Crossposted at Boztopia and Open Left.
Today is going to go down as a dark day in our nation's history, as the Senate completes its total capitulation to the Bush administration and its corporate masters, through passing legislation that dramatically expands the government's surveillance powers and immunizes the companies responsible for illegally spying on us from any form of legal redress for the victims.
It's unbelievable that nearly three years of campaigning, legislating, debating, and shouting from the rooftops on this issue, one of the most important of the time, has had almost no effect. Worse yet, the new law that is about to be passed is the worst possible permutation imaginable--not only does it perform all the aforementioned perfidious tasks of justifying lawbreaking and expanding our surveillance state, it practically removes all oversight from the process and allows the surveillance system to be easily tailored to pick on purely domestic issues, ranging from illegal online gambling to P2P file sharing. All the Attorney General and the DNI have to do now is say, "Hey, the President authorized this. Here's his signature," and the FISA judge has to essentially sign off on a rubber-stamp for surveillance of potentially dozens--hundreds--of people, all without individual warrants. Because, of course, no sitting President or Attorney General would ever abuse such a system for their own ends. No sir.
This was a battle the Democrats absolutely could have won. They could have stood their ground and fought the new laws every step of the way, and gotten good press, more donations, and the respect of their constitutents. Instead, they knuckled under to protect their corrupt leadership from being hit by lawsuits for their part in the surveillance, and in so doing, granted one of the most corrupt and authoritarian American presidents in our history one of his greatest victories--the unchecked expansion of "Total Information Awareness," a vast data dragnet where your every move is catalogued, cross-referenced, and analyzed for "suspicious behavior." It's the stated aim of current DNI Mike McConnell to not only expand the government's surveillance reach not only to the Internet and databases, but to outsource that surveillance to corporate partners such as AT&T--the same company which is up to its eyeballs in the illegal spying scandal.
Barack Obama's surrender on the FISA fight was a perfect example of giving in when fighting back could have accomplished so much more. Obama surrendered both his base and his convictions (He's a Constitutional law professor, for fuck's sake!) to please the chattering class of so-called "centrist" pundits and weed carriers who demand repeated obeisance to Republican and corporatist aims in order to appear Sensible, Serious, and Respectable. With a word, he could have roused his supporters and activists to fight this thing to the bitter end, and assured his place in history as an avatar of real change. Instead, he folded, and now it's hard to see him as anything more than a typical politician who promises whatever's politically convenient at the time.
It's a dark day. For our country, our history, our values, and our people. We will beat this back, though--make no mistake. There are always new battles to be fought, and we will win. But every time it's going to be a little harder, and every time we should count less on the support of the people who claim to represent us--because this decision has made clear that their interests are no longer our interests. The Constitution just doesn't matter enough anymore.
Loading comments… 
There is hardly a U.S. president alive who should not be infront of a human rights court and you think this is the issue?
You think the last straw is FISA? Dont you remember the Rio Summit chaired by Gorbachev when Bush Snr refused to protect the environmen
We are talking about a country that elected George W Bush, TWIICE!!!! and you are proposing a sane argument to the electorate
You probably should have stuck to your technique of evasion and obfuscatio
Simply because you refuse to accept the facts, does not destructio
But, I do appreciate the opportunit
Please don't be offended by this.
There is no shame in not knowing everything
I am going to move on to other commentari
It's the least I can do after so utterly destroying your credibilit
Michale...
Hanging your entire case on the concept that internatio
Additional
Next, you contradict
The FAA violates the Fourth Amendment because it allows the government to gobble up the constituti
The FAA also violates the First Amendment by chilling lawful expressive speech without adequate justificat
The challenged law violates the principle of separation of powers by allowing the government to continue surveillan
Next stop.... court.
}}}}}Okay, so your entire argument is based on a lie or ignorance.
No, it's based on the facts...
It's simply NOT possible to differenti
These are the facts whether you choose to acknowledg
This is why I said at the very beginning of this long running marathon debate that FISA is ill-equipp
Michale...
OK, let's approach this from a different perspectiv
It's a fact that telecommun
There is no American communicat
It's worldwide.
This being the case, it's IMPOSSIBLE to know what kinds of communicat
Using your reasoning, because communicat
That is a fallacy that does not take into account the very real dangers that exist in today's world.
Michale...
The U.S. government certainly can isolate communicat
No, it cannot.
It's THAT simple...
Michale...
Phone call from Washington to Paris passes through government hard drive
Government hard drive analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communicat
Now a government agent listens to that communicat
At this point, an AMERICAN SENATOR has had his private communicat
Then, quite clearly AFTER the search has already taken place, the agent takes his findings (from the search itself) and then applies for a warrant to perform the search he has already completed and to CONTINUE AND EXPAND THE SEARCH. The Judge, precluded from hearing the name of the person being targeted, or even the location, only hears a report from the agent stating certain words were used. The Judge issues a cease and desist order. The agent files an appeal. During the appeal, which lasts two months, the agent listens to all the communicat
Suddenly, on a key piece of legislatio
Nobody can understand why.....
These types of hypothetic
All communicat
Michale...
First, you already pointed out, in your own words, that once the computer flags a communicat
Second, a government computer searching your private communicat
However you try to spin this, common sense tells you that your opinion doesn't satisfy the 4th amendment. Clearly.
You'd be more honest if you just took the position that you believe the 4th amendment is flawed and we should amend it. Because the contortion
Take the same scenario, but with one small change:
Phone call from New York to Paris passes through government hard drive
Government hard drive analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communicat
Now a government agent listens to that communicat
At this point, an American citizen has had his private communicat
Then, quite clearly AFTER the search has already happened, the agent decides the citizen is NOT a threat and doesn't even bother applying for a warrant.
Now, here are the facts:
Citizen searched, without a warrant and without probable cause. Period. As clear-cut a violation of the 4th amendment as you can find.
Phone call from New York to Paris passes through government hard drive
Government hard drive analyzes phone call (a.k.a. searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communicat
Now a government agent listens to that communicat
At this point, an American citizen has had his private communicat
Then, quite clearly AFTER the search has already taken place, the agent takes his findings (from the search itself) and then applies for a warrant to perform the search he has already completed.
Now, Michale can double-tal
The 4th amendment clearly protects against, "unreasona
"Once the human analysis is done and there is cause for concern, monitoring of your specifics will be coded and a warrant will be requested.
This is where your argument falls apart. Explain how studying a communicat
In your scenario, the search happens prior to the warrant. How is this not a clear violation? The 4th amendment clearly implies a warrant must be sought prior to the search, not the other way around. In your scenario, the government searches, THEN applies for a specific warrant, describing the person they already searched. Common sense tells you that it violates the 4th amendment.
Plain english, please.... (in other words, explain how I am wrong, logically, instead of hiding behind "well in the case of double-tal
It's easy to explain. Just refer to my narcotics warrant, Joe Blow/Jon Public precedent.
Cops obtain a warrant and tap Joe Blow's phone. It's a LEGAL "search". In that LEGAL search, the hear Jon Public talking about committing a different crime. So, the cops get a NEW warrant to tap Jon Public's phone.
In the case of Jon Public, the "search" happened prior to the Jon Public warrant. But it's not a violation because the first search was perfectly legal..
I can't recall the exact terminolog
How this translates to HR6304 is as follows.
It is perfectly legal for intelligen
So, when CT ops, while executing a perfectly legal search, come across evidence of a crime committed by an American, it provides PC for a NEW warrant.
An example of a search PRIOR to a warrant providing the PC for said warrant.
If you'll recall at the beginning of our discussion
But, as you see, I was right once again.
Michale...
In my example, the search happens prior to ANY warrant being issued and without probable cause or judicial oversight. Talk about apples and oranges...
}}}}}
Evidence of crime gathered by illegal measures is non-admiss
}}}}}
As has been establishe
But I'll give you another example..
US Authoritie
Now, an American IN Syria makes a call to another American in Syria about details of a terrorist attack. A warrant is issued on both Americans.
It was a perfectly legal monitoring that snared Americans who happened to be using Syrian phone lines.
Nothing illegal and nothing unconstitu
Michale...
The ONLY place that US intelligen
}}}}
The SCOTUS also said that slavery was constituti
}}}}
Thank you. That's been my point on how the US Constituti
}}}}How is it possible for something to be constituti
Uh.... Maybe because times change??
But, I do agree with you that any challenge to HR6304 will probably fail.. I doubt that it will get as high as the SCOTUS, but the lower courts will in all likelihood rule in favor of the legislatur
Michale...
"Thank you. That's been my point on how the US Constituti
Except the legislatur
You really should step back and realize that different interpreta
Which is why its so important to be on your senators and congresspe
}}}}The U.S. government certainly can isolate communicat
You are wrong. It's impossible in today's worldwide telecommun
Whether you acknowledg
Michale...
"According to the ACLU, the Democratic
"This lawsuit is the ACLU at its best," said journalist and author Naomi Klein, another plaintiff in the suit. "It's defending the law even when the lawmakers won't"
The ACLU is representi
Klein, along with journalist and author Hedges said the already-di
http://lau
Now we have a little clearer picture of why some of the traitorous votes selling out our constituti
It seems that what you are saying is that, since US intelligen
Is that what you are saying??
Michale...
massive research into alternativ