 | A Mighty Big Coincidence in Warrantless Surveillance |
1. A public unclassified brief filed by Bush administration lawyers shows a particularly urgent desire for the consideration of what constitutes “electronic surveillance†to be quashed:
Litigation of plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory claims would require
careful consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the TSP and any
application of the TSP to plaintiffs (including facts concerning whether any
surveillance constituted “electronic surveillance” within the meaning of FISA)-an
inquiry foreclosed by the state secrets privilege.
2. On July 24, Judge Vaughn Walker rejected the “state secrets” assertion of the Bush administration in pending citizen lawsuits, and allowed consideration of the facts of the cases under consideration, and their fit under the definition of “electronic surveillance,” to proceed.
3. As Warden points out in the diaries, Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico introduced a bill to Congress on July 24 — the very same day — changing the definition of “electronic surveillance” under FISA law. The very next day, Republican Party leader John Boehner of Ohio added his vocal support for that bill.
4. The redefinition of the term “electronic surveillance†is right at the top of the text of the Protect America Act of 2007, the bill that ultimately passed just five days after it was introduced, and just ten days before these cases were to proceed to oral arguments.
Coincidence? What do you think?
Contact Us
What I don’t understand is the DEMOCRATS rush to vote this thing through. If the President wants something really bad, can’t they just basically vote “no”? For that matter, it’s really hard to even get something to the floor for a vote. Why did this not die in committee? I’ve never heard of a president being able to call a session of congress before. They were basically scared of him because they already had their plane tickets and didn’t want to miss their vacations? What kind of emergency is it if no one–even the people who voted for the bill–can explain why the bill is needed?
Comment by Iroquois — 8/7/2007 @ 12:16 pm
Agreed. If impeachment is off the table, why can’t the surrender of American freedom be off the table too?
Who’s scared of a President with approval ratings below 30 percent?
Hm. Maybe Democratic members of Congress who are being blackmailed by the President? After all, we are talking about an unprecedented electronic spying program within the United States. Who’s to say that members of Congress are not targets?
Is that why impeachment is off the table?
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/7/2007 @ 12:20 pm
Clinton tried the same thing in ‘96
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/8/7/121334/7700
Comment by Iroquois — 8/7/2007 @ 4:15 pm
“… the surrender of American freedom” is on the table because impeachment is off the table.
The Democrats are, as they have done for six-plus years, tail-ending Bush and the rest of the Republiscum: who will do anything they can to terrorize the American people and erode our freedoms.
THAT’S WHAT THE RIGHT WING IS DOING. AND THAT’S WHAT THE LIBERALS ARE DOING AS WELL!
RED DAVE
Comment by RED DAVE — 8/7/2007 @ 4:40 pm
There’s a big difference between Democrats and liberals, Dave. Don’t forget that. Most of the Democrats are not liberals. That’s the problem.
Comment by Peregrin Wood — 8/7/2007 @ 5:00 pm