John Dean Weighs In On His FISA Comment

[slipslidingaway]

http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/27/glenzilla-vs-olbermann-john-dean-weighs-in/

"...But I contacted John Dean, and I don't think he's saying what Olbermann thinks he's saying:

I said that when I read the bill, and talked to the folks at the ACLU who had been following it, that it was not clear. I raised it when appearing on Countdown with the hope that someone might figure it out. But that is the nature of this badly drafted bill that it is not clear what it does and does not do, and the drafters are not saying.

But even if the bill is unclear there is no question the Bush Administration is not going to do anything to the telecoms, so the question is whether a future DOJ could -- and here there is case law protecting the telecoms. But there may be language buried in the bill that protects them as well but it can only be found by reading the bill with a half dozen other laws which I have not yet done.

I made no declarative statements rather I only raised questions that jumped at me when reading the 114 page monster..."

[Analitico]

1. So Olbermann distorted Dean's statements

From the article:

I made no declarative statements rather I only raised questions that jumped at me when reading the 114 page monster.

[FrenchieCat]

2. He raised a question after

he had read the bill.

Have you read it?

[Analitico]

3. He reached no conclusions

Plus, reading the bill without coupling it with other laws, as Dean said, is useless.
Olbermann never simply said that Dean "raised questions". K.O. simply said that Dean is right and Greenwald is wrong, because Dean is "worth 25 Greenwalds', and I quote.

[kentuck]

4. Is your user name pronounced...?

anal-itico or ana-litico?? :-) Just curious?

[slipslidingaway]

5. Distorted or enhanced ??? Dean's statement on 6/20/08

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25332028

"DEAN: Well, I spent a lot of time reading that bill today, and it‘s a very poorly-drafted bill. One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability..."


Regarding the bill in general he also said...

"DEAN: Well, I think, you‘ve got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it‘s very troubling and it‘s not a good day for civil liberties, particularly."


"One of the things that is not clear" does not sound like a declarative statement to me.

:shrug:


And welcome to DU

:)


Yes, I would say that there was some distorting or maybe wishful thinking on the part of Olbermann, this was from 6/23/08 and there were other comments later in the week.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25350203/


"...OLBERMANN: But to the point of the Constitution, John Dean made a fascinating point on this news hour on Friday. He read this bill and he knows a little something about the Constitution, too. He says it‘s so sloppily written that nothing in there would rule out later criminal liabilities for the telecom companies.

Could that be, actually, what Obama is counting on, just sort of cede this civil action stuff which is basically in lieu of sending these people to jail and just concentrate on, you know, closing up whatever perceived weakness there is of the Democrats being soft on counterterror and, in fact, just hold a bigger punch back until after the election?"


Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/27/olbermann/

"...Olbermann is referring to comments Dean made on his show about the FISA bill last Friday. Here is the very first thing Dean said about the House bill that Obama now supports:

DEAN: Well, I think, you've got to give one for the terrorists on our Fourth Amendment. They really did some damage today in this so-called compromise, contrary to what the speaker said that really does hurt the Constitution. So, it's very troubling and it's not a good day for civil liberties, particularly.

Dean went on to speculate that because the bill is poorly drafted, an argument might be constructed that it extinguishes only civil liability for the telecoms but fails to immunize them from criminal liability.

I don't disagree with that. In fact, it doesn't seem to be through sloppiness or neglect -- but rather through deliberate intent -- that the bill only immunizes telecoms from civil, not criminal, liability (the key telecom section, 802(a), provides that "a civil action may not lie or be maintained against any person providing assistance to the intelligence community" where the bill's conditions are met). There are likely many reasons for confining immunity to civil liability -- including the heightened difficulty of proving criminal intent and, most importantly, the fact that Bush, on his way out, can pardon telecoms from criminal but not civil liability. So it's far from certain that Obama -- even if he did have a Secret Plan criminally to prosecute telecoms once in office -- would even be able to do so. If Bush pardons everyone connected to his illegal spying program, as many have speculated he might, then Obama's Secret Plan -- even if it existed -- would be instantaneously extinguished. That's why these telecom lawsuits are the only real avenue left to ensure accountability and obtain a legal ruling on what was done..."

[slipslidingaway]

6. k n/t

[flpoljunkie]

7. Olbermann said Dean had reread the bill and stood by his original opinion telecoms criminally liable

and that a President Obama could do just that--hold them criminally liable for their actions.

Olbermann said this Friday night. Olbermann also said he'd have a "special comment" on this Monday night.

[slipslidingaway]

8. Thanks, although Dean's original statement was that he did not

know for sure whether or not they could be held criminally liable, so I would not say that Dean is standing by his original comment.

:shrug:

See the Greenwald links below on civil vs. criminal liability and the issue of pardons.


Dean on 6/20/08

"One of the things that is not clear is whether it‘s not possible later to go after the telecoms for criminal liability..."


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/27/olbermann/index.html

"...There are likely many reasons for confining immunity to civil liability -- including the heightened difficulty of proving criminal intent and, most importantly, the fact that Bush, on his way out, can pardon telecoms from criminal but not civil liability. So it's far from certain that Obama -- even if he did have a Secret Plan criminally to prosecute telecoms once in office -- would even be able to do so. If Bush pardons everyone connected to his illegal spying program, as many have speculated he might, then Obama's Secret Plan -- even if it existed -- would be instantaneously extinguished. That's why these telecom lawsuits are the only real avenue left to ensure accountability and obtain a legal ruling on what was done.

But beyond all that, to give Obama a pass on his support for such a heinous bill -- one which Dean himself describes as a grave assault on the Constitution -- based on this imagined secret plan for the Good that Obama is harboring is to illustrate exactly the sort of blind faith in political leaders that is so dangerous. That's been the Right's mentality to excuse every last thing Bush does:"


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/29/center/index.html

"...As a brief follow-up to the Keith-Olbermann-promoted claim that Obama's support for the FISA bill is justifiable not only because it lets him avoid being depicted as "soft on terror," but also because it leaves open the possibility that Obama can criminally prosecute telecoms once he's President, NPR correspondent Daniel Schorr said last January that he "can imagine Mr. Bush, if nothing else avails, issuing a blanket pardon for phone companies that may have broken the law." As I pointed out on Friday, a Bush pardon would completely foreclose any Secret Plan to prosecute the telecoms criminally, even if Obama really did harbor such a plan and intended to execute it (despite never having even hinted at any such thing). On Friday, Olbermann announced that he intends to deliver a "Special Comment" on Monday's show to elaborate on his "Obama/FISA" defense. When doing so, he should address this rather towering defect in his Obama-defending theory."

[slipslidingaway]

9. kick, it will be interesting to see what Olbermann says tonight n/t

[grantcart]

10. It is clearly a poorly written bill given the fact that people cannot agree what it actually means

As for criminal liability I would think that it would be hard to get a jury to agree that the telecoms were guilty of anything criminally wrong when they were simply being negligent following official requests from the government. The real violators of the law were those that put the telecoms on the spot.

I would bet that Bush would give those people pardons before he pardons the telecoms (can you even pardon a corporate entity?)

[slipslidingaway]

11. So why not wait and address the issue after Bush leaves office?

Not sure about pardoning a corporate entity, but maybe a few key people in that corporation???

The telecoms knew the law, they helped write the original FISA law and at least one, Qwest, refused to go along with the administration's request.


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

"NSA spying

In May 2006, USA Today reported that millions of telephone calling records had been handed over to the United States National Security Agency by AT&T Corp., Verizon, and BellSouth since September 11, 2001. This data has been used to create a database of all international and domestic calls. Qwest was allegedly the lone holdout, despite threats from the NSA that their refusal to cooperate may jeopardize future government contracts <5>, a decision which has earned them praise from those who oppose the NSA program <6>.

A federal judge on August 17, 2006 ruled that the government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately. The Bush Administration has filed an appeal in the case which has yet to be heard in court. <7>

Former Qwest CEO Joseph Nacchio, who was convicted of insider trading in April 2007, alleged in appeal documents that the NSA requested that Qwest participate in its wiretapping program more than six months before September 11, 2001. Nacchio recalls the meeting as occurring on February 27, 2001. Nacchio further claims that the NSA cancelled a lucrative contract with Qwest as a result of Qwest's refusal to participate in the wiretapping program<8>."

[slipslidingaway]

12. John Dean's new article on the FISA bill

John Dean: 'IF Obama Is A Man Of His Word-He WILL Place Bush Admin & Telcos On Notice"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3549422&mesg_id=3549422


"The Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential standard-bearer, Senator Barack Obama, surprised many when he announced that he would support the legislation passed by the House of Representatives on June 20, 2008 amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). While the House legislation was called a compromise, it was virtually identical to the earlier, rejected proposals that the Bush Administration had requested and that organizations like the ACLU had fought for months – and continue to fight – to defeat..."

[Johonny]

13. I really don't care about the telecoms so much

To me it's not if we will punish them for acting in good faith with our government. It's knowing exactly what they did and if what they did was illegal making sure the person that ordered the illegal activity is punished. I hoping the new DOJ uses this bill to go after those in the executive branch that ordered illegal wire taps. Since it sounds like telecoms must provide names and documents to support who sponsored the taps to get immunity... it sounds like an evidence producing process is included in the bill.