Tim Johnson and John Thune may not have the courage to stand up for the Fourth Amendment, but the House Dems do! When the House left for recess on Thursday, they gave us all a little Presidents' Day special treat: the warrantless wiretap law awaiting their renewal expired at midnight yesterday! Bush's spooks can still eavesdrop on targets that have been approved, but any the government will have to show probable cause before beginning any new monitoring.
Probable cause -- novel concept for the Bush Administration. Bush will likely continue to use visions of al-Qaida under every bed (down there with Sibby's secular humanists and Che Obama insurgents*) to justify the continued expansion of federal power. But this simple reversion to previous FISA standards of probable cause will not increase the risk of terrorist attacks one bit.
Besides, Bush's real worry isn't about missing a phone call from Osama to his Vegas bookie. It's about protecting his wealthy corporate buddies who've facilitated illegal wiretaps (it all comes back to plutocracy).
So enjoy the coming week, free of unexpected clicks on the phone. And if you catch Stephanie while she's in town for Presidents' Day, tell her to stick with the House Dems and let Bush's warrantless wiretaps stay dead.
Update 2008.02.18 10:55 CST: Looks South Dakota has no one in its Congressional delegation interested in protecting the Fourth Amendment. Hoghouse Blog offers some fresh comment straight from Rep. Herseth's office supporting the continued expansion of Bush's powers to ignore the Consitution in the pursuit of scary bad guys. Expect more silence from Badlands Blue on that one, too.
*O.K., I liked The Motorcycle Diaries, but I agree: Che was a thug, and the Obama camp should take a little harder line with Che-hipsterism in its ranks, as JFK would do.
Yippee for the lib Dems! I'm just echoing what the terrorists are probably saying around their campfires. They can now freely call anyone without fear of being overheard, and they know that no telecom company will dare help with wiretaps. Thanks trial lawyers, who are making a mint off the telecom lawsuit, and who incidentally are hugely contributing to these same Dems. Yeah, I'd be proud too if I were you.
ReplyDeleteI'll always be proud to stand up for the Constitution. Probable cause is a pretty simple principle: cops don't get to frisk you or come in your house or generally harass you unless they have probable cause. The executive branch doesn't get carte blanche to do whatever it wants just because it thinks there are bad dudes around. Every now and then, the executive has to get at least one other person -- someone from the judiciary -- to check its decisions and say, "O.K., you're following the rules." That's the Constitutional government we're fighting to protect.
ReplyDeleteDon't like rules? Go join al-Qaida.
Oh come on. I am a proud believer in the Constitution also. FISA didn't allow the gov't to wiretap me in the first place. The only way I'd be worried about being wiretapped was if I were being called by a terrorist. Clinton did the same thing BTW in his administration. But it does make a good soundbite for Bush bashers.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate version to extend FISA was passed with bipartisan support. And evidently even Stephanie in the House supported the extension but was in the minority. I don't believe that either Reps or Dems would favor a bill that would jeapordize the rights granted us under our constitution.
And your last comment was just a slight bit over the top.
I'm over the top? Read the line about the terrorists at their campfires. I think I'm offering a pretty straightforward statement: America believes in the rule of law. Terrorists don't.
ReplyDeleteAnd hey, I'll take any Dem to task for supporting Bush's wiretaps as much as I will any Republican (my posts should make that clear). I happen to believe Herseth, Johnson, and Thune all three are letting the fear of terrorists (or of voters' fear of terrorists stoked by a President and a mass media with an agenda) get in the way of their defense of the Fourth Amendment.
And if you think that's over the top, well, just wait until some unidentified federal agent walks into your house unannounced and starts going through your things. You'll probably say a few "over the top" things yourself. Same principle.
ReplyDeleteFourth Amendment: don't leave home without it.
As I said, I'm not afraid of some federal agent being able to walk into my house and go thru my things by virtue of the FISA bill.
ReplyDeleteThere are other rights guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights that are in jeaporday right now, not only the alleged one in question with FISA.
ReplyDelete#2 deals with the right to bear arms, and that is being attacked in many ways, in most cases by the Dems rather than Reps.
#5 deals with eminent domain allowed by the constitution only for PUBLIC use. We have seen this right taken away for the private good of a few individuals, not the public good. And in this case it wasn't split according to party affiliation.
#10. The federal gov't is supposed to be restricted by the Constitution to those powers specifically granted by said Constitition, and the rest of the powers are to rest with state gov'ts. I'm not going into detail here because I've got to get to work, but suffice it to say the states rights issue loses out to the feds many times.
#4 deals with the FISA issue. It contains the word "unreasonable" search, and I believe that it is not "unreasonable" to monitor people being called in the US by known terrorists from outside the US. As I said, doesn't bother me because no terrorist is going to be calling me.
And no, I'm NOT inferring that all those, like yourself and many others, who are opposed to FISA are terrorists. Not at all. I'm just saying that in a time when known and identified people are advocating destroying our way of life and very lives actually, I do not believe that protecting ourselves constitutes "unreasonable."
My alleged "inference" is no worse than that offered by the first Anon here. And I'm not saying "proponents of the FISA extension are terrorists." I am saying that I'd rather err on the side of protecting the Constitution than of giving in to fear and allowing the government more authority to conduct searches without judicial oversight and probable cause.
ReplyDeleteLet me also remind you I'm not waving the partisan flag on this one: Johnson and Herseth are as guilty as anyone on this 4th Amendment issue.
Eminent domain -- I agree: another fundamental vioaltion of Constitutional rights.