How Dare They Rip The Fourth Amendment?
Early next week the U.S. Senate will vote on an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with a few small amendments intended to immunize telecommunications corporations that assisted our government in the warrantless and illegal wiretapping it has grown to love.
That such a gutting of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution even made it out of committee is yet another stain on the gutless and seemingly powerless Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.
That a majority on both sides of the aisle -- not least of them the presumptive nominees for president of both political parties -- intend to vote for such a violation of Americans' right to privacy and of the sanctity of their personal communications is a stunning surrender to those who want us to live in fear forever.
We are living in a time when the right of habeas corpus -- which simply put is your right to be brought before a proper court of law where the government is made to prove that there is good and legal reason to detain you -- recently survived by a margin of only one vote at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Now these bad actors are prepared to set aside your right to privacy -- written into the Constitution as a key part of our Bill of Rights -- with hardly a nod in the direction of the true patriots who rebelled against an English king and his army to guarantee those rights.
That they will do this while the last empty phrases of the political windbags at the Fourth of July celebrations are still echoing across a thousand city parks and the bright red, white and blue bunting and blizzard of American flags still flap in the breeze is little short of breath-taking.
How dare they?
Those denizens of the White House and Capitol Hill and all those gray granite buildings that line avenues with names like Constitution and Independence in the nation's capitol would have us believe that we must trade our rights, all of our rights, for some measure of security from the terrorists.
They would have us believe that a nation of 300 million people must surrender what a million other Americans gave their lives in war to protect in order to protect us from a couple of hundred fanatics hiding in caves in Waziristan.
Benjamin Franklin himself wrote of such a debate:
"Those who can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
The fact that British troops, operating on flimsy general warrants handed out by local magistrates, were kicking in the doors of ordinary Americans and rifling through their pantries and papers in search of smuggled, untaxed goods was a prime reason why our ancestors rebelled against their king and went to war.
This is WHY we celebrate the Fourth of July. This is why the vote on renewing the expanded version of FISA and whitewashing the egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment for seven long years by our government is important.
If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president, a successor to George W. Bush, The Decider, who has since 9/11 decided what rights you are entitled to keep, what laws he will or will not obey, and whether you will be protected by these words of the Constitution:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's it. That's the Fourth Amendment. That is what these folks in Washington, D.C., have violated continuously and in secret for seven long years.
Somewhere across an ocean and a desert, hiding in his cave, a man of hate named Osama bin Laden is laughing up the sleeve of his dirty robe at the thought that he and a small handful of fellow fanatics could tie a great nation in knots -- knots of fear stoked by our own leaders.
We have done incalculably more and greater damage to ourselves since September 11, 2001, than a thousand bin Ladens and ten thousand al Qaida recruits could ever have done to us.
Franklin D. Roosevelt famously declared that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." Now it would seem that we have no one to fear but ourselves and our leaders.
The questions I pose are these:
How can even one senator on either side of the aisle in good conscience vote in favor of this law that does nothing to enhance our security and everything to diminish our rights as a free people?
How can both men who seek to become our next president cast such a vote when both should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder declaring that they would govern by our consent and with our approval, not by wielding the coercive and corrosive and corrupt powers that King George III and his latter-day namesake from Texas thought are theirs by divine right?
This post was originally published by McClatchy Newspapers
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Right on, but even the media doesn't want to hear it. I shouldn't say EVEN, if it's in their corporate favor, they don't is the better way to state it. A mistake was made; Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee.....she wouldn't cave for any of this.
Clinton supported far worse versions of FISA updates, so I'm not sure what "this" you think she wouldn't stand for.
She is as indebted to the corporations as any of our politicians--look at the way her final healthcare reform plans screwed the little guys and rewarded the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals--so it's silly to assume she wouldn't have continued that willingness and sold out, just as she did with earlier FISA updates, rather than fighting against it--until one mostly necessary and useful could gain traction--and promising to fight the distasteful elements such as this immunity.
Once again, as in so many, many times over the last few years, Joe Galloway not only says it all but says it all best. In his profound and eloquent columns on the Iraq War, on the U.S. military, on the criminal Bush administration, on the unspeakable incompetence of both the civilian and military leaders of the last few years, on immigration, on the gallantry and courage and decency of military personnel.....the list goes on and on, Joe Galloway is the best observer and recorder of the insanity that has taken hold of this country since 2000. And now he has provided a concise, intelligent, articulate and deeply principled analysis of the upcoming vote on FISA, based on history, an understanding of American democracy, and an outrage at this immoral betrayal of the Fourth Amendment.
What has happened to Barack Obama, the constitutional law professor who should understand these issues so much better than most? (And Hill fans need not be smug, she's not taking the courageous and righteous road either!)
FISA has been around for awhile now, permitting us to observe those who are suspected threats and preserving the rights of Americans to be free of such observation without clear and present danger. An update is sorely necessary to solidify the interpretations--so far only guesswork--that permit necessary spying to occur in the digital age without granting too much leeway for spying or for the rights of dangerous criminals such as terrorists.
Obama has promised to continue fighting against the immunity that abrogates our 4th Amendment rights, and the Intelligence community is better equipped to explain what good this FISA update brings that makes its good far greater than its evil, but go ahead and ask, because they'll agree that Obama's choice to accept this version is both politically and Constitutionally viable and good, with problem areas he intends to challenge, so why claim he doesn't understand what the experts believe he has skillfully and correctly gauged as a necessary version of FISA?
The cowardice of the Congress is due to their own culpability. To stand up now would be admitting their past enabling.
"If neither John McCain, the Republican, or Barrack Obama, the Democrat, can find the courage to oppose such a violation of so basic a right, then what are we to do for a president...?"
I'm writing in Russ Feingold.
I sit here and condemn the Democratic Congress for doing the politically safe thing by going along with Bush on FISA, and yet do the same thing by supporting the less bad candidate that is Barack Obama. Enough. I will vote for someone I qualify, or I will not vote.
I say the same to anyone who says "Do you want Mcain to win?" No, I don't, but I'm done asking politicians to take a stand when I'm not willing to myself. I will take a stand.
Feingold is fine but Kucinich is even better, across the board. He's my write-in.
great point. i knew this "running to the center" stuff would happen. the dlc establishment neutered obama the way they neutered gore and kerry. those of us who see through the lies have to take a stand, and that means voting for someone you believe in...not staying home or going for mccain. if ralph nader wasn't running i would vote for mckinney or the socialist party...the dems don't own my vote. i am sick of lying politicians whether they have an R or a D next to their name.
Yeah, Obama DOES oppose the violation of our 4th Amendment rights, intends to keep fighting for them, but won't sacrifice the necessary actions permitted by FISA and the even more necessary oversight FISA commits to such spying.
But go ahead and buy the spin rather than looking into Obama's actual stance and intentions before deriding him.
Why do the brief research that would show you the numerous positive aspects of a new FISA that we desperately need to enact so that we don't end up with rampant, lawless spying or none at all even on terrorists?
Just help prove why Americans don't deserve the democratic aspects in our government because most of us would rather just complain and say we're "making a stand" for sheerly symbolic ends rather than supporting a viable presidential candidate in his efforts to continue opposing the few unpalatable parts of this new FISA. Then you can complain if the immunity stays in because people like you didn't bother to find out that Obama is still combatting the immunity part and convince others to stand with him to increase chances for success.
"But go ahead and buy the spin rather than looking into Obama's actual stance and intentions before deriding him."
THE SPIN is Barack Obama telling us that he will *WORK* (he never said *fight* - get it right) to remove telecom immunity from the FISA bill, while he is himself certain the bill will pass in it's present form.
THE SPIN is calling this bill a compromise.
THE SPIN is saying that we're desperate for a brand new FISA law when renewing the current one solves all problems.
"Why do the brief research ..." - Don't think for one second that my perspective is uninformed. You need to do some thinking, or, choose your targets better.
And finally, how dare you characterize a principal on which this country was *founded* as "sheerly symbolic". What do you think this is - an "issue"? Flag burning maybe?
Go read a book.
Amen. Liberty get nibbled away in bits and pieces. And sometimes, as with FISA, in big choking chunks.
How dare they? They dare because their previous expeience indicates they can, and then will not be called to account for their actions. I hope they will be proved wrong. It is a citizen's DUTY to remain informed of their 'representatives' actions and respond accordingly. VOTE!
True. Does the average amurican even care about this? I expect John Q. is trying to figure out how to eat, get to work AND keep his cable turned on.
Thank you Joe! A thousand thanks. 300 million thanks. Obama is REALLY dropping the ball on this but thinks protecting the criminals is a better "tack". Pelosi, Reid and Rockefeller (part of the gang of eight) are going along with this immunity because they know if the Telcos are brought to civil litigation, AT&T (and others) will show their "contract" with the Government showing that they're not financially responsible for the illegal wiretapping! THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP IS JUST A GUILTY AS THE REPUBLICANS!!! Barack is listening to the DLC and is apparently covering for them! The only true patriots in D.C. are but a handful. In the Senata it is just 15 brave souls. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd are leading the fight for our freedom! If this passes, there should be revolution. This CANNOT pass! You better listen to wiser men than you Barack! YOU could be held accountable for not only being a coward, but FAR WORSE! NOW is the time to find your COURAGE! Last chance, Barack Obama!
Actually, Obama continues to oppose the immunity portion, and his reasons for supporting the FISA update as a whole is because it is both a decent and necessary compromise in all other ways for a society where technology has moved on quite a bit since the '70's but the need for legally spying in cases of danger and for protecting Americans from unneccessary and unlawful spying remains vital.
I'll answer your questions as succinctly as possible.
There is no political solution to that which is the United States of America. The corruption of our founding principles runs too deep and is outside the bounds of government. Our legislators are incapable of reversing the damage, either because they are culpable or cowardly.
The solution is exactly as laid out in the Declaration of Independence. From there, you can figure it out.
Amen to that.
Seconded. Now, going forth . . .
The question I pose is: How is it that knowledgeable people can't understand that the legislation, imperfect though it may be, is being put forth to RESTORE FISA, not to gut it; and that the legislation is being put forward to PROTECT RIGHTS THAT ARE NOW BEING VIOLATED? How is it that knowledgeable people can't read Obama's and others' own words, that they intend to introduce additional legislation that deals with the more objectionable shortcomings in this bill, such as telecom immunity?
How is it that so few Americans - some of them very intelligent - seem to be incapable of understanding how the Congress works?
I guess the answer is - when you're in the business of selling your opinion, it's a financial liability to have nothing to say.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
