1996 Article Shows It Was Democrats (Conyers & Schumer) Who Wanted To Expand Wiretapping (Talk Left)

[kpete]

Jeralyn at Talk Left has an interesting point RE: wiretaps. She points to a 1996 article and how it was Democrats (Conyers, Schumer) who wanted to expand wiretapping. Interestingly, it was the conservative Republicans who fought it.

The following is an article I wrote in 1996 (originally published in The Champion at 20 Champion 33, available on Lexis.com) titled Partisan Politics vs. the Bill of Rights. It was about a host of privacy-intrusive surveillance measures then being proposed by Clinton and the Democrats in the name of the war on terror. With a few word substitutions, like "9/11" for "TWA Flight 800" and Bush for Clinton, there's not much difference between then and now. Except that then, conservatives in Congress came to the rescue. Unfortunately, they too are now on the wiretapping bandwagon.

I about fell off my chair when I read who said this …

‘The … administration would like the Federal Government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal email, and proprietary information sent abroad — all in the name of national security.

<…>

The protections of the Fourth Amendment are clear. The right to protection from unlawful searches is an indivisible American value. Two hundred years of court decisions have stood in defense of this fundamental right …’”

The moral of the story: The Democrats have never been champions of privacy rights around election time. Leopards don't change their spots. Only if they become convinced that being smart about terrorism, rather than afraid of being perceived soft on terrorism, is what we voters expect and demand or we will boot them out, will they change their tune.


http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/7/121334/7700

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. You are right: Leopards can not change their spots

So why can't we get some other big cat for a change? Or maybe an animal that is not a ferocious predator.

[kpete]

2. i am still willing to let them play out their hand...

but they NEED to know that WE KNOW and we will not stop learning...kp

[Perry Logan]

3. The Republicans knew nothing of terrorism in the 90's. All they wanted to do was stop Clinton.

The Republicans' fervor for protecting America from terrorists came only after 9/11--and they found out they could get votes out of it.

[KittyWampus]

4. there were legitimate updates needed. Cellphones, for instance.

[thunder rising]

5. However, the law was not changed and Clinton remained legal

in his actions. Unlike Bush who assumed surveillance authority and now wants the law changed to cover his illegal activity.

[AX10]

6. Did Clinton violate the fourth amendment?

Bush broke the law and had a law passed to retroactively make his criminal activity legal. With that said, anyone regardless of party affiliation who supports such invasive spying, is wrong!

[ThomWV]

7. What on earth do you mean by ...

What one earth do you mean by "then being proposed by Clinton and the Democrats in the name of the war on terror"? There was no "war on terror' until Bush found it a convenient tent to hide his power grab under. A better choice of words would be appropriate.