…Or was it Complicit in Helping the Regime Build a
Police State?
By Kenneth J. Theisen, 8/24/07
When the Democrat-controlled Congress voted for the Bush
regime’s massive spying bill earlier this month was it complicit in the crimes
of the regime? And just what powers did
the new law give the Bush administration? Many people are aware of the
unchecked wiretapping powers the bill gave to the executive branch. But the law also apparently struck an even
deeper blow at the 4th amendment’s prohibition against unlawful searches and
seizures by allowing the government to conduct particular physical searches of
citizens and the seizure of their business records as well, all without court
approval.
As the full-extent of the bill becomes known, Democrats are
pleading ignorance. They claim they did not understand what they were doing and
that they were rushed into voting on the bill before the Congressional summer
recess. How could they have been expected
to read and understand the legislation? Some claim they were misled by the Bush
regime. [Does this sound like a replay
of the vote on the Iraq
war? “Gee we voted for it, but we were misled.”]
Now Democrats say the language was vague and allows the Bush
administration too much leeway. But civil liberties groups that opposed this
law pointed out in detail what the language of the bill allowed. They correctly stated that this law would
give the regime virtually unlimited powers to spy on Americans within the
country and on anyone outside the country.
By changing the meaning of “electronic
surveillance,” the new law gives the regime the power to use intelligence
collection methods far beyond wiretapping.
Previously these methods required court approval if conducted within the
U.S. These methods include the collection of
business records, physical searches, and operations analyzing specific calling
patterns or data mining. Under the new law, if the government’s target is
overseas, the legislation permits the search of records of a person located in
the U.S.
as long as the search is related to the targeted person. It can be read to
allow data mining to determine calling patterns if the “purpose” of the data
mining is to target someone overseas. This virtually permits the search of
records of any of us as long as the Bush regime claims the “target” is outside
the U.S. It vitiates the 4th amendment protection.
The Bush regime claims that the law was intended to speed
access to the communications of foreign targets and not circumvent the laws
protecting communications of Americans.
Based on the extensive record of the Bush regime, only a fool would
believe this. Since 9/11 the regime has
done everything it could to enhance its surveillance powers. The fact that the
new law gives Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Director of National
Intelligence Mike McConnell discretion in creating the new procedures and
approving the way surveillance is conducted is the first clue that the Bush
regime knew exactly what it was doing. Both of these men have consistently
cooperated in the Bush regime’s various crimes, especially those of spying on
us.
But these Bush regime henchmen are not the only ones who
have been complicit in these crimes. The
Democrats have also been complicit. And
pleading ignorance in the passage of this bill will not fly either. The most recent Democratic president, Bill
Clinton, claimed vast surveillance and search powers during his administration
too. Democratic leaders in Congress are
well aware of this as Clinton’s
Justice Department testified before Congress on this very issue.
This recent expansion of surveillance and abridgement of the
4th amendment did not start with the Bush regime. For many years the executive branch has
argued that it has “inherent authority” to order physical searches –
including break-ins at the homes of U.S. citizens – for foreign
intelligence purposes without any warrant or permission from any outside
body. This position was strongly put
forward by President Clinton during his administration. Clinton maintained this position even after
Congress placed the authority to pre-approve such searches in the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court.
Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before the
Senate Intelligence Committee on July 14, 1994 that, “the Department of Justice
believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority
to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes”and
that the President may, as has been done, delegate this authority to the
Attorney General. It is important to understand that the rules and methodology
for criminal searches are inconsistent with the collection of foreign
intelligence and would unduly frustrate the president in carrying out his
foreign intelligence responsibilities.” I know I would hate to frustrate
the President.
As far back as 1981 in Executive Order 12333, Ronald Reagan
permitted warrantless searches directed against “a foreign power or an
agent of a foreign power.” So-called “black bag jobs” or illegal
break-ins to plant bugs or search residences and offices were a long time
regular practice of the FBI and other “political police” against political
enemies of various administrations.
Watergate was the most well-known of these, but they included the
break-in at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office concerning the Pentagon
Papers too. The COINTELPRO Program where
the government actively disrupted “leftist” organizations was a similar
operation. The latest spy law just
“legalizes” past practice of this and previous administrations and is enabling
the Bush administration to create a police state.
Think of the building of this police state as building a
wall. With the passage of the Protect
America Act of 2007, Congress has given the Bush regime one more brick
necessary to implement a police state.
Other bricks include major laws that the Bush regime is using in
creating the police state such as the PATRIOT Act (including various amendments
to the Act) and the Military Commissions Act.
Laws creating the Department of Homeland Security and other big brother
type agencies or sub-units are also important to the regime. The politicization
of the Justice Department, including the firing of possibly disloyal U.S.
attorneys, is also a brick in the wall.
Another brick used by the administration includes signing
statements of the president stating his creative interpretation of laws passed
by Congress. In these, he often states
which part of the law if any he will follow and he often includes
interpretations which expand his powers beyond those of the law. In these signing statements he often states he
will obey the law to the extent that it does not interfere with his “powers” as
Commander-in-Chief or other “inherent powers” he claims.
Bush has also issued presidential directives and executive
orders which vastly expand his police state powers, including additional
dictatorial powers in the case of an “emergency.” Many of these directives and
orders are justified on the grounds of “national security” and are allegedly
necessary for the exercise of Bush’s Commander-in-Chief role. Lately, almost
every week the regime comes out with new rules and regulations in the Federal
Register for various Cabinet Departments or executive agencies which also
increase the power of the executive branch.
When Congress does occasionally conduct investigations or
ask questions about any of the above actions, the regime stonewalls by failing
to comply with subpoenas, ducking hearings, or other evasive methods. It uses the excuses of “state secrets” and
“national security” to keep Congress, the courts, and the public ignorant of
its actions as well. When Congress
passed the expanded spying legislation, it was still conducting investigations
on the NSA spying. Even though it had
not been provided the answers to questions about previous spying by the
administration, Congress still gave the regime additional spying powers. This
is not ignorance or complacency, it is active complicity with the
administration as it continues to build its police state wall.
Hearings are often little more than political dog and pony
shows to convince the public that Congress is exercising its oversight of the
executive branch, while really helping the regime to expand it powers. Now that
the Democrats are the majority party they do hold considerable power on proposed
legislation. Pelosi is the Speaker of
the House. Harry Reid is the Majority Leader
of the Senate. They control all the committee chairs. They can determine which
bills pass out of committee and which bills come to the floor for votes. They have the power of life and death over
all legislation. And yet, despite these vast powers, for some reason they were
not exercised to kill the Protect America Act which greatly increased the
powers of the Bush regime. Could it be
that Pelosi, Reid, and others just do not know how to use majority power in
Congress or is it that they actually want to expand the powers of the
presidency while paying lip service to the Constitution?
When Nancy Pelosi stated that the Protect America Act “does
violence to the Constitution of the United States” was she just trying to
placate liberal voters in her district?
If not, why did she not exercise her power as Speaker to kill the
bill? In whose interest was she
acting? Certainly not in the interests
of most Americans who oppose the Bush regime.
I guess protecting the Constitution was not on her agenda at the time. Why
should such small items as the Constitution stand in the way of the
President? Why hinder his work by making
him go before a court to justify his actions?
If we can not trust the President, who can we trust to protect us seems
to be the argument? Apparently the
Congress bought it when they passed this latest legislation to add another
brick in the building of a police state. The problem is that the wall is almost
complete and only a couple more bricks may be needed to finish it. And once it is built it will be much more
difficult to tear down. Maybe we should stop the building now, before it is too
late?