Last night, 41 House Democrats crossed over to vote with Republicans in passing The Protect America Act of 2007, which previously passed the Senate on 16 Democratic defections. Now, I'm no constitutional scholar, but this would seem to be the first time in our history that there's a law on the books saying Americans can be surveilled without a warrant (maybe the "sneak and peek" provision of the PATRIOT Act? But in that case the government's supposed to tell you within 90 days that they went through your stuff).
Why on Earth did this thing pass? Well, we've been getting a steady "they're about to hit us again" drumbeat for weeks now, ever since Chertoff shared with the public his problems with dyspepsia. Then, at the start of last week... with Congress' August recess looming... Bush popped up from nowhere and began screaming bloody murder about how this bill needs to get rammed through, yesterday. What's with all the last-minute hoo-ha? Didn't we know equally well a month ago, or six months ago, how important this legislation was going to be?
And, naturally, the Democrats (some of them) got suckered into this old chestnut of a hoodwink for fear of being left holding the bag (if you will pardon my mixed metaphors). Because suppose there were an attack this summer, and the "Protect America Act of 2007" had died in Congress. This attack would obviously have been 100% the Democrats' fault. It may as well have been Nancy Pelosi's signature on the receipt for the ammonium nitrate. But, now that the bill has passed, suppose there were an attack this summer anyway. Whose fault will that be?
Don't ask me. But you know as well as I do who wouldn't be taking any responsibility.
***
Anyway, as to what the law says: the National Security Administration, at the discretion of the Attorney General, can track any Americans' international communications - full stop. No warrants, no oversight, no nuttin' (correction: looks like there's a 120-day FISA court review, but that's it). And what does that mean? Because suppose that my domestic-to-domestic phonecall is routed through an offshore exchange - or, for that matter, it's a cellphone call and is therefore bounced off a satellite - does this law say can they monitor that call? Who knows? Who cares? Because you damn well know that if they want to monitor the call they will: and should that become a legal or political liability for them down the road, they'll make up an absurd Rube-Goldberg legal justification for why it was always been their prerogative to do whatever they were doing. We have seen this show before.
Well. Let me repeat for the record something I've said here before: given the threat of nuclear terrorism, a massive domestic surveillance program may really be the very thing we need. But it has to exist within a framework of oversight and restraints. You know, checks and balances - the fundamental genius of our system of government? We don't have any of that in this bill, nor any guarantee of what the information collected by the program will and won't be used for.
Here's what another American law says:
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 the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It seems to conflict a little with the Protect America Act of 2007. So - maybe this thing could get struck down. But we've already seen that it's hard suing the government for secret and anonymous mass wiretapping, since you can't prove damages against a specific person.
But hey, the bill's only good for six months, right? Well, we have seen this show before as well: five and six years ago, with the tax cuts. A bill is eased through on the rationalization that it's temporary; once in place, it becomes the sole pillar on which our fragile economy rests, and must be made permanent at the risk of perpetual famine. Blahbitty blahbitty blah.
All in all, this is a very sad development. Those Republicans can be real mean s.o.b.'s, but it takes a Democrat to really stab you in the back.
(For example, our nation's indefensible and inhuman drug laws, mainly passed by Democrats in the 80s. But that's a story for another day.)
***
PS. In other warrantless wiretapping news, Bush has been using his FBI - as we dwell here beneath the aforementioned shadow of a new terrorist attack - to raid his own guys. The home of Thomas Tamm, a former Department of Justice lawyer, was searched this week for evidence that maybe it was he who leaked the warrantless wiretapping program to the NY Times in the first place. Because that's what ultimately made all this arm-twisting and rigmarole necessary about legalizing the program.
Go sic 'em, W!
No comments:
Post a Comment