the Times’s argument has a limited shelf life regardless. The real issue is twofold.

   Trust and the Law

   Let’s assume the time has come to limit the scope of your campaign signs to the word “Change.” The tag line “… we can believe in” has outlived its credibility. You may indeed change some things, but there won’t be much to believe in. It will pretty much be on a case-by-case basis from this point forward. The difference is trust. Before you had it, now you don’t.

   The problem is that what was at stake in the FISA legislation vote was more than a political ideal; it was the rule of law. You ratified an unconstitutional and egregious degradation of the Fourth Amendment. That won’t go away easily. The United States’s Constitution is not merely the security blanket for “civil liberties groups.” It is the birthright of all Americans. It is our national treasure.

   The thing that jumps out at me when I review the reader comments posted at the bottom of our article pages is the mounting outrage at what can only be described as lawlessness in our nation’s capitol. There is a growing consensus that the consent of the governed is lacking. That may not sound like a big thing, but I assure you it is. The alternative to the rule of law is the law of rule.

   The current commander in chief has established a function of monarchy in the oval office. Would you choose to undo that, or assume it? If the decision to ratify FISA was not your own inspiration, then at whose behest did you do so? And what next will they want? These are deep questions.

The big question that is on millions of minds now is why. Why would Barack Obama do this? Why blatantly support something that George Bush had been asking for for years? Why turn his back on the very people who can get him elected?

An old adage comes to mind. Follow the money.

Follow the money? What money? Exactly who benefits by Obama’s flip here? Obama?

Well, it’s a bit of an open secret, but I doubt very much you’ll ever read about it in the NYT.

The Communications and Electronics sector is the 5th largest contributor to Obama’s campaign so far towards helping get him elected.

In fact, of the twenty-one democratic senators who voted for the FISA bill and have received campaign contributions from the telecom industry which receives immunity from prosecution and/or lawsuits for enabling and doing government domestic surveillance of you, in return for selling your 4th Amendment rights to the highest bidder Barack Obama far and away leads the charge with a total of $11,670,787 received.

I never expected very much from Obama. He’s a politician after all, and as such has to do what it takes to get himself elected.

There isn’t much that any politician says worth believing in, but Obama’s shift to the center (of the money sources) is definitely something I would agree is a “change you can believe in”, I think.