- 14:06 I'm getting @scobleizer spam. Leave doesn't work.
- 18:11 Trying out Seesmic. Hi everyone!
Imported by LoudTwitter
- 19:27 It's raining and it's gridlock. Should have telecommuted.
Imported by LoudTwitter
Nice post on The Board, the New York Times' editorial blog, about Bush's reference to immunity. From the post:
It was hardly his only moment of illogic, even on the subject of telecom immunity. He began his discussion of anti-terrorism tactics by saying “we will continue to take every lawful and effective measure to protect the country.” As bloggers, and others, were quick to point out, if the nation is taking only “lawful” steps, why exactly is there such a need to enact a law giving immunity?
Thanks NYT!
I haven't followed the news from Congress today, but the good news from yesterday was that the Senate is continuing to debate, rather than settle on their immunity version.
And by the way, the immunity provision is just one bad part of a generally bad law, which is why Congress should take the necessary time to properly debate it, before making it permanent. If you want to spy on Americans, please provide for judicial oversight. Does anyone want to live in a country where the Executive Branch can invade anyone's privacy without independent oversight? The brilliance of how our Constitution was designed is that it provides for checks and balances and separation of powers. (Remember that 8th grade civics class?) This is a Good Thing (tm), for many reasons including because it's supposed to prevent over-enthusiastic well-intentioned people in government (with guns) from (maybe inadvertently) treating their fellow citizens badly.
- 18:01 Who's the secretary of the interior again?
- 18:30 Shoot, there goes eBay's next business.
- 19:00 Mr President: why do telecoms need immunity if your orders to them were legal?
- 20:19 Bush:"Cngrs must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America." Me: pmo.vox.com
Imported by LoudTwitter
President Bush included the following statement in tonight's State of the Union address:
Congress must pass liability protection for companies believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend America.
I ask, why do companies need liability protection if their assistance was lawful? Well, most likely because their assistance was not lawful, or the order given to them to assist was not lawful. (See my longer post on the topic of retroactive immunity for obeying an illegal order.)
I especially like the awkward language "believed to have assisted." Believed by who? Did they or didn't they assist "in the efforts to defend America"? And what does belief have to do with it anyway? No offense to my lawyer friends, but I think a lawyer wrote that line.
By the way, if you want more in-depth resources on FISA and the NSA wiretapping/eavesdropping program, check out CDT's page on FISA and NSA Warrantless Snooping. The immunity issue is one piece of a much more far-reaching effort to extend the President's power at the expense of American's civil liberties.
- 14:28 happy to report no cases of iPhone silently dropping my outgoing email since 1.1.3 update. Hope I don't jinx it!
- 14:54 Playing backgammon with my 6 year old.
- 16:35 What do I have to do to get Qik and Seesmic invitations? I want to see how these things work.
- 16:39 Never mind, looks like Qik approved my alpha request and is downloading to my phone.
- 17:15 Thanks GG! All set.
- 17:50 @jimoconnell Flickr seems ok to me.
Imported by LoudTwitter
- 13:57 Do you believe in evolution? My thoughts: tinyurl.com/2hnfo2
- 15:31 Above the Law: Telecoms and Bush Administration. My thoughts: tinyurl.com/yu36nk
Imported by LoudTwitter
The Bush Administration has been pushing hard for the Congress to grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that cooperated with its domestic wiretapping program, the legality of which is still in question. For most Americans, this story falls in the category of boring, but important. Most aren't even aware that we're facing a Constitutional question that could fundamentally change the way we govern ourselves, and how we hold each other accountable.
A little history. In 2001, the NSA approached at least AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, and BellSouth, and requested their cooperation in installing wiretap capabilities to monitor all voice and data traffic on their networks, without a court order. As reported by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of the New York Times, this is significant for a variety of reasons, which I don't have time to fully explore here. The important point is that the NSA apparently had no legal basis on which to request this cooperation. This point has not been substantively disputed or tested in court, and that's why the legality of the program is still in question.
The exact date in 2001 when this began is of some debate. The Administration has acknowledged that it sought this cooperation after September 11. On the other hand, former Qwest CEO Joseph P. Nacchio claims he was summoned to the NSA's headquarters in Fort Meade, MD, in February, 2001, just weeks after the Bush Administration took over, to discuss this program. Qwest refused to participate, citing the agency's lack of a warrant or other legal process.
(Nacchio made this claim while defending himself against insider trading charges, of which he was later convicted. He also claimed that the agency retaliated at his refusal to cooperate by denying Qwest lucrative contracts. As it happens, the "good guy" in this part of the story is so far the only one to have been convicted of a crime.)
As a business leader, I've been torn on how I feel about the issue of retroactive immunity. On the one hand, you could argue that a CEO shouldn't risk going to jail for responding in good faith to a request from the President of the United States. On the other hand, what happens if no one is actually checking whether or not the President's request is actually legal?
Given the ease with which we've seen the Bush Administration circumvent Constitutional checks and balances, I think we need to err on the side of more checks and balances, not fewer. Let me be clear: on this point, my problem is with the integrity of our our system of government, not with the Bush Administration in particular. Vice President Cheney in particular has been open on his attempts to increase Executive Branch power, as a matter of ideology, rather than a specific policy agenda.
For a refresher on how the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches are supposed to balance each other and limit each others' powers, please refer to your 8th grade civics textbook. (Except that apparently no one teaches civics to students anymore, which is another depressing and dangerous development.)
But that's not the central point. Now that this has all happened and has been publicized, the Administration is pushing hard to grant retroactive immunity to the companies that did cooperate without legal authority, in case it turns out that their cooperation violated the law.
I guess that's better than the alternative: after having secured their cooperation, if the Administration didn't come to their defense once it looked like various laws might have been broken, that would really put a damper on the Executive Branch's ability to request cooperation from private citizens in the future.
On the other hand, that's exactly why immunity is a terribly dangerous idea. The message it sends is that citizens are absolved of any responsibility to check the legality of an order that comes from the President. That even if the order is illegal, they are innocent conspirators simply because they were following orders.
Any student of history would tell you that this is a really, really bad idea.
Furthermore, obeying a secret order from the President is even more dangerous. It is well established that anonymity plus the color of authority is an extremely dangerous combination, and can cause even good people to do terrible things. Something happens where individual conscience is trumped by authority, especially when protected by anonymity. See the Stanley Milgram experiments, for one study, or Abu Grahib for a more recent example.
All of this leads me quite clearly to this conclusion. Granting immunity for potentially illegal cooperation with the President puts us in dangerous territory. I understand that these telecom executives may be innocent bystanders caught in a Constitutional struggle between the three Branches, but that doesn't excuse the fact that they didn't ask about the legal basis for the orders. Remember, Joseph Nacchio claims to have simply asked the question. Asking the question would not have been that hard. We can at least expect our CEOs to ask the question.
If this is about setting an example for the future, the message we need to send is that it is the responsibility of every citizen to ensure he is obeying the law, even when subject to a Presidential Order.
* * *
Postscript: It looks as though the Congress is going to cave on this point. The Senate is advancing legislation that includes retroactive immunity.
I beg them to do the right thing: do not grant blanket retroactive immunity. If you must, out of humanitarian concern for the individuals, consider granting clemency or some form of Congressional pardon. Make it clear that this is a one-time thing, and that Congress does not intend to generally pardon future extra-legal cooperation with the President.
* * *
Update: For an update on the current status of the broader issues of domestic surveillance, see the New York Times' editorial on the issue today.
That was the question posed to Mike Huckabee, who is running for President. His answer, basically, is no, I don't believe in evolution, I believe in what is written in the Bible. Like almost everyone who discusses this issue, he was tripped up by the question, and his answer was irrelevant. I'm not saying his answer is wrong. I'm saying his answer isn't relevant to the question, and it's a trick question to begin with.
Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in electricity? If you answer "yes" to either question, I've tripped you up and your answer is also irrelevant. Gravity and electricity exist and occur, whether or not we believe in them. In the same way, evolution occurs whether or not we believe in it.
I think the whole science versus religion debate has gotten completely out of whack and I'm surprised commentators on both sides haven't addressed the fundamental mismatch that is fueling the entire debate. There's science, and there's faith. The two are completely different from one another and completely unrelated. They're orthogonal. They can't contradict each other, and they can coexist without diminishing the other.
Religions focus on belief, disbelief, and faith. The benefits of religion and spiritual paths only accrue to those who have a solid foundation of faith in their path. All religions admonish their followers to be firm in their faith, or face negative consequences (ranging from the neutral to the very negative). Some religions assert that reliance on reason is not a substitute for faith. In other words, belief and faith are what matter, not evidence and reason.
Science, on the other hand, focuses on reason, observation, evidence, and revision. Science gives us tools with which we can predict how the world around us functions, and test those predictions in a disciplined manner, which leads to more and more knowledge about how things work. Belief and disbelief simply don't enter the picture. The universe doesn't function differently depending on whether or not a person believes or doesn't believe something.
So faith and science are orthogonal. You can have a strong faith in God and still use science to understand the world. The tools of science can't impact your faith, and your faith can't impact the laws of nature.
The waters get a little muddied where science begins to look at what happens in the human brain when it believes in something. Faith clearly has an impact on how an individual responds to the world. For example, it is well documented (i.e. there is a lot of scientific evidence) that placebos can have positive effects on health if the patient believes the placebo is real medicine. There is some evidence that prayer can have similar beneficial effects on health, and most intriguingly, there is some evidence that having other people pray for your good health can make you healthier.
None of this implies divine intervention, and this is where some scientists get tripped up. Faith "works" in these cases because it's a powerful force within our minds, not because God is answering a prayer. The placebo effect and other mechanisms provide clear explanations for this. But for many people, it only works if they strongly believe it is God answering their prayers. Science should help us understand the power of faith, not try to undermine its impact by denying the particular details of the faith.
Having said that, I would argue that true faith cannot be undermined by contrary evidence. I think faith and reason operate in different parts of the brain. The reasoning part of our brain causes trouble for us when we try to reason about our faith. Conversely, the faith part of our brain causes us to question the value of reason when we see contradictions caused by reason.
But if we carefully examine how science and faith operate, we can see that neither is diminished by the advancement of the other. Whether or not someone believes the world was created 6,000 years ago doesn't change the fossil record. And the existence of evidence of a planet that is millions of years old doesn't change someone's faith. We've seen plenty of evidence of that. Science and religion operate in different domains.
Why is this debate important? Mostly because this either/or mentality has created a very negative dynamic. Since people have been led to believe that science and faith cannot coexist peacefully, they believe it's a zero-sum game: in order for their faith to be effective, they have to undermine science, and vice versa. The most dangerous result of this, in my view, is the anti-science agenda of some in the religious community. They believe they are under attack by scientists trying to undermine their faith, and so they fight back by trying to undermine science. This is dangerous because it makes us less equipped to understand the world around us. (And from a purely economic point of view, scientific understanding leads to technological advancement, which leads to better global competitiveness.)
This is a lose-lose battle no matter which way you look at it. First, science cannot be undermined by belief. Gravity works wether or not you believe in it. On the other hand, if we deny the beneficial impact of faith, we miss out on a very beneficial part of what makes us human.
I say we should call a truce, at least until people can think with clear heads about this: acknowledge that faith and science are both beneficial in their own domains, and that they coexist. By definition, they are orthogonal and can't contradict each other. Neither is diminished by the advancement of the other, and neither is advanced by the diminishment of the other. They are separate conversations. They don't belong in the same classroom or the same debate.
Let's let the scientists talk about science, and let faith leaders talk about faith and belief. Hopefully each will learn from the other.
- 11:21 Reading about vegan NFL star: WSJ: tinyurl.com/ypygfp
- 19:41 Judge orders Justice Dept to report on destruction of CIA tapes: tinyurl.com/2tjqlz
Imported by LoudTwitter
