[Originally published at Corrente.]
An interesting story in the Times today:
Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches of American citizens and the collection of their business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said [having actually read the law, finally].
Harry, Nancy: Nice work all around. Why would I worry?
But I'm sure that no significant damage to our liberties can possibly be done in the six months until the law is sunsetted, even with a massive datamining operation, the cooperation of the telcos and gawd knows who else, and a mandate to store such captured data forever (see, e.g. this post at "shall retain." "Shall" means "not optional.")
Administration officials acknowledged they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently [bogus "balancing" Republican reassurances deleted in the interests of cranial integrity]...
"Recently?" But not when the law was passed?** Hmmm.... Why would that be, do you think?
Could it be because the Dems got massive pushback from their Constitution- and liberty-loving base?***
And rightly so.
The dispute illustrates how Democrats, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.
"Legislation they may not have fully understood..."
The mind reels. Or, at least, it should reel. (Then again, I suppose the alternative is that they did understand the legislation. Which'd you rather?)
Again, Harry, Nancy: Nice work. I knew you could do it. MR SUBLIMINAL Did you like the lederhosen Bush made you? He lined them with silk so they wouldn't chafe... I'm proud of you.
It also offers a case study in how changing a few words in a complex piece of legislation has the potential to fundamentally alter the basic meaning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a landmark national security law. Two weeks after the legislation was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president.
Well, the law did take the power to determine what surveillance was legal out of the hands of the courts, and give it to Alberto Gonzales, but that doesn't really mean Bush has any more actual power. He's been breaking the law for years, under The Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want, so what does another law matter? Anyhow, what could go wrong?
It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended [Oh? By whom?] consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s Congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans.
Sure, it's "possible." And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
But not to worry! The Democrats are going to go after the horse, get it back in the barn, and this time, they're going to lock the door, and not let the horse out again. Really:
"We did not cover ourselves in glory," said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.
In fact, they're even going so far as to expres their concerns to the criminal Bush regime privately:
These new powers are considered overly broad and troubling by some Congressional Democrats who raised their concerns with administration officials in private meetings this week.
See? Nothing to worry about. "Troubled" Democrats are raising "concerns." Man, that's all I need to know. (I do wonder what they actually said, though.)
Democratic leaders have said they plan to push for a revision of the legislation as soon as September. "It was a legislative over-reach, limited in time," said one Congressional Democratic aide. "But Democrats feel like they can regroup."
Well, that's alright then. And I'm glad, glad, glad, proud, proud, proud, that the Dems are finally waking up to the fact that they just might have a little problem on their hands, now that they've actually read the bill that they passed. At midnight. Before flitting back to their districts:
Whether intentional or not, the end result — according to top Democratic aides and other experts on national security law — is that the legislation may grant the government the right to collect a vast array of information on American citizens inside the United States without warrants, as long as the administration asserts that the spying concerns the monitoring of a person believed to be overseas.
Tightly crafted legislation, what?
And now, the quote of the day. From an unnamed administration official:
"I don’t think it’s a fair reading," the official said. "The intent here was pure: if you’re targeting [as defined by Albert Gonzales] someone [as defined by Albert Gonzales] outside the country [as defined by Albert Gonzales], the fact that you’re doing the collection inside the country [as defined by Albert Gonzales], that shouldn’t matter [to Albert Gonzales]."
But you know what? It's the all-too-familiar picture of the Democrats bringing a knife to a gunfight***. Because the criminal Bush regime is going to exercise its right, under The Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want, to go ahead and do whatever the fuck they want:
Yet [No. "And"] Bush administration officials have already signaled that, in their view, the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country [as He defines that], regardless of any action Congress takes [i.e., without being bound by the rule of law]. At a tense meeting last week with lawyers from a range of private groups active in the wiretapping issue, senior Justice Department officials refused to commit the administration to adhering to the limits laid out in the new legislation and left open the possibility that the president could once again use what they have said in other instances is his constitutional authority to act outside the regulations set by Congress.
Even Reagan Republicans think Bush this latest Bush power grab is too much:
At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others.
Sweet Jesus, is a Republican from the Reagan Justice Department the only guy who's willing to be quoted by name for the record on this? What's WRONG with these people?
It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, "is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence."
And indeed, the regime won't commmit to obey the law at all. Check out this non-answer answer:
Asked whether the administration considered the new legislation legally binding, Ms. Vines, the national intelligence office spokeswoman, said: "We’re going to follow the law and carry it out as it’s been passed."
Well, sure. Because under The Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want, they can decide to obey the law this week, and then change their minds tomorrow!
Please, could we just go straight to the police state and the camps? The suspense is killing me, and somehow, I don't think the Democrats "raising concerns" in "private" meetings, as if it were business as usual, is going to accomplish very much.
At the very least, could we have some sort of spoken statement from Harry and/or Nancy, as opposed to a letter? And how about the presidential candidates?
John? Here's your opportunity to get precise on what the restoration of the Constitution means in practice.
Barack?
Hillary?
Anyone?
Any leadership on this issue at all?
Any Democrats with stones?
NOTE ** I grant you, it's hard to raise concerns at midnight, when the law actually was passed.
NOTE *** This would be a "voice" strategy, as opposed to an "exit" or "loyalty" strategy (see here). Personally, I think it's pretty simple: Slap the Dems silly when they Fuck up. What this story shows is that--besides money, which none of have--that's the only way to get their attention and have even a hope of forcing some change.
There's also the marching on DC aspect, but if I went to DC on or around the 15th, I'd focus on restoring the Constitution, not on the war.
NOTE *** Check out Bush's personal congratulations to Diane Feinstein and Kit Bond for their Bipartisan work on this bill. Kudos all round. Did they read it, do you think? Or is Bush just fucking with us? Here's the next item on the agenda, too:
When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Has that word, "alleged," caused anybody else's head to explode?
NOTE While we're soiling our hands at the White House site, here's the oxymoranic Fact Sheet on the Orwellianly named "Protect America Act." They keep underlining foreign, so, on the principle that "in the language of Orthanc help means ruin, and saving means slaying," I assume that's the most obvious lie. Anyhow, under The Theory Of We Get To Do Whatever The Fuck We Want, they will, indeed, do whatever the fuck they want, so what do their "facts" matter?