Senate To Validate Warrantless Wiretapping?

Picture this- You are a child living in a home with very clearly-defined rules and boundaries. But you are a mischievous lad and break and bend these rules regularly. One day, you get caught breaking a big one (after having repeatedly lied about it) and your parents are both shocked and upset. Your father insists you must be punished for what you have done- that to do otherwise would just make a mockery of the entire system of rules of boundaries on which the house rests. Your mother, being a little more sensitive (and far more coddling) disagrees. She not only insists no punishment is necessary, she yells down the father for attempting to scold the boy, and decides she will simply change the rules so that, in effect, the boy has not been breaking them. The boy is amazed at what he continues to get by his parents. The mother smiles at her darling child. The neighbors, as usual, peek in and shake their heads in shame at this poor parenting.

This is what some Republicans are doing right now to help the President continue warrantless wiretapping.

If only Bill Clinton thought to have the Senate make perjury legal in 1998.

Here is a Washington Post article that shows exactly why we need to support Feingold-
Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators...

...The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday. They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

So, in essence, four partisan Republicans want to give the President a pass.

That's not oversight. That's not democracy. That's a joke.

The article shows the usual concern among some Senators-

It is far from clear whether the bill can win passage. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- whose panel plays a major role in the surveillance matter -- pointed his thumb down yesterday when asked about the measure. He said he particularly objects to letting the government "do whatever the hell it wants" for 45 days without seeking judicial or congressional approval.

I'm glad you feel that way, Arlen, but your comments on censure show that your real concern is limited.

The article concludes-

The bill introduced yesterday calls for fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to 15 years for those who disclose "classified information related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's name for the NSA operation. The penalties would not apply to journalists.

Of course, the President will apply it to journalists anyway (the Justice Dept. is already going after them). The whole point of this scandal is that he has no respect for the rule of law and interprets them as he pleases! It seems the law is geared on its surface toward whistleblowers, which is bad enough. We have protections in this country for them. Without whistleblowers, Richard Nixon would've served out his second term in full. When those in government are violating the law and betraying the trust of the people, we deserve to know.

Finally- Glenn Greenwald, as usual, analyzes the situation:

It expressly empowers the President, in Section 2(a), to "authorize a program of electronic surveillance without a court order for periods of up to 45 days.” The President can simply renew the program every 45 days by certifying that renewal of the program is appropriate (Section 4(b)(2)). Contrary to initial press reports and to this morning's article in The Washington Post, the newly created Intelligence Subcommittee (at least as I read the bill - see below) has no power to approve or reject any warrantless eavesdropping programs. Its only purpose is to be briefed periodically on the eavesdropping activities undertaken as part of the program.

In sum, the bill authorizes and makes legal precisely the illegal conduct in which the Administration has been continuously engaging since September or October of 2001. The Administration claims that it reviews its warrantless eavesdropping every 45 days, so that's precisely what the bill authorizes. Or, as Richard Nixon says: "when the president does it that means that it is not illegal."

Bold added by me. This isn't oversight. It's just a rubberstamp.

Greenwald notes later on that-

This is a completely fruitless and absurd exercise to engage in without resolving the question of the President's claimed law-breaking powers. In reality, this is the only point worth making. Laws passed by Congress which are designed to place limits on the President's actions are worthless because the President has claimed the power to ignore those laws. And we know this both because he has said so and because he has been ignoring them. All other discussions about this bill or other bills are just academic as long as the President claims, as he does, the power to break the law.

And that's the main issue, isn't it?

Congress must understand this basic point:
There is no point to laws or Congress if the President is accountable to neither!

As with the torture ban (etc.), the President has made it clear that he will not obey any laws that displease him. He broke the FISA law because he said he was above it via his inherent constitutional authority (a shocking declaration with seemingly no limit). Ditto torture ban. Ditto god knows what else. Trying to make new laws (especially those as half-assed and permissive as this) for him to obey is futile. He may sign the law or not, but there is no guarantee that he will obey its terms. In fact, you'd be damn foolish to expect that he would.

This is why the steps Sen. Feingold has taken are so important.

Besides the obvious constitutional violations (goodbye, fourth amendment), the United States cannot survive as a democracy with a leader who declares himself (brazenly so) above the law and reduces the other two branches of government to that of servants. This is the problem that needs to be resolved, not whether Mike DeWine feels the President could maybe (pretty please?) poke his head in every few months to give him a heads up on his unchecked actions. If Congress wants to go down this road, then they don't deserve to even exist as a body of government. It took over 200 years, but the Founders essentially traded one King George for another (and the people aren't too fond of the new one).

The American people aren't happy with this President. They don't trust him. They don't like the direction he's taking this country in. They want accountability. It's time for Congress to step out of their beltway bubbles and realize that.

Ideally, the steps that would follow would be this...

1. Censure President George W. Bush
2. Vote out as many Republicans in November who refuse to do their job
3. Look over at what is happening in the House of Representatives with impeachment.
4. Stop pretending like the only democracy we care about is the one in Iraq

I ain't expecting that miracle, but at least (for starters), the Senate must not allow this bill to pass.