A Victory in the Battle to Retain Our Constitutional Rights

In the wake of the Democratic Congress granting the Presidency almost totalitarian powers of citizen suveillance, the ACLU has won and important court case

ACLU Press release regarding recent court victory below:

In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public (8/17/2007)

Government Must Respond by August 31

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented order, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has required the U.S. government to respond to a request it received last week by the American Civil Liberties Union for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. According to the FISC's order, the ACLU's request "warrants further briefing," and the government must respond to it by August 31. The court has said that any reply by the ACLU must be filed by September 14.

"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny.We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."

The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.

"These court orders relate to the circumstances in which the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens and residents," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The debate about this issue should not take place in a vacuum.It's imperative that the public have access to basic information about what the administration has proposed and what the intelligence court has authorized."

FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative." Those orders are among the documents requested by the ACLU.

Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass the new legislation expanding the government's surveillance powers. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.

The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

A copy of the FISA court order, the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying

In addition to Jaffer, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro, Melissa Goodman, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

Of Course the Government Abused Its Power

Another name for Big Government Conservativism is Fascism and we're rapidly sliding down that slope. Fortunately, American-style fascism hasn't made "the trains run on time" (witness Katrina, Walter Reed, Iraq), so America likely will survive and recover from the latest assault on the Bill of Rights.

I'm shocked, shocked the FBI is abusing the powers granted to in the abomination known by the Orwellian name "The Patriot Act." Most of the extreme provisions in this bill should have been allowed to sunset per the originial law. However Congress, and especially the spineless Democrats raised few objections to expanding to renewing these provisions and only eliminate some of them.

And now the government is attempting to resurrect the Total Information Awareness system. Of course this time they're getting the private sector to do it for them so they contract for the services instead. [Note: to bring in another of my favorite themes,the original seal for the TIA office prompted many concerns from conspiracy groups about the Masons, Illuminati etc. taking over]. FOr real problems TIA could cause, see here.

Begin Self-Involved Explication

Many of the provisions in the Patriot Act simply gave the FBI the same powers to pursue suspected terrorists that the DEA already possessed for going after potential drug traffickers. On that front these provisions could be considered relatively harmless. One the other hand the War on (Some) Drugs could easily be ended by legalizing most drug consumption, regulating it and putting it in the hands of corporations. This would also result in the defunding of many of the terrorism organizations. I had a really interesting conversation about this at CPAC with a law enforcement officer advocating legalizing drugs for these reasons. For what it's worth, he told me he had a much better reception this year than last.

End Self-Involved Explication.

Conspiracy Goes Mainstream (Again)

Joe Conason's latest book(and essay) rehashes the implications of Dye & Ziegler points about our society in their excellent book The Irony of Democracy. It also retreads Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

But does his book contribute to a new left-wing paranoid syle in American politics, or is he on to something? Remember, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross" - Sinclair Lewis

10 Zen Monkeys has a discussion of this meme.

The Slippery Slope to Facism Gets Steeper

I must confess, I always thought that Big Brother would be established by the radical left and not the right. After all, Jeanne Kirkpatrick's famous essay made the point that right-wing authoritarian governments have the potential to evolve into democracies. No one has seriously considered the possibility of a modern democracy moving towards fascism since the mid-20th Century.

Removing the ability of some people to gain habeas corpus review is just a step towards limiting its ability to all of us.

U.S. Fascism on the March

Congress Arrives at A Deal on Patriot Act

The deal basically extends most Patriot Act provisions for 7 years. Maybe these provisions arguably were needed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. However, when the act passed, the public was assured that these extraordinary powers would would sunset after a few years. Unfortunately, Congress and the Bush Administration follow the basic bureaucratic desire to constantly aggrandize power and fight any diminution of power or authority.

American Fascism is on the march . . .

Change the Fucking Channel!

Unbelieveable. Now that we have the V-Chip (borderline fascist), cable boxes that allow one to block certain channels, and content ratings for television shows, the Christianists have decided that is not enough.

No. Instead, they want to make sure that I, an adult who likes my television replete with sex, violence and profanity, am not allowed to see it. They want to fine my favorite television networks for showing the programs I want to watch. And all this because they do not want to change the channel, actually use the V-Chip, or block certain channels from their cable boxes. All this in the name of "protecting the children." Instead, they should exercise their parental responsibility by learning how to use their V-chip or channel blocker. That way, they get the results they want: their children not watching "inappropriate" material; and we, the majority, get to watch what we want: our entertainment as ""coarse" or "violent" as we like it.

Their agenda is not protecting children. Their agenda is controlling adults. They want to stop the "coarsening of the culture." I want to stop their "infantalizing the culture." (TM). I'm an adult without children. Single adults without children are now the majority of the population. We should not have our entertainment options limited to whatever the Christianists determine is "child-friendly" (of course, maybe political activity is somehow easier than reading the instructions). We should be able to watch whatever we want on cable without their interference.

The rationale for regulating the airwaves is clear: they belong to the general public and are licensed to private users in return for public service (now reduced mainly to the weekend talk shows), and the consent to be governed.

As far as I know, there exists no similar, sound policy rationale for regulating cable.

To join the fight, please visit: www.televisionwatch.org Target="_blank"