Democrats On Warrantless Wiretapping: 'We're No Rubberstamp'

Sign of the times... a headline we would not have read a week ago-

AP: Warrantless wiretaps unlikely to be OK'd

Democracy rules. From the article-

Legislation aimed at President Bush's once-secret program for wiretapping U.S.-foreign phone calls and computer traffic of suspected terrorists without warrants shows all the signs of not moving ahead, notwithstanding President Bush's request this week that a lame-duck Congress give it to him...

...As for next year, Bush should not expect Democrats to allow such legislation to pass without language establishing considerable congressional oversight of any expansion of warrantless wiretaps.

"We have been asked to make sweeping and fundamental changes in law for reasons that we do not know and in order to legalize secret, unlawful actions that the administration has refused to fully divulge," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the next Judiciary Committee chairman. "If legislation is needed for judicial review, then we should write that legislation together, in a bipartisan and thoughtful way."...

Bold added by me because... bingo.

Meanwhile, losing the election doesn't mean the White House gave up on the 'opposing us = terrorist appeasement' rhetoric-

The Bush administration has a backup plan. In speeches over the next few weeks, the Justice Department will launch a new campaign for the legislation by casting the choice as one between supporting the program or dropping it altogether — and appearing soft on al-Qaida.

Disgusting. Is this the new bipartisanship the right keeps discussing?

Meanwhile, I wait fruitlessly for someone, anyone, in the government or media to actually address the issue of how warrantless, illegal wiretapping makes any operational difference versus going through the legally required oversight channels. Anyone care to tackle that pesky lil' fact?

More questions that people should be asking- here.

This news of this opposition to the bill will get the people on the far-right who think the entire U.S. legacy should be reworked to accomodate the never-ending War On Terror (the Malkins and Hannitys, etc) defensive, but as we have been told by the right... elections have consequences. The Democrats-- who grew less timid throughout the year in standing up to the President's unconstitutional view of his powers-- now have expressed a desire to reverse his most extreme actions. If we are to except that we are involved in a struggle against global terrorism of an indeterminate length (and by definition, there is no end to such a struggle), then it is doubly important that we not compromise our laws, values, and Constitution for some illusionary expediency in fighting it. We must not view the law and Constitution as expendable, we must not view the entire world as one big battlefield and everyone in it as terrorist on our sole judgement, and we must not use this struggle as an excuse to radically expand the powers of our government.

The right-wing will continue to distort this as a strawman battle between Tough Republicans and Appeasing Democrats, as between the Undefeatable U.S. and the Omipresent Islamofascist, but the Democrats must not give in. I disdain terrorism as seriously as every American, but I will not sit on my hands and watch our government turn its back on its ideals for some false sense of security. The idiotic politicians who say things like "you don't have civil liberties if you're dead" are the ones who truly hate America.

Finally, Sen. Leahy also pledges to restore habeas corpus rights for detainees.

Checks and balances. We missed you. Welcome back.