A Loss of Freedom

After years of outrage and empty promises to rein in the president's warrantless wiretapping program, the House of Representatives recently passed an unconstitutional bill to give the president even greater powers to spy on our phone calls and emails. The Senate is poised to do the same this week.

In attempting to save face, some congressional leaders are trying to paint the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 as a "compromise." But the truth is, what they've compromised is the Constitution and our rights.

The FISA Amendments Act gives the president broad new powers to spy on Americans' communications - even when they have no connection to terrorism. Every phone call or email coming into or out of the U.S. can be monitored with minimal to no court oversight.

The legislation also grants retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies that, for the past seven years, illegally helped the administration spy on our phone calls and emails. The companies simply have to produce a piece of paper we already know exists, resulting in immediate dismissal of the cases against them.

Many are calling the FISA Amendments Act a major victory for the Bush administration. Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Christopher Bond (R-MO) told reporters, "I think the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get."

Clearly, the legislation is about more than listening to "terrorists abroad," since Americans' every phone call or email to friends, business associates and family members overseas can and presumably will be monitored by the government. This represents a fundamental shift in the notions of freedom and democracy that have defined our nation for well over 200 years. Americans will no longer have any expectation of privacy in our communications - leading many to be fearful about what they say and write so it is not misconstrued by some computer data mining program or overzealous government agent.

In granting immunity to the telecommunications companies, Congress will effectively close the door to any further public investigations of the president's warrantless wiretapping program. Active court cases are going to be thrown out, and Americans might never learn the full extent of the administration's violations of the Constitution and the rule of law.

A handful of senators, led by Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), plan to fight the legislation. While the ACLU supports their efforts to strip out the immunity provision, that vote should not be seen as the end-all. The final vote on passage of the legislation is the most critical. Senators should oppose the bill unless significant improvements are made to protect Americans' rights and ensure telecommunications companies are held accountable for their illegal activity.

No matter what happens, the next president must conduct an immediate investigation of the warrantless wiretapping program and release all documents relating to the legality of the NSA's monitoring of Americans' phone calls and emails. We deserve the truth about the abuses of the past so that we can prevent them from happening again. Our next president should lead this effort.

Members of Congress know that FISA already provides the government all the powers it needs to monitor terrorists and keep us safe. No president should have the power to spy on Americans in their own homes without a warrant. And just because the president says something is legal, that doesn't make it so.

Polls show that Americans are craving strong leaders willing to stand up for the Constitution and the rule of law. Senators must join their stalwart colleagues and either fix the bill or vote it down. Now is not the time to sacrifice our rights, nor is it the time to let telecommunications companies off the hook for breaking the law.

Comments

[KDelphi]

What makes you think the President gives a damn about the law?! And this just gives him freedom fro prosectution and lawsuits (read some of hias biographies--its what he fears most--not war crimes, not jail--LAWSUITS!) Cause all he cares abou tis Mmoney! Check out PBS' early exposure of what ATT did--they were PAID not PATRIOTIC! You know, people make me so mad when they decide my rights are less important than thei false sense of safety. Why dont we have a "Dubya spy" list--you sign up for the CIA and W to spy on you 24-hrs. a day, and if you get qaattacked, they are responsible--FINANCIALKLY! For those of us that think trusting he and his cohorts is foolhardy--he doesnt get top spy on us. If I get attacked--I'l;l tajke my chances, trather than trust W--or any other pres. They cant protect you!!

[KDelphi]

Here's a link that will tell you what laws were broken (I was going to paste the entire page--but, I figure, unless you're in denail--you'll go read it yourself) They just filed a lawsuit--I wish it was against Dubya, but it's Mukasey--it's a start! Let's reward the people hwo had the cahunnes (SP?) to vote against it! www.aclu.org/faa

[Verite]

Sadly the Demmies have once again abandoned their principles and voted for their corporate bankers. And since they are momentarily on the ascendance they should be the ones to pay the price. Give them nothing in November, let the status quo ride.
But boy, do we really need a third party to stop this nonsense...but why does every attempt to form one end up full of nutters? Mind you, no nuttier than the folks inhabiting the two majors...but wouldn't it be nice if somewhere besides the fantasy world of Firesign Theatre there was a party that could honestly claim the campaign slogan "Not Insane"?

[markie1111]

regardless of what some might think or try to reason away. as american, who thinks the constitution is of of import, any attempt to by my government to violate it by legislation is not worthy.

[muffler]

The present time, likewise, is that peculiar time, which never happens to a nation but once, viz. the time of forming itself into a government. Most nations have let slip the opportunity, and by that means have been compelled to receive laws from their conquerors, instead of making laws for themselves. First, they had a king, and then a form of government; whereas, the articles or charter of government, should be formed first, and men delegated to execute them afterwards: but from the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom, and lay hold of the present opportunity—To begin government at the right end.

When William the Conqueror subdued England, he gave them law at the point of the sword; and until we consent, that the seat of government, in America, be legally and authoritatively occupied, we shall be in danger of having it filled by some fortunate ruffian, who may treat us in the same manner, and then, where will be our freedom? Where our property?

[darker]

Everybody in WashDC wants to be UNACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING. Lobbyists for communication industries RULE WASHINGTON AND USA. Your FREEDOMS are being FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET BY REPUBLICANS. Enjoy rule by their NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH and corporate welfare queens where YOU WILL HAVE ZERO RIGHTS.

[Michale32086]

I am guessing you haven't read HR6304, but rather just been taken in by the Anti-Obama hysteria and rhetoric..

I have read HR6304 in it's entirety and I can assure you that it does NOTHING of what you claim.

Now, I am nobody, I readily concede that.. So, what makes my words valid??

Simple..

I have been posting here on HuffPo for almost 2 weeks now.

In that time, I have begged, cajoled and pleaded with anyone, ANYONE, to show me the sections and subsections of HR6304 that violate the US Constitution..

Do you know how many people were able to do that?

ZERO... ZILCH... NADA... NONE....

Not ONE SINGLE person, not the ACLU, not Glenn Greenwald, not that Turney fellow.... Not ONE SINGLE PERSON OR ORGAINIZATION has been able to say, "See!! Right there!!! Section blaa blaa, subsection blaa blaa violates the US Constitution."

Why is that?? Why can't ANYONE from the Anti-Obama/Anti-HR6304 crowd point to ANYTHING within HR6304 that violates the US Constitution...

I can tell you why...

Because there ISN'T any violation...

It's really THAT simple and I challenge ANYONE... ANYONE to prove me wrong..

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Your words are true because you've been saying the EXACT same statements for the last two weeks, huh? Well, I guess that means that I've been right about my opposition to gun right activists! That's it boyos! Throw those guns away, cause I was in opposition to you for longer than two weeks!!

Michale, you HAVE been showed, MANY times the EXACT portions of H.R. 6304 which violate the Constitution, and the ONLY answer that you've been able to come up with is "but that doesn't apply to Americans." Never mind that we ALSO point out to you how it COULD apply to Americans, and is LIKELY to apply to Americans, as long as you've taken at least ONE class in Psychology!

[Michale32086]

Actually that is not true..

The only section that has been pointed at is Section 702 which only applies to NON US PERSONS, excepting as to the extra protections provided for US persons therein..

However, if you WANT to use Section 702, consider 702 (a)(5) which states that ALL PROVISIONS and ACQUISITIONS OF TARGETS shall be in accordance with the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Boom, baby.... That's your argument being nuked...

Michale.....

[sclucie]

That's not an argument - or an explanation - and I would really like one as well. It doesn't sounds difficult. SImply cite the exact words in the bill which violate the constitution - not provisions that may or may not violate the constituition - that could apply to almost anything - I want to see provisions that do violate the constituition.

By the way, I do not agree with Obama's vote - but I have asked in at least 25 posts for writers to tell me how they accessed this site without supporting the Telecom industry. I have not received a single reply. I realize a few very lucky people are able to avoid most telcom companies and can use QWEST - but what are you using?

[ouroborous]

About a hundred people have pointed out exactly what you ask, and you have simply ignored them all.

It's very classic troll behavior, Michale. Simply asserting that there is no response to your claims does not mean that there is no response.

I would advise anyone still on the fence about this to go look at other posts where Michale DEMANDS this sort of response... then gets it (usually from people far more educated and eloquent than me), and then... ignores it.

Again: typical troll behavior. Don't know who you're trolling for or what your agenda is, but it's still the actions of a troll.

[Michale32086]

{{{{{About a hundred people have pointed out exactly what you ask, and you have simply ignored them all.}}}}}

Actually, no.. I just ignore the ones who have stooped to childish and immature name-calling..

I DID notice that you cited Section 702 in another commentary..

Section 702 doesn't apply to US Citizens excepting insofar as the extended 4th Amendment protections it provides...

That's about the ONLY section that the Anti-6304 types have come up with. And it's been thoroughly refuted and discredited as an example of unconstitutionality.

What else ya got??

Michale.....

[KDelphi]

THE PRESIDENT BROKE THE LAW AND NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE! He didn't "have an affair". He didn't even "spy on the Dems" (well, he probably did thqt, too). He spied, unlawfully, on 100's of 1000's of US citizens here and abroad. The CIA spied on/spies on, a long list of "Questionable Citizens" and Groups (some of which I belong to--no, not th3e Communist Party, although that, at least, is not unconstitutional)--Sea Shepherd (held Capt. Watson's wife for 90 days for refusing to release membership records (so much for "poor little ATT"!). SP-USA has been on a watch list since Dubya--Socialist Party USA--and i'm damn proud to be a member! You can assure yourself they would never have voted this crap in! (Sanders) We had pictures taken of us at WPAFB 3when we protested the war,. In cae you werent around im the 60s, oh naive one, these end up in CIA Files and they dont go away! If you're so enamoured with obama that you can;t see that he screwed up here--you've been drinking too much Kool-Aid and your "support" is SCAREY!