Tag: FISA

I originally posted this video interview with Zinn back on April 10, 2009 following the then recent revelations of President Obama’s DOJ under Eric Holder betraying Obama’s campaign promises to instead embrace the Bush administrations claims for immunity and “states secrets” in the case of clear FISA violations and illegal wiretapping.

So much more has gone down since then, and Obama has turned his back on so many of his campaign pledges to make his administrations policy decisions so far essentially a direct extension of the policies of the past eight years, with most of the bigger points outlined in Paul Street’s recent article The Dawning Age of Obama as a Potentially Teach-able Moment for The Left that I wonder if it is time for revisiting what Zinn had to say in this interview now…

In part three of what was a series of interviews, historian, political scientist, social critic, activist, author and playwright Professor Howard Zinn talks here with Real News CEO Paul Jay about why so many people seem to be convinced that Obama is anything more than what he appears to be given his actions and policies implemented since inauguration, and about how to create a mass popular movement to pressure Obama for progressive results in a supportive way, and concludes that social turmoil is not only not bad but necessary if it leads to something good in the sense of creating real change.

Real News – April 10, 2009

Send a message to Obama

Howard Zinn: Social turmoil is not bad if it leads to something good

     George W Bush may have damaged this Democracy beyond all repair.

    The Constitution defines the powers of the Executive Branch and the Presidency. George W Bush took power beyond those which are defined in the Constitution.

    As of now the President CAN spy on me, name me a terrorist, imprison me without trial and torture me until I confess to something. Should it give me any comfort that he promises not to do so? Or should I wait until some President (or his advisors) feel less squeamish about it?

    With those new extra-Constitutional power, George W Bush became MORE THAN just a President. With the new and un-Constitutional powers of office, the Presidency under Bush became less Democratic and more Authoritarian.

    For all intents and purposes, George W Bush was more than a man, but less than a God.

   Now that President Obama holds the office, it is his duty to restore the powers of the Executive branch to their original status as defined within the Constitution.

   So far, the Obama Administration has applied the same strategy Bush had been following to matters related to the Iraq-Torture scandal, all while telling us repeatedly, “No. Trust us. We will handle it. “

    and we are supposed to believe them.

When George W Bush and his administration took new Executive Powers for themselves they let the Genie out of the bottle. Our job is to put the Genie back in.

    So, what happens if POTUS Obama does not intend to abdicate the un-Constitutional powers of the executive branch that were illegally taken by the Bush Administration. What if he will not deny future Presidents the ability to name citizens “enemy combatants”. What if he will not deny our Government the ability to illegal spy on citizens without a specific warrant. What if he will not deny future Presidents the ability to torture when necessary. His Chief Of Staff has said as much. But he promises not to let it happen again.

    President Obama, your promises are meaningless to me.

    Your actions speak volumes.

    The day I fully believe the promises of any politician is the day I pack my bags for the funny farm. Especially after the last President, and especially when I consider who may be the next one.

    “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    If Obama does not CHANGE his view on this issue, I can no longer have any HOPE he will be able to administer his office as required under the Oath he swore to when he accepted it.

   What matters more than our basic HUMAN RIGHTS? Tax code and global warming mean nothing to a man tied to a rack.

   And if you can do it to somebody, you can do it to anybody.

   To those who would say that this will mean the Republicans will win, I ask you, which should I prefer?

   the straight road to hell?

   or the scenic route?

Crossposted from Antemedius

Particularly relevant following the recent revelations of President Obama’s DOJ under Eric Holder betraying Obama’s campaign promises to instead embrace the Bush administrations claims for immunity and “states secrets” in the case of clear FISA violations and illegal wiretapping, in part three of a series of interviews historian, political scientist, social critic, activist, author and playwright Professor Howard Zinn talks with Real News CEO Paul Jay about why so many people seem to be convinced that Obama is anything more than what he appears to be given his actions and policies implemented since inauguration, and about how to create a mass popular movement to pressure Obama for progressive results in a supportive way, and concludes that social turmoil is not only not bad but necessary if it leads to something good in the sense of creating real change.

Real News – April 10, 2009

Send a message to Obama

Howard Zinn: Social turmoil is not bad if it leads to something good

According to White House Press Secretary Gibbs, who spoke yesterday to reporters, President Obama agrees with the position taken by his DoJ.

Responding late Friday afternoon to a suit filed by the EFF against the NSA, the Justice Department

argued that the case should be dismissed because information surrounding the program was a “state secret” and therefore couldn’t be litigated or discussed. It also proposed that the government was protected by “sovereign immunity” under federal wiretapping statutes and the Patriot Act, arguing that the United States could only face lawsuits if they willfully elected to disclose intelligence obtained by wiretapping.

follow me…  

From Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF):

Obama Administration Embraces Bush Position on Warrantless Wiretapping and Secrecy

Says Court Must Dismiss Jewel v. NSA to Protect ‘State Secrets’

San Francisco – The Obama administration formally adopted the Bush administration’s position that the courts cannot judge the legality of the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s) warrantless wiretapping program, filing a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA late Friday.

n Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is challenging the agency’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans. The Obama Justice Department claims in its motion that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged “state secrets.” These are essentially the same arguments made by the Bush administration three years ago in Hepting v. AT&T, EFF’s lawsuit against one of the telecom giants complicit in the NSA spying.

I know it’s hard to move on, but I really hope that in the months and weeks leading up to January 20th, the left liberal blogosphere will not focus its attention single-mindedly on every rumor of Obama cabinet appointments or even every toothsome morsel of gossip about Republican backbiting and infighting.

It seems there are three main responses progressives and leftists are taking to the new administration-in-formation.

The first is the classic honeymoon:

Cut the guy some slack, he’s got a lot on his plate. Already the election has had a transforming effect on the mood of people in the country and more good stuff is on the way. Now is not the time to be tugging his coattails.

The second is to try and lobby or bring direct pressure to bear on the Obama/Biden team, the Congressional Dems and/or the Democratic Party machine around a broad agenda or, more commonly a particular issue. In particular, This takes the form of trying to call in markers by forces who worked hard to produce the Obama landslide. The clearest example is the drive announced by the Change to Win union coalition to get the Employee Free Choice Act “card check” law passed in the first 100 days of the new administration. The AFL-CIO, for its part, is calling for a million EFCA petition signatures to be delivered on Inauguration Day. Similar calls have been launched by health care reform groups, (The push here to defend the 50 state strategy and its organizing core seems to fall into this category.)

The third is the one I want to argue for. It has already been modeled modeled by the Proposition 8 activists in California and their supporters around the country in the wake of Tuesday’s vote.. They chose a target, the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints (a/k/a the Mormon Church), and lit it up with militant demonstrations, extensive muckraking exposure of the facts, and public online debate over, and planning for, a possible boycott of Utah.

I would characterize this third option as creating a firestorm of struggles, locally-based in the main, around critical issues. These will by and large not make the administration-to-be their main target but will create facts on the ground in terms of social unrest among important sections of the people, which will have to be factored into their planning and policy-making.

A couple of additional points on this strategic approach:

1. Those arguing for the second approach should bear in mind the FISA battle of this spring, when folks across the left liberal blogosphere, a sector Obama owed bigtime, fought urgently to get him to stand up for constitutional rule in this country. A broad united front of progressives, liberals, civil liberties advocates and libertarians was quickly built. Funds were raised and teevee ads even made. What his backers got from Obama was one live-blog session with some staffers defending his unconscionable support for the Bush-engineered FISA bill, which passed.

2. Some may object that this doesn’t deal with the big picture can be made, but let’s take the example of the global economic meltdown and the rapidly deepening depression in this country. Obama’s seventeen-advisor panel is drawn from the very clowns and crooks who dragged the world into this mess. The best thing that could happen before the inauguration would be a wave of protests-against plant closings here, foreclosures there, tuition hikes on campus, service cuts in broke communities. The bankers, the automakers, the shippers are already whispering in every ear they can find, amplifying their urgency with “common sense” and the rustle of lobbying cash. We have to show that listening to them has real social costs as well as fiscal ones.

3. The worst thing about Obama for many of his supporters was his “tough guy” military stance, The promise of an eventual substantial withdrawal from Iraq-providing the high command agrees-is more than undercut by his pledge to dump thousands more troops into Afghanistan (the Graveyard of Empires, going back millennia) and “plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marines by 27,000 troops.” It is time for the anti-war movement, which has done so much to crystallize opposition to the occupation of Iraq (and thus to turn the public away from the Republicans), to step up again. Troops are dying, Iraqis are dying. The war has brought unimaginable devastation to their country and costs ours $2.5 billion a week. We can’t wait for Inauguration Day to make our voices heard. A good place to start is the Iraq Moratorium. This locally-based Third Friday protest will be observed by groups and individuals around the country on November 21, for the fifteenth straight month. Make plans to take part now!

Crossposted at

Daily Kos.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com has succinctly made the point about the pending Obama victory, saving me the trouble of writing it out in my own strained syntax:

It certainly seems, by all appearances, that Barack Obama and Joe Biden will win on Tuesday (though anything can happen, don’t assume anything, etc. etc.). For reasons I’ve explained many times before, I consider that to be a good and important outcome (principally due to the need to excise the Right from power for as long as possible). But the virtually complete absence from the presidential campaign of any issues pertaining to the executive power abuses of the last eight years — illegal eavesdropping, torture, rendition, due-process-less detentions, the abolition of habeas corpus, extreme and unprecedented secrecy, general executive lawlessness — reflects how much further work and effort will be required to make progress on these issues no matter what happens on Tuesday.

It doesn’t help that Obama has already voted with the national security fetishists on FISA expanded wiretapping.

Original article, by Joe Mowrey and sub-titled Which Candidate Supports Petraeus, the Bailout, the Death Penalty, Nuclear Power, the Occupation, the Cuban Embargo …, via counterpunch.com.

Ooooh…a guessing game. I wonder who it could be? Hmmmm?  Let’s find out below the fold!