NSA surveillance: a complex legal issue?
I'm tired of certain individuals, most recently the Attorney General, saying that the legality of the NSA warrantless electronic surveillance is a complex issue. FISA, Authorization of Force, blah, blah, blah.
It's quite simple. The Constitution does not provide authorization for surveillance, and the Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable" search and seizure. The Constitution is not amended or altered by legislative act, but by a 2/3 majority in both houses followed by majorities in 3/4 of the states' legislatures. None of these occurred. The War Powers Act, FISA, S.J. Res 23, and H.J. Res 114 cannot grant authorities to the Exectutive Branch that the Constitution does not, and where they attempt to do so, they are null and void. It is not the authority of the Legislative Branch to interpret "unreasonable" -- its clarifications of the Constitution come in the form of Constitutional Amendments. The Judicial Branch may choose to interpret "reasonable" in the context of a given judicial case, and the Legislative Branch can opt to impeach the President for unreasonable use of surveillance powers, but that's it.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The President of the United States has violated his oath to defend the Constitution, has violated the Constitution, and is a traitor to the United States. He must be impeached, at least.
Further, it's a load of crap that the President can be trusted to administer this program without providing full disclosure on it to anybody outside the Executive Branch. Maybe all surveillance has occurred in accordance with a procedure that protects civil liberties -- the issue is that we don't know; and, as with searches and what-not under the unmodified Patriot Act, we can never know. It is possible for this information to remain hidden forever, unless a hero releases information to the press so we can become suitably outraged and take action for abuses.
As I write this, Daschle and some other folks are on Meet the Press arguing that the program should continue. Why? Is there any evidence that it has been of any use, or that it is truly needed? The only example Bush has provided, that LA building airplane crashing plot, was foiled without any reference to the NSA surveillance of Americans. In fact, the plot could have been carried out, and it still would have failed: in the post-9/11 world to which Cheney and other ideologues constantly refer, airline passangers know that they cannot allow anyone to take control of an aircraft, lest they and innocent persons elsewhere. It's hard to be heroic if you think you'll live through a situation without heroism; it's easier if you figure you'll die either way; and it's much easier when you'll die either way, and heroic action can protect others. Shoe bombs notwithstanding, hijackers can no longer seize control of any passenger aircraft -- at best, they can render the plane unflyable, which still means dead passengers and a downed plane -- but there can be no more 9/11-style attacks. So Bush, by advancing not one valid example of the necessity of either this program of the authorities under the Patriot Act, has as good as said that there is no justification for this problem.
But, as the irritating fat guy on McLaughlin Group noted, Bush and the Republicans shall sail through all this, because the American majority is composed of woefully underanalytical or downright stupid persons. When survey results can change based on whether the question is, "Can the U.S. government monitor U.S. citizens without a warrant?" or "Can the U.S. government monitor suspected terrorists without a warrant?", it's pretty clear that far too many Americans are not thinking too clearly.
Oh, and one more thing: Congress can make all the laws it wants governing "whistle-blowing", but it is the responsibility of juries to decide not only if an individual "whistle-blower" has violated those laws, but whether that individual should be found guilty for doing so. Yes, FIJA, and jury nullification, are extremely important to protecting us from abusive governmental authority at all levels.
Whew, I think I just lost, like, 10 pounds from all that spleen I just vented. I don't know about you, but I feel better.
And, in the name of bomb Allah the just chemical weapons and merciful nuclear.
It's quite simple. The Constitution does not provide authorization for surveillance, and the Fourth Amendment forbids "unreasonable" search and seizure. The Constitution is not amended or altered by legislative act, but by a 2/3 majority in both houses followed by majorities in 3/4 of the states' legislatures. None of these occurred. The War Powers Act, FISA, S.J. Res 23, and H.J. Res 114 cannot grant authorities to the Exectutive Branch that the Constitution does not, and where they attempt to do so, they are null and void. It is not the authority of the Legislative Branch to interpret "unreasonable" -- its clarifications of the Constitution come in the form of Constitutional Amendments. The Judicial Branch may choose to interpret "reasonable" in the context of a given judicial case, and the Legislative Branch can opt to impeach the President for unreasonable use of surveillance powers, but that's it.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. The President of the United States has violated his oath to defend the Constitution, has violated the Constitution, and is a traitor to the United States. He must be impeached, at least.
Further, it's a load of crap that the President can be trusted to administer this program without providing full disclosure on it to anybody outside the Executive Branch. Maybe all surveillance has occurred in accordance with a procedure that protects civil liberties -- the issue is that we don't know; and, as with searches and what-not under the unmodified Patriot Act, we can never know. It is possible for this information to remain hidden forever, unless a hero releases information to the press so we can become suitably outraged and take action for abuses.
As I write this, Daschle and some other folks are on Meet the Press arguing that the program should continue. Why? Is there any evidence that it has been of any use, or that it is truly needed? The only example Bush has provided, that LA building airplane crashing plot, was foiled without any reference to the NSA surveillance of Americans. In fact, the plot could have been carried out, and it still would have failed: in the post-9/11 world to which Cheney and other ideologues constantly refer, airline passangers know that they cannot allow anyone to take control of an aircraft, lest they and innocent persons elsewhere. It's hard to be heroic if you think you'll live through a situation without heroism; it's easier if you figure you'll die either way; and it's much easier when you'll die either way, and heroic action can protect others. Shoe bombs notwithstanding, hijackers can no longer seize control of any passenger aircraft -- at best, they can render the plane unflyable, which still means dead passengers and a downed plane -- but there can be no more 9/11-style attacks. So Bush, by advancing not one valid example of the necessity of either this program of the authorities under the Patriot Act, has as good as said that there is no justification for this problem.
But, as the irritating fat guy on McLaughlin Group noted, Bush and the Republicans shall sail through all this, because the American majority is composed of woefully underanalytical or downright stupid persons. When survey results can change based on whether the question is, "Can the U.S. government monitor U.S. citizens without a warrant?" or "Can the U.S. government monitor suspected terrorists without a warrant?", it's pretty clear that far too many Americans are not thinking too clearly.
Oh, and one more thing: Congress can make all the laws it wants governing "whistle-blowing", but it is the responsibility of juries to decide not only if an individual "whistle-blower" has violated those laws, but whether that individual should be found guilty for doing so. Yes, FIJA, and jury nullification, are extremely important to protecting us from abusive governmental authority at all levels.
Whew, I think I just lost, like, 10 pounds from all that spleen I just vented. I don't know about you, but I feel better.
And, in the name of bomb Allah the just chemical weapons and merciful nuclear.
posted by heavynettle at 09:14
1 Comments:
I'm tired of certain individuals, most recently the Attorney General.
It seems Bush may finally have found away to get Montanans to vote Democratic. The man truly does not seem to understand why it is that a single branch of government or a single individual (he, himself) should not be given absolute power.
As far as this unspecified "program" goes; nobody knows how far it has been taken because the administration lies about everything that goes on. I am sad to say that given the adminstration's positions on torture, extraordinary rendition, wire-tapping, kidnapping, secret prisons, lying to Congress (pick the issue), supression of internal dissent, willful misinterpretation of intelligence to meet predetermined policy objectives, and the central role of the military in all policy implementation (did I miss anything?); I am SAD TO SAY that I would not be surprised to learn that kidnapping and assassinations of American citizens had already taken place in the U.S. and abroad. If I am mistaken, and if I sound like a conspiracy nut, then my response is that the U.S. President is at fault in generating suspesion because he has denied us the ability to verify that he is following the law.
I might add, the only evidence at hand that the administration has not just started capping people is the ineptly run prison in Guantanamo, where the old Man Without A Country senario may come true for a group of several hundred (formerly) young men.
But then again, it doesn't seem any new prisoners are being added in Guantanamo, so what's going on? Are we just waterboarding them then passing them along to third countries to kill? In theory, I have nothing against the death penalty for terrorists--whatever their motivations, intentional targeting of civilians warrants nothings but death--but I am very much against the death penalty in secret. Which is where I suspect we are.
It's a sad day for America.
Bush is a horrible, horrible man.
Post a Comment
<< Home