Amendment 2 saved by Supreme Court...Amendment 4 being gutted by our party.

[madfloridian]

There is something so moving about that, and the fact they are happening so close in the time continuum is especially so.

The Second, upheld by the Court.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Meanwhile our Congressional Democrats and our nominee are about to at any moment rip parts out of the Fourth Amendment. Nearly all of them are doing it.

Here is the Fourth Amendment.

Amendment IV

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.

Probable cause? Warrants? No, not really.

Here is what the FISA bill will do to that amendment.

CBS News on the FISA bill

However, there are also several negative aspects of the bill aside from telecom immunity, and two of them stand out to me. First, the old FISA allowed NSA to conduct a wiretap for up to 72 hours while waiting for FISA approval. The new bill extends this to a week, allows the surveillance to continue during appeals, and permits the government to use any of the information it collects even if the FISA court eventually rules that the tap is unlawful. This pretty obviously opens the door to some fairly serious abuse in the future.

Second, and more fundamentally, the bill gives wholesale approval to bulk monitoring of electronic communications (primarily email and phone calls). This is the issue that catapulted FISA into prominence in the first place, and it's getting surprisingly little attention this time around. As near as I can tell, this is because bulk monitoring is now widely accepted on both sides of the aisle.

When we did reach the point of being afraid to criticize our party when they are taking our rights away? We have done too much of that lately. Indecision 2008 is doing it for us, though. It's rather pathetic that a comedy channel is standing up for our rights when our party won't do it.

Indecision 2008 on the FISA bill and Barack Obama

Here's how it all went down. Over the weekend, Barack Obama announced that -- although not in favor of the idea of retroactive immunity for the shady corporatations that helped our own government spy on us -- he supports the FISA legislation that the Senate is about to pass that will magically make all the illegal wire-tapping that the White House did legal after all. But it's all alright, because he super double-dog swears that, as president, he won't take advantage of the power to watch over all of America like Big Brother...

"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program," Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129. Oh, well, he seems like a nice man. How can you mind surrendering your Constitutional rights to someone so charming?

Anyway, uber-lib Glenn Greenwald over at Salon was quick to get all "Waa waa waa, I don't want the Constition torn to shreds" on Obama's ass...

It is absolutely false that the only unconstitutional and destructive provision of this "compromise" bill is the telecom amnesty part. It's true that most people working to defeat the Cheney/Rockefeller bill viewed opposition to telecom amnesty as the most politically potent way to defeat the bill, but the bill's expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers vested in the President, and its evisceration of safeguards against abuses of those powers, is at least as long-lasting and destructive as the telecom amnesty provisions.

The bill legalizes many of the warrantless eavesdropping activities George Bush secretly and illegally ordered in 2001. Those warrantless eavesdropping powers violate core Fourth Amendment protections. And Barack Obama now supports all of it, and will vote it into law. Those are just facts.

Isn't it just like a liberal to want to conserve our inalienable rights and keep the federal government from amassing too much power? Fucking predictable.

The ACLU says the bill is unconstitutional, and the group plans a lawsuit about it.

House Passes Unconstitutional FISA Bill - Now Moves to Senate

On Friday, the House of Representatives passed a so-called “compromise” FISA bill that is anything but. The unconstitutional legislation allows the governmental to wiretap Americans' phone calls and emails without a warrant, and gives telecommunications companies immunity for helping the Bush administration spy on us.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 passed the House by a vote of 293-129. It is expected to be voted on in the Senate this week. The ACLU is urging senators to oppose the bill, and not give the Bush administration or any president broad new powers to eavesdrop on our private conversations or let the telecoms off the hook.

We're facing an uphill battle because Democratic leaders have not strongly opposed the bill, proving they just can't break their habit of caving in to the president - lame duck or not. It is way past time for senators to stand up to the president and protect our constitutional rights.

Amendment Two is alive and well, thanks to the Supreme Court.

Amendment Four is ailing, thanks to the few Democratic party leaders who actually know what is in the bill and are most likely misinforming those who have not read it.

[fascisthunter]

1. gee... I Wonder Why

could it be because one profits an industry and the other protects the people?

[scrinmaster]

11. How does stripping the peoples means of defending themselves protect them?

[Recursion]

17. The gun *manufacturer* lobby is quite small

The gun industry in the US is small, not terribly profitable, and doesn't lobby very much. The agitation and lobbying (eg, the NRA) comes from gun *owners*, not gun *manufacturers*.

[Demeter]

30. Congress Acts So the Supremes Don't Have To

That's the spirit of true altruism, I tell ya.

[havocmom]

2. It's one of those weeks when I question the wisdome of expending the energy

to chew through the straps.

[asjr]

5. I do that all the time. I sometimes wonder

if we all are living in a time warp. Are we from the past venturing into the future? If we are can we go back and stop certain things from happening? Somehow I am reminded of a movie--"The Gods must be crazy" where a coca-cola bottle falls from the sky and the man who finds the bottle spends the rest of the movie looking for answers.

[Indenturedebtor]

3. Well summarized

Perhaps the SCOTUS will step in and do what's right? What's required of them?

[Jakes Progress]

23. I think the FISA is definitely unconstitutional,

but this court is two justices more conservative than the idiots who put george in the WH. Don't think we can look for help there.

The neocon goal was to control all three branches of the government so that they could never be defeated. Then in 2006, it looked like they were broken when we got a majority in both houses. Then that majority supported every neocon goal. For a while, it looked like we had them on the run with our courageous new candidate. Then he started talking like grover norquist. They've packed the SC and somehow control the Legislative and Executive branches regardless of which party is in power.

Think I'll go mow my yard. Then, I'm going to take the grandkids for some ice cream. Better enjoy America while it lasts.

[elocs]

4. Well the Guns forum is having a collective orgasm over the ruling.

And really, that's all that matters. Their only disappoint would be that the Supreme Court did not decide to make the Second Amendment the #1 as it so richly deserves to be.

[madfloridian]

7. And the right wing pundits...

are having the same over the new FISA bill that is about to pass. It is more than they dreamed of getting.

[elocs]

8. I guess we have to place all of our hopes with a conservative Supreme Court

since they have served us so well in the past. But then, what good will the Second Amendment do us when we all know that the Constitution has now been destroyed by the FISA vote and the country will soon crumble? May as well move to Canada.

[markbark]

28. Well....

What good will the Second Amendment do us?
IMNSHO, follow my sig.

--MAB

[DBoon]

32. It's not like someone is going to shoot out the NSA

or blow away a secret wiretap facility.

I think guns are a drug that gives you a false sense of your own freedom and power, while your real liberties are being taken away.

[razors edge]

29. They seem more concerned

about upholding the rights of the people, so, unfortunately they do come across as defenders of liberty more so than the congress, at this small point in time.

[madfloridian]

10. Well, they are postponing it until July, I guess.

But they will get it through. It is too important to our leaders to be tough rather than stand for the constitution.

[madfloridian]

6. Feingold and Froomkin said it best.

...Ben Mankiewicz: Alright, well, Senator Feingold, without naming names, and I understand you don't want to single out any of your colleagues, what is the overall reasoning, do you think, what is going on with some of these Democrats who might surprise us? I mean, they're not stupid. Well...not all of them anyway. Why are they buying into a notion of a compromise when there really is no giving on the other side?

Senator Russ Feingold: It's the latest chapter of running for cover when the Administration tries to intimidate Democrats on national security issues. It's the most embarrassing failure of the Democrats I've seen since 2006, other than the failure to vote to end the Iraq War. These are the two real sad aspects of an otherwise pretty good record. It's letting George Bush and Dick Cheney have their way even though they're that unpopular and on their way out. It's really incredible.
.

Firedoglake thanks Feingold

And Dan Froomkin with the Washington Post.

Battered Congress Syndrome

FISA Watch

I wrote in Friday's column about the latest greatest congressional cave-in. The House approved a warrantless surveillance bill that would broadly extend Bush's powers and essentially guarantee immunity against civil lawsuits to the telecommunications companies that participated in Bush's program. The new law would prohibit federal judges from addressing the merits of these suits, effectively telling them to simply make sure each company received a permission slip from the president.

The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board writes: "The cover-up is nearly complete. With congressional approval, the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping on Americans' overseas phone calls and e-mail for nearly six years will be spared the third-degree treatment by any judge or jury.

"At the same time, Bush or his successor would have virtual free rein to continue the massive antiterror surveillance sweeps of communications to and from this country.

"Whatever the risk from another terror attack, Americans' privacy would be the assured casualty from these antiterror tactics."

[pt22]

9. Bingo. Recommended.

:kick:

[bdamomma]

12. but in any event it will be the repigs to take away the guns

just like Katrina, didn't Blackwater do this?

[dixiegrrrrl]

13. Everyone seems to be missing the critical point

of Bush's cunning plan.
Maybe because it is too subtle for most people to grasp.

Bush says the terrorists hate us for our freedoms...right?
So Bush removes our freedoms.

Taaaa daaaaa.....no need to be hated for them.

brilliant...he'll prolly get the Nobel Peace Prize..

think I will write him a letter of thanks for getting to the heart of the problem in such a clever way.

Anyone wanna contribute to the letter????

Hmmm?????????

[madfloridian]

14. That's a good way to put it. Now they can not hate us for our freedoms.

Very well said.

:hi:

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. ty..

figured the sarcasm did not need a sign...

[Chulanowa]

16. More proof

Americans will happily have the constitution ripped up and shit on in front of their faces... so long as they can go out and buy a thing that they're told "defends freedom"

A curious person would ask why exactly the Republicans want an armed populace with no other rights.

[Selatius]

18. The 4th Amendment has been dead since the War on Drugs allowed cops to seize property without cause.

Asset forfeiture laws, for instance, allow law enforcement to seize the assets of suspected drug dealers before they're ever convicted of a crime.

This is just another bullet hole in the corpse.

[Kool Kitty]

24. Possibly LOTS more bullet holes,

now.

[Pastiche423]

19. Excellent synopsis

which is making me become apathetic. I don't believe I will ever understand why the majority of Dems are afraid of/caving into the worse "president" ever.

[bvar22]

20. Conservative Dems ....

Conservative Dems (Clinton/DLC) helped BUILD the Corporate Powered Unitary Executive.
Why would they disassemble it now?

[Pastiche423]

22. Thing is, not all that are caving are DLC/Blue Dogs

Obama is neither, yet he is caving into the FISA bill, NAFTA and the Fairness Doctrine.

[bvar22]

31. The DLC/Blue Dogs are being joined by other....

...supposedly non-aligned Democrats (I'm keeping names), but the core of the Bush appeasers have always been the DLC/Blue Dogs....from supporting his WAR...to Free Trade (CAFTA)...to supporting the appointment of Alito and Roberts, the Blue Dogs/DLC are the Democrats who made Bush*s success possible.

While Obama has publicly distanced himself from the DLC, the DLC has officially stated that Obama is acceptable to them.



"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Chulanowa]

34. Obama isn't caving on the FISA bill

and while it's a nice idea, the fairness doctrine simply wouldn't apply much of anywhere these days - it's a relic of a time when all airwaves were public property, and attempting to extend it into cable, sattelite, and internet - the places where the principles are most needed - would raise such a hue and cry and stink (and frankly, rightly so) that it is simply not worth it.

What there needs to be, instead, are media accountability laws. Rather than restricting the means of discourse (and yes, the fairness doctrine was a restriction - one utterly controlled by whoever was running the government at the time), media outlets need to be held accountable to lies, smears, disingenuities, and other assorted bullshit. Pair this with breakups of media monopolies and collusions, and we'll be going a good long way to getting actual fairness, without the weird selective semi-fairness of the fairness doctrine.

Obama on NAFTA, though... yeeeeeah. That's a bit of a jagged pill, but to be fair, NAFTA's a Gordian knot at this time.

As for democrats caving in... Well, our party has a sad history of hero-worshipping the other side. However this is a direct consequence of democratic voters having a bad habit of electing who they think can win over the most Republican voters, rather than going after someone who can energize an apathetic Democratic base.

[spanone]

21. i guess now we can shoot them when then come for what we think is illegal search & seizure

[DBoon]

33. When they come?

Do you think they walk up to your door before conducting an illegal wiretap?

When the information they gather is used to deny you a job and harass you out of your home, what are you going to do with your gun? Who are you going to shoot?

Do these people think a dictatorship requires well-dressed police agents pounding your door down in the middle of the night? Do they mistake modern repression for the Hollywood dramatization?

The German Stasi kept people very effectively in line with a subtle but constant intervention into daily life. No one came in the middle of the night to take you away. You had no chance for theatrical heroics involving firearms. You just had the constant fear that someone you knew was a police informer, and that making the wrong joke to the wrong person would deny you a job, housing, or an education for your children.

[Pachamama]

25. So when they come to search us, shoot away.....

:eyes:

I'm so upset I can barely breathe right now....America will not be destroyed by Foreign enemies, it will be destroyed from within....

My own party....my own party who is supposed to defend the Constitution and especially against this lawless administration that has gutted it....and yet they are the ones that will have made this possible...

One of my Senators, Diane Feinstein, a woman, like me, and someone who while being a moderate, I thought would protect atleast this one fundamental right of our Constitution. I thought she would have learned from being burned on her support of Mukasey.....think again....

And the man that gave me hope, Barack Obama, a Constitutional Law Professor and person who promised change, is not joining the filibuster?

I am weeping along with our founding fathers who are rolling in their graves....After today, anything and everything is going to be possible in our country and I think its not going to be a pretty future for our country....

[muntrv]

26. Amendment 1 is also being gutted. So is 5 and 6.

[Swamp Rat]

27. k&r

[W2Hague]

35. Homage to Scalia

Doctor Hostile Productions presents:
"Justice Non Compos Mentes"
A Flash animation homage to everyone's favorite Supreme.
Please stop in if y'all feel the need for a good chuckle.
And please disseminate as y'all see fit.

Peace
D.L. Bruin
___ http://www.bruindesign.com ___