Evidently, Congress Doesn't Read The Constitution

Bill Would Allow Warrantless Spying: GOP Plan Would Bring Surveillance Under Review of Congress, FISA Court

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." US Constitution: Amendment IV

There is a long standing legal understanding of the word "shall" that means that there is no question about what EXACTLY will/will not occur when a law or regulation uses the term. In this case, the "Supreme Law of the Land"--the US Constitution--clearly states that this right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. A warrantless search has been ruled, by precedent of over 200 years, as inherently unreasonable. Wiretaps and electronic surveillance are not only considered a type of search, but by significant precedent, are an established seizure of information inherently private and inherently protected.

We must also remember that the Constitution does not provide these rights, but guarantees that these INHERENT rights SHALL be held inviolate.

The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.

Do these folks read their Constitution? Do they understand that they swore an oath to uphold, defend and follow it to the letter? Can they not foresee the problem of law suit after law suit that would follow the passing of such a bill?

One would think that the rulings against the Bush administration regarding the processing used in Gitmo, the exposure of the NSA warrantless spying programs (note: that is PLURAL) and the several screw ups in the recent efforts to prosecute Al-Qaeda related terrorists due to prosecutorial misconduct that lessons--very telling lessons--would be learned.

Any law passed and signed that authorizes warrantless searches, seizures or wiretaps is a patent violation of the US Constitution.

The four senators hope to settle the debate over National Security Agency eavesdropping on international communications involving Americans when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties. President Bush prompted a months-long uproar when he said that constitutional powers absolve him of the need to seek warrants in such cases, even though the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act requires warrants for domestic wiretaps.

The criteria for issuing a warrant--for search, sezure or both--is specifically laid out in the Fourth Amendment:

"...and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized...." US Constitution - Amendment IV

Not only can no search or seizure occur without a warrant, but that warrant must meet specific requirements... one of which is the criteria of "probable cause," which is a significant step above "when one of the parties is suspected of terrorist ties" that is proposed in the bill and already used by the existing NSA spying programs.

One of the arguments used to justify the existing warrantless searches and seizures (as in wiretaps) is the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolution passed by congress. However, the Posse Comitatus Act was not specifically suspended by the AUMF and the use of wiretaps is not a well-defined military force. It is an intelligence and law enforcement activity, but it is not specifically a military force as authorized by the AUMF resolution.

The program, begun in 2001, was first publicized late last year.

Shame on everyone that knew about it and withheld that information from the US citizens, the House and the Senate.

The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA's court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance "is necessary to protect the United States," according to a summary the four sponsors provided yesterday. They are Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine).

Obviously these folks do not believe in the sanctity of our rights, the principles of the Constitution, or the law as having limits, checks and balances. DeWine is an idiot and a brain-dead ultra-conservative that hasn't had an original thought while he has held office. Snowe keeps getting elected because most Maine voters cannot find a ride to the polls in time due to living so far in the woods (at least that is the only explanation that makes any sense to anyone with a lick of intellect). Hagel and Graham are mrely representing the Bible-thumping, no-brain ultraconservative politics of the Christian extremist that turn out the vote in Nebraska and South Carolina.

All but Graham are members of the sharply divided intelligence committee, whose Democratic members have unsuccessfully sought an investigation into the NSA program. Hagel and Snowe threatened last month to join the Democrats' request unless the administration and Congress agreed on a way to bring the wiretap program under the review of FISA's court and Congress.

Not only should there be an investigation, but there should also be an impeachment! Our rights are inviolate and the oath these elected and appointed officials took was to uphold and defend these rights and the rule of law. The very wording of the oath has been violated and it is a form of treason to violate those sacred words. And for those among us that are at least as Christian as I am... every single one of them took the oath and ended the utterance of the oath with "so help me God". Violating the oath is a form of perjury as well... the penalty for which is up to 20 years in a federal prison.

It is far from clear whether the bill can win passage. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- whose panel plays a major role in the surveillance matter -- pointed his thumb down yesterday when asked about the measure. He said he particularly objects to letting the government "do whatever the hell it wants" for 45 days without seeking judicial or congressional approval.

Yeah! But why is Specter dragging his feet on following through with an investigation. I question his integrity as a member of congress, a member of the bar and as a person due to his foot-dragging on these issues... and this is a shame because Specter has demonstrated that he has more integrity than Dick Lugar, Evan Bayh, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Joe Liberman or any of the members of the House that haven't come forward with a resolution for impeachment.

The Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who has defended the administration's actions, said seven members of a newly appointed subcommittee should be given time "to complete their review of the program before moving ahead with legislation." He added: "I am concerned that some of the procedural requirements included in the bill may limit the program's effectiveness."

Roberts has demonstrated his penchant for foot-dragging, grandstanding and back peddling. As far as I am concerned, he is a lying bastard that has used the circumstances of the NSA spying to bring attention to himself. On top of that, Roberts--and just about everyone else--seems to be ignoring the FACT that this program has proven to be COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE! Out of 5000 NSA referrals to the FBI, only a handful were even considered "interesting" and NONE--ABSOLUTELY NONE--have resulted in arrests, prevention of attacks, or anything legitimately involved in national security in terms of terrorism, especially Al-Qaeda.

If we look to the arrest of three terrorists in Ohio, the key to their arrests and the intervention of their plans was an informant and good old-fashioned police work... collecting data in an efficient manner, analyzing that data effectively, demonstrating probable cause, getting a warrant and making the arrest.

Unfortunately, the FBI and the NSA can't seem to get their act together in order to even install and operate computer networks that are efficient and effective at gathering and analyzing data, "connecting the dots" linking groups and individuals to terrorist activities, or even managing law enforcement efforts.

If we look to the most effective program for preventing terrorism in this country, we need to look at the NYPD anti-terrorism programs. CBS 60 Minutes aired a piece on the steps NYPD has taken to implement anti-terror methods.

One common sight in the city's fight against terror is a counter-terrorism operation called "a surge." About 100 police cars from all over the city swarm into an area like Times Square. These happen unannounced all over the city.

It begins with an officer briefing, not only on their specific assignments, but on a subject you might not expect — terrorist developments thousands of miles away.

In charge of this operation for the "new" NYPD is Chief Vincent Giordano.

Asked how often police conduct this operation, Giordano says, "Every day. Seven days a week. 365!"

A "surge" is a simultaneous deployment of about 200 cops to potential terrorist targets — and a visible demonstration to terrorists and New Yorkers of the widespread changes the NYPD has implemented since 9/11. Giordano says these swarms of police officers go to locations all over the city.

"That’s an impressive show of force," Bradley remarked.

"If you want to use the term shock and awe — when they go to a location, if somebody’s watching the location and they’re doing type of surveillance, they’re not going to miss this type of deployment," Giordano said.

They also won’t miss teams of heavily armed cops who show up unannounced at train stations, office buildings and other potential targets throughout the city.

"New York has done an enormous amount, and if there's anything else we could do, we haven't thought of it yet," says Mayor Michael Bloomberg

One has to ask, even though we all want to applaud genuine police work as the key to preventing terrorism on our soil, how far is the NYPD going in the process. If we take a page from history, the NYPD has an established record of infiltration of law-abiding groups, warrantless searches, police corruption (c.f. Knapp Commission) and numerous violations of civil rights of ordinary citizens. As I viewed this report by Ed Bradley, I wondered how far in the name of fear the NYPD and NYC politicians were willing to go? Would Bloomberg, Giordano, Kelly, Cohen and Sheehan argue that the current climate of fear authorizes and/or calls for extreme measure that sacrifice basic civil liberties and human rights. The answer is apparently yes to some degree in that the NYPD is conducting random searches of handbags, brief cases and shopping bags in the subways.

Committee Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said through a spokeswoman that it is "too soon to consider legislation until the oversight subcommittee can answer critical questions about the program."

DeWine told reporters that White House officials "agree with the general concept" of the bill. Most Americans think "this type of surveillance should continue," he said, but Congress must impose oversight.

Why would the White House oppose anything that gives them permission to "legally" (at least until the first court challenge) do what they are currently doing in a completely illegal manner? Again, I point out that DeWine has not had an original thought during his tenure in office and is being fed this program and bill line by line from someone in the Bush gang... it only makes sense that he would say exactly what the White House wants to hear.

Details of the program, and Justice Department requests for exemptions from FISA warrants, would go only to the seven-member Senate subcommittee and a similar House intelligence subcommittee yet to be named. Both subcommittees would include Democrats and Republicans.

I am not sure placing that much power in a concentrated oversight effort or committee is a wise thing... especially given the lack of bipartisan cooperation, the in-fighting within both parties, the lack of integrity and courage to stand up to political pressure, the demonstrated greed in congress and the history of screwing civil liberties right out of the picture.

The bill introduced yesterday calls for fines of up to $1 million and prison terms of up to 15 years for those who disclose "classified information related to the Terrorist Surveillance Program," the administration's name for the NSA operation. The penalties would not apply to journalists.

This is an effort of the White House to continue crimping the ability of honest-to-goodness reporters and whistleblowers from getting the word out the next time the powerful and influential decide to do something that violates the law, civil rights, or the Constitution itself. Someone ought to have a discussion with Gen. Peter Pace, USMC, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said in a recent speaking engagement:

"I believe in a strong military. But if I were given a choice of having ONLY a strong military or a free press, I would choose a free press." (original emphasis) March 13, 2006

Ordinarily we do not see that type of statement coming from someone that has the direct ear and frequent contact with George W. Bush, but this was, in my view, a genuine statement of his views.