The New Surveillance Bill: The Worst of Both Worlds

From AlterNet:

The bill, in short, is worse than granting absolute immunity: it is an effort to suborn the legitimacy of the federal courts by having a judge rubber-stamp the dismissal of cases against the telecoms without looking at the substance of what, in fact, was done. It reduces the separation of powers to a check-the-box exercise.

The bill does no better on privacy matters -- the question of new surveillance power. Title I of the measure grants the executive branch new surveillance powers for collecting the communications of persons overseas. Although it contains several provisions that purport to shelter Americans' privacy both at home and overseas, these parts of the bill are rendered irrelevant by the grant of sweeping collection authorization.

And

This is a radical break from the FISA regime created in 1978, and risks severe harm to Americans' privacy interests. The most important break with FISA is the absence of any individualized warrant requirement: it is now whole collection programs that are authorized and reviewed. And the abandonment of discrete, individualized legislative authorization and judicial review is only the first of the bill's troubling features.

Click here for more.

I've been wanting to post on this since Friday when the bill was passed by the House, but it's been difficult to find an article or essay spelling out, exactly, what's wrong with it. The above linked essay does a decent job, but still doesn't quite get to the heart of the matter.

The problem with the previously illegal White House warrantless wiretapping program, I mean apart from the fact that they didn't even try to get warrants, was its scope. They were looking at masses of electronic data concerning the communications of millions of Americans, the vast majority of them peaceful and law-abiding citizens. This was, on its face, an enormous and profound violation of the fourth amendment. The government can't search you, which includes your private communications, without a warrant, except under some very specific circumstances, such as imminent life-and-death emergencies. But that's exactly what President Bush's electronic surveillance program did, making a gargantuan mockery of one of our most foundational national values.

This new bill, just passed by the House, and by all accounts headed for success in the Senate, does nothing to change either the scope or the warrant issue. Indeed, there are no warrants at all, in the way the term is usually understood. As the essay observes, the FISA court, under this soon-to-be law, doesn't even glance at individual circumstances; instead, the court reviews the entire fishing expedition, and the standard for judging legality is reduced to simple assertions from the White House--all they have to say is "We're looking for terrorists," and that's it. So no warrants are required, and the very nature of the surveillance is such that millions of Americans are scooped up in its nets.

This is no compromise. Indeed, it's offensively unconstitutional. Anti-American, even.

But the Democrats all love it. What is their fucking deal?!? I know, I know. It all has to do with politics. That is, winning elections: the Democrats are inexplicably still afraid of appearing soft on terrorism. So afraid that they're willing to unilaterally shred the Constitution.

Well, whatever their reasons are, one thing is now achingly clear: our Congressmen understand neither the US Constitution, nor the role that they are required to play under its mandates. That is, our government, both the legislative and executive branches, is in the hands of utter incompetents who just don't get it. This is not unlike allowing an eight year old to drive a car. On the freeway.

I'm scared.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$