According to an official memorandum from yesterday, the Administration has declared that it will veto any version of the FISA legislation that doesn't offer retroactive immunity to the telephone companies that broke the current surveillance laws (Qwest being the big exception who followed the rules). Now, I know that this plays straight into the would-be fascists at Move-On's hands, but if the updates to the FISA legislation really are as important to USian lives as Bush claims they are, why on Earth is he willing to see it derailed to protect phone companies? They're concerned that companies "might be less willing to assist the Government" by, essentially, violating Federal law.
This means either:
a) protecting the US is less important than papering over violations of federal law (ominous), or
b) the administration firmly believes that it cannot protect the US from within the confines of the law (even more ominous).
It reminds me of the famous Franklin quote about freedom & security....
4 comments:
or
c)The administration wants to expand its power and is using the fear of terrorism as an excuse. Though, honestly, this does not contradict (b), it just means there are some in the administration who have different motives than others.
ACLU alleges that several illegal wiretaps were made. I don't have the data, but am deeply suspicious, given that FISA is inherently not available for citizen review.
Several illegal wiretaps == full internet backbone mirror to the NSA from several sites across the US.
That's not inherently bad, and I could live with that given proper checks and balances, judicial review, and congressional oversights.
But, IMHO, wholesale wiretaps most certainly violates the 4th amendment, and probably due cause among a dozen other legal precedents.
Agreed; doubly, "hey, we want you to do it and we're the executive, so it counts as "in good faith" legal even when it's against the law" is not exactly separation of powers!
Amanda: all branches of government always want to increase their power -- this is why the interstate commerce clause has warped beyond anything the founders would recognize, etc.
Post a Comment