Randy Shannon – 6/25/08

This page was last updated on July 2, 2008.

Senate must get rid of immunity clause; Randy Shannon; Beaver County Times; June 25, 2008.

7/1/08 - I posted a couple of comments on the Times website regarding Mr. Shannon’s letter. Mr. Shannon responded (Jun 27, 2008 10:32 PM), “Mr. Cox thinks he is the arbiter of ‘serious.’ This is complete sophistry. His ‘stands’ mean nothing. Note that the right wingers don't give a hoot about the 4th Amendment, which will be voided by the FISA bill. They are all about qualifying those who speak out for preserving the Constitution. That’s the difference between the neocons and the conservatives. The conservatives want to preserve our heritage. The neocons are against everything but themselves. The income tax is not being discussed or voted on in the Congress. Spying on Americans is. Notice that the chief sophist takes no position.”

In claiming I’m a sophist, I guess Mr. Shannon believes I’m tried to deceive people. I also learned I’m a “neocon” (whatever that means) in Mr. Shannon’s view. Finally, did you catch his “The conservatives want to preserve our heritage” comment? What in his body of work would lead anyone to believe Mr. Shannon has anything but complete disdain for conservatives? I can only guess Mr. Shannon is trying to hide his true ideology and wrote that comment to sound “reasonable.” Perhaps in calling me “the chief sophist” Mr. Shannon engaged in a bit of projection. That said, I know Mr. Shannon only by his writings and speeches so I could be off the mark.

Anyway, here was my response. “I don’t know what Mr. Shannon found deceptive about my previous comments. In any case, here’s the ‘chief sophist’ position on the retroactive immunity based on what we know.

“Shortly after 9/11, the feds went to telecommunications companies and asked for help to detect communications between terrorists. The feds assured the companies that what was being asked of them complied with the Constitution and existing intelligence laws, and some former FISA judges testifying before Congress agreed. Believing that what they were being asked to do was both legal and could potentially prevent new attacks, the telecommunications companies acted in good faith and complied with government requests. I believe going after the telecommunications companies would be wrong given the circumstances. If you want to go after the feds, fine.

“FYI, the Senate approved (68-29) the immunity back in February when it approved the intelligence bill the first time. Further, an amendment to strip retroactive immunity from that intelligence bill failed (31-67).

“Finally, since I’ve never been a leftist, can I be a ‘neocon?’”

In 2006 Mr. Shannon penned a letter to the editor entitled “The [Beaver County] Times is a tool of the GOP,” and he was serious.

For background info about Mr. Shannon, see my notes on his speech of October 16, 2004, in front of the Beaver County Courthouse.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“The FISA amendment that passed the House on Thursday indicates that the Congress is not up to the task of punishing the telecommunications companies that spied on Americans.

“The bill fiddled with the current domestic spying regulations but included a clause that gave the companies a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

[RWC] What business does something named Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act messing with “domestic spying?”

“The bill actually says they can plead in court that Bush told them to commit these acts and the judge must let them walk. American citizens, who were the victims of this spying, will not have the right to sue for financial restitution for loss of privacy.”

[RWC] You’ll notice that not once does Mr. Shannon describe “these acts” or the circumstances. There’s a reason.

To have any credibility on the privacy issue, Mr. Shannon and like-minded individuals need to convince us they want to see income taxes eliminated and they oppose socialized healthcare. Why? What greater invasion of privacy is there than the financial “full body cavity search” we go through every year when we must detail every aspect of our finances for multiple levels of government (income taxes, property taxes, etc.)? Perhaps the only greater invasion of privacy may be the access to our healthcare records required by socialized healthcare programs like Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, et cetera.

“U.S. Sen. Barack Obama stated that he doesn’t like the immunity clause and the offenders should have to pay. He promised to get a separate vote in the Senate on immunity.”

[RWC] Mr. Shannon failed to note the Senate approved (68-29) the immunity back in February when it approved the intelligence bill. An amendment to strip retroactive immunity from the intelligence bill failed (31-67). Mr. Obama voted for the failed amendment.

“Let’s hope that Obama has the strong vocal backing he needs from the public, our unions, our troops abroad, civil rights and human rights organizations, and the press to convince a Senate majority to remove the get-out-of jail free card from the bill.

“The Senate’s failure to do so will indicate that the gang in the White House is still stronger than the public, the courts, and the Congress. Pennsylvania’s senators should oppose the immunity clause.

“U.S. Sen. Bob Casey was an early endorser of Obama and should agree with him on preserving democracy. U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter has publicly criticized the clause for undermining the courts. They should hear from the public.

“A strong Democratic Party sweep in the November election will send the message that we agree with Obama that corporate officials who violate our democratic freedoms must pay. Their victims have a right to sue for restitution and damages.”

[RWC] If you’ve followed Mr. Shannon’s speeches and writings, I believe it’s fair to conclude he believes “corporate officials … violate our democratic freedoms” simply by existing.

Here Mr. Shannon allegedly cares about “our democratic freedoms,” yet in a speech in front of the Beaver County Courthouse he told us we’re too democratic.

“This is really the only way to stop them from violating the Constitution again.”

[RWC] When lefties like Mr. Shannon talk about the Constitution, keep in mind they tend to refer to the Constitution as a “living document.” In other words, the Constitution is to be interpreted according to the personal policy preferences of judges. That’s how ruling the Second Amendment specifies an individual right becomes a 5-4 decision. I suspect that in most cases, the way Mr. Shannon wants the Constitution to read bears no resemblance to the words actually written.

“Make them pay.”

[RWC] You’ll note Mr. Shannon still hasn’t told us for what we should “[m]ake them pay.” In brief, shortly after 9/11, the feds went to telecommunications companies and asked for help in trying to detect communications between terrorists. The feds assured the companies that what was being asked of them complied with the Constitution and existing intelligence laws. Believing that what they were doing was both legal and could potentially prevent new attacks, the telecommunications companies acted in good faith and complied with government requests. Mr. Shannon and his kind want to punish the telecommunications companies for acting in good faith to help protect the U.S. This is why the letter doesn’t describe the circumstances.

In truth, dumping on telecommunications companies is only a good byproduct for Mr. Shannon. What Mr. Shannon actually wants is a trial (and the more the better) that would expose the methods used to spy on our enemies.