 |
Bush Can Spy On Americans Because Of Technicalities |
 |
Last week, a democratically controlled Congress passed an awful piece of legislation. As I’m sure you know, the FISA bill basically legalized George Bush’s covert spying tactics, allowing him to monitor domestic conversations without a warrant. You don’t have to be a left-wing crazy or a privacy nut to be against this bill. I think people on both sides of the aisle would agree that in America, you are innocent until proven guilty, and before you can be wiretapped authorities should have to prove their case to a judge.
Why did this bill pass? Why can the Republicans block measures to bring troops home from Iraq, yet the Democrats can’t stop the passage of a domestic wiretapping bill? Matt Stoller, in talks with congressional staffers, has determined that the Democrats were defeated by a technicality. There were originally two bills, a House version that was much stricter (the “good bill”) and a Senate version that was blatantly unconstitutional. Instead of passing the “good bill” in the House (where the Dems have a 30 seat majority), House leadership let it fail:
Normally, the Senate’s awful bill and the House’s more reasonable one would be mashed together in conference, but in this case the Senate had already gone home. In other words, this was a procedural blunder. As a rule, you do not lose procedural fights like this in the House, as a friend told me it’s like ‘walking the pitcher’. The good bill should have been brought to the floor, but it was not. The whip operation, run by Clyburn, and the floor manager, Hoyer, failed to manage this properly.
Why did the Dems screw up this technicality? Out of fear, so they say. They felt they had to pass legislation addressing wiretapping to combat terrorism so as not to appear weak when they all went home for August recess. And therein lies the problem. Democrats should have had more sense than to rush passage of complex bills like this one.
If I were an elected official, what would I say to my constituents when they ask me why I’m dragging my feet on terror legislation? I would say that writing a bill which both protects Americans from terrorists and protects Constitutional rights takes time. I would say that the White House version of the FISA act wouldn’t protect citizens from terrorists, it would only make it easier for the federal government to spy on innocent Americans. I would say that giving more power to Alberto Gonzales, a man who has proven himself completely untrustworthy, isn’t responsible governance. Most importantly, I’d say that the White House is to blame by proffering Congress an awful bill, one that was unconstitutional, and one that couldn’t (shouldn’t) have passed through a Congress looking out for the American people. I’d challenge Republicans by saying that if they want terror legislation passed quickly, they should propose bills that can pass and that don’t trample the rights of the people.
Too bad Democrats weren’t thinking about framing the debate. They accepted the Republican viewpoint of appearing weak on terror completely. They tried to play against it and act tough by rushing the legislative process. As kos points out, it didn’t work. Every newspaper in the country ran some variation of the headline “The Democrats Submit To Bush.” Nice job, manly men.
Is this really such a bad thing? After all, what do you have to hide? If domestic surveillance can save lives, then go right ahead. Hell, they can put a camera right in my bedroom if they somehow think that it would be useful in saving American lives. I just don’t understand why people have such a big problem with domestic spying.
And besides, why turn this into a partisan thing? Why is this sort of thing Bush v. The Democrats? Is it possible for the Democrats to act on their own or is it always supposed to be 180 degrees away from what Bush and the Republicans are doing? Perhaps domestic spying isn’t such a bad thing! I would be willing to bet that if this was something that was being spearheaded by the Democrats that the reaction would be drastically different. Instead, I can’t help but to wonder if the outrage stems much more from the hatred of Bush more so than the actual content of the bill.
Personally, I think that the safety and well being of Americans should take top priority. Civil and Constitutional rights were designed to protect Americans, but I don’t think that anybody would have ever thought that it would be a good idea to use them to try and block measures that would help ensure the physical safety and well being of this country.
arclightzero, while I respect your comments, I’ve gotta say, are you kidding?
First, let’s clarify the issue. This isn’t about domestic wiretapping or no domestic wiretapping. The FBI and others can spy on citizens, it has been legal for years. The difference is they need a warrent. They need to prove their case to a judge. That is what checks and balences are about. Without that balence, the executive can spy on whoever he or she likes. That’s not a power I want to give to any president, no matter which party they come from.
Second, I don’t think domestic wiretapping has saved lives or that it will ever save lives. The “ticking time bomb” scenario that this law was designed for, which it looks good in movies, is hardly ever a reality. With good intelligence work, officers can gain warrents and proceed with their mission, as they have been doing for years.
Lastly, the argument that I have nothing to hide is frankly bullshit. In America you are innocent until proven guilty, and to place you under suspicion law enforcement has to convince a judge they have probable cause. That is what our whole legal system is based upon. If you are willing to throw out those basic protections, I doubt you really deserve the freedom that you currently enjoy.
Sorry to be so harsh. You are right that this shouldn’t be a red vs. blue issue. This is a freedom issue and this is a power I don’t want any executive to have.
I’m not really sure why this sort of thing always ends up being a freedom issue. I don’t feel any less free, and I know a whole lot of people who feel likewise. Just because the government can do something doesn’t mean they will, and even still, if you aren’t doing anything to warrant attention, then why worry?
The funny thing is that you talk about warrants and “innocent until proven guilty” yet… Does the issuance of a warrant mean that somebody is proven guilty? I mean, after all, what’s the difference other than the fact that you have somebody else giving you the go ahead which is just another person with which to spread the blame if something goes wrong.
That much aside, do you really think that the government would pursue spying without probable cause anyway? I doubt very highly that just because they can do it that they will just point fingers at random people on the street and order wiretaps done on them. Bu8t maybe I just have a little bit more faith in the government than other people do.
Don’t think that I am willing to throw out my protections, but also don’t think that those protections should be infinite in scope. You dangle “freedom” in front of me, but the fact of the matter is that freedom is not an absolute and that sometimes it takes small sacrifices here and there to protect the larger scale.