Toe Knee Flip-Flops on the FISA Issue

I've talked a bunch about the FISA amendments these past few months and my words haven't been complimentary, I've said that it's a huge blow for civil liberties and it compromises the rule of law.  I've shouted from the rooftop of my blog that it is bad bad bad bad bad.  An evil tool created by and for an evil administration that has spikes and barbs and stuff and will inevitably be inserted up whichever orifice the American people would still like to save for that special someone.

So today I stand not on the roof, but in more of a back-room office of my blog to mumble away that I might have been a bit overzealous in my condemnation of the FISA amendments…

I know what you're thinking, but the world is not ending.  The final prophecy of Nostradamus has not come to pass and dogs and cats are not sleeping together.  Don't panic yet.  I will explain the reasons for my change of heart.

Late in the evening two nights ago I came across a FISA post by a very bright Voxer who calls himself Brons.  He did an admirable job of interpreting the bill and what it means and is supposed to do.  He also did it from a staunchly Libertarian standpoint, which is the only stance at all that I would have accepted as valid on this issue.  He like me was opposed to the bill on the principle that it violated American liberties, however unlike me he had the ability to interpret the text of the bill and construct a far-more informed opinion based upon the facts he uncovered.

It's a long read and it's a very very complicated issue that attempting to summarize honestly sounds like feeble minded bullshit spouted from the mouths of one of America's chief propaganda artists, but I will do my very best.

What the bill attempts to do is bring the surveillance laws up to the technology level that we now live in.

Yes, again I know what you're thinking… that's pretty much what Bush said, and we all know Bush is a big fat liar so why am I quoting him?  Well… enough monkeys on enough typewriters… let's just say that Bush says a lot of things and chaos theory dictates that at some point, something he says might be correct when interpreted in a certain way.  If it makes you feel any better I think he might have meant to say something else.

But back to FISA.  FISA is essentially a bill that creates a group of judges who sign warrants to spy.  Now Americans are protected from unlawful spying by their constitution, warrants are issued to make that spying lawful, just like a cop has to obtain a warrant before he can search your home.  This is no different.  

Non-americans aren't protected by the American constitution, and therefore they can be spied on without the same legal issues and are only limited by the policies their boss sets down, certain international laws and treaties and what sort of a budget the accountants allot. Thus spying on non-American citizens outside the USA doesn't need a warrant unless it violates some sort of treaty.

Where it gets fuzzy is when you're talking about non-Americans on US soil, or a non-American talking to an American etc…

Here's the technological bit.  Digital communication isn't just one bunch of data sliding along a wire until it reaches it's destination, it travels through a multitude of servers, and routers to get where it's going.  Sometimes data between two foreign persons communicating in a foreign country will make pitt stops in routers and servers on United States soil.  This previously meant that even though the data was clearly outside of the jurisdiction of Constitutional protection, because it was being obtained from a server owned by a company that was US based that a FISA warrant still had to be obtained.  That as you can imagine likely bogged down the process some.  

What the new amendments are meant to do are to consider the sources that information is originating from to determine the need for a FISA warrant, rather than the source it is obtained from to determine whether or not a warrant is needed.  If a US citizen is involved, then constitution protects them and warrant is needed, if one of the points where the communication originated from is on US soil, then get a warrant… however if two people are talking on their cell-phones in Afghanistan and their cell phone conversation is routed through servers belonging to AT&T in Seattle, then if those people are for whatever reason persons that the US needs to spy upon, then the data can be grabbed from the Seattle server with the same legal ease that a field agent would have had in installing a wire-tap between their point-to-point communications back in the 60's.

That's the jist of it.  Now, the bill does specifically state that when issuing warrants to surveil US citizens that the 4th Amendment rights must be obeyed, and that the information gained must have certain safeguards to protect American's rights… however these statements have yet to be tested in the courts.  

THAT boys and girls, means that our interpretations are just interpretations and will only be proven wrong or right once the courts start making legal rulings and setting precedents based on what the judges' interpretation of this law are.  It is then we  will see how much weight these protections have.

So after that attempt at explaining things better, what really matters most of course is my opinion.  What FISA looks like to me is just a tool, a hammer with a new nob on it that will hopefully work a bit better in some situations.  That hammer is not necessarily evil, and parts of the constitution have not been melted down to be used in it's construction.  However the way that hammer will be used still remains to be seen.  If the administration is corrupt – and for the last while it has been – then we can expect this tool to be used in many unsavory ways.  However it doesn't necessarily compromise the rule of law by it's very existence.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Which Parts of the Constitution Should Be Tossed?

Here's what I don't get… whenever someone steps in front of a camera and says that maybe guns are weapons and gun owners should be held accountable for that, every GOP member and their dog hops onto their soap-box and starts screaming about their Constitutional Rights… but whenever other aspects of the constitution are outright used as toilet paper then flushed… crickets.  Kinda makes me wonder about the validity of their arguments…

Let's take a look at a few parts of the constitution and examine how they apply to some of the more recent events.

The Second Amendment

Declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary to the security of a free State", and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This is the GOP's favorite part of the Constitution, and the Democrat's least favorite, it's been the battle ground for many drawn-out fights, one of the more recent ones being in the Washington Supreme Court.  It was a move to control firearms in the state and it was overturned and the Republicans trumpeted it a victory for 2nd Amendment rights.   The constitution was upheld and America's rights and freedoms still stand strong.

The Fourth Amendment

Guards against searches, arrests and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

Specifically we'll look at this particular snippet of text:

"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."

The recent FISA amendments have shredded that particular part of the constitution.  It's not needed anymore, times are different, the fourth amendment is "soft on Terror" and therefore every GOP in the Senate voted to scrap it ensuring that any phone call or e-mail or piece of electronic data leaving the country will be monitored and turned over to the government without any need of a warrant or probable cause.  Sure it's a small infringement on American's rights and freedoms, but to stop terror… well worth the price.

The Fifth Amendment

Forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Pleading the Fifth").

This Amendment has also been sacrificed on the alter of the War On Terror.  Recently Guantanamo Bay detainees were told that they got a right to a fair trial, so begrudgingly the Constitution is upheld, however the evidence they gave, possibly under torture, is being used against them.  So the fifth amendment really isn't needed anymore either. 

So my point here is that in the GOP's mind the War on Terror justifies the compromise of the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments, as well as taking a few stabs at the Fourteenth Amendment, and completely ignores the 8th Amendment's stance on "Cruel and Unusual Punishment".

But this is the War on Terror, sacrifices must be made to ensure the safety of American citizens after all.

So here's what I don't get:

This guy, Jim D. Adkisson just shot two people because of their political views.  He targeted them because the church they went to was according to him, "too liberal".    This is textbook terrorism right from the elephants mouth, if he were Arabic or had any shade of skin but pasty white he would already be on his way to Guantanamo.  

Herein lies my confusion, the War on Terror is a god that demands sacrifice, and sacrifice it has gotten in plenty.  The constitution is but a virgin vestibule to be penetrated by it's frothy member.  But the Second Amendment is still somehow sacred, despite the fact that guns are infinitely more accessible than explosives, that they're more cost effective, and that we all know that terrorists DO use guns, it is the one part of the Bill of Rights that cannot be touched.  

Why?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Words

The War on Terror.  Read those words; The.  War.  On.  Terror.  Each word has a blunt finality about it, this is not A War on Terror, it is not The Struggle Against Terror, and it is not The War on Extremists or weapon wielding maniacs, or the policy to protect people.  It is simply The War on Terror and it is propaganda.

Muslim, Jihad, Taliban, Al-Queda, we say these words and we listen to them, but we do not know what they mean and those that do have no interest in telling us.  They are words in another language that most of us don't speak, references to a culture not our own, and when we hear them, we think of what we've been carefully guided to think of for the past 7 years.  They too are propaganda.  

Before September, 7 years ago, there was a different war.  Perhaps some of you remember it; The War on Drugs.  We don't hear about the War on Drugs anymore, but not because it's been won.  There are still plenty of drug users everywhere, their dealers are still making hoards of money, and Law Officials are still struggling to shut down massive narcotic operations.  Still there is no more War on Drugs.  Why is this?  Because the War on Drugs is just words, and those words were once propaganda but are no longer.

The War in Iraq, we hear these words and they sound tired.  Some of us remember that there was a War in Iraq once before, but it isn't considered.  This is not another War in Iraq, because that other one was so short we hardly even managed to catch the exciting parts on the nightly news.  This War, the War in Iraq is not just words, it is not propaganda, it stopped being so when thousands of soldiers didn't come home, or came home crippled.  It stopped being just words when the last glimmers of the former prosperity of the 90's was submerged by market insecurity and rising fuel costs.   They stopped being just words when the Weapons of Mass Destruction, were not there… their leader was dead… but still no one came home, soldiers were still fighting and dying, but all the propaganda associated with it was gone.  

Osama Bin Laden, is a man.  He is responsible for the deaths of many American citizens, and he is in hiding.  He is not just words, but he is propaganda as well.  America's people are united in their hatred of Osama Bin Laden, his continued existence justifies enormous public expenditure towards The War on Terror.  His continued existence justifies the suspension of habeas corpus, it justifies torture, it justifies the annihilation of the Fourth Amendment Constitutional Rights, and it justifies a national suspicion and borderline hatred of the largest and fastest growing religion in the world.  Now what would happen if he were caught?

In a Democratic nation, propaganda is necessary.  It creates a unified cultural identity and gives the nation a cause.  If there is no cause than a nation will tear it's self apart squabbling over taxes and the cost of pies.  Propaganda creates the illusion of a mutual enemy which unites the people and keeps the nation functioning.  Democracy empowers any individual with a strong enough passion to change the course of his nation, but that's the problem.  A ship can only go one direction, and if there are multiple rudders all guiding it in different directions the ship won't go anywhere and something could break.  So steps must be taken to ensure that those multiple rudders are at the very least not all working against each other.  

Democracy is a form of government, it is an ideal fostered thousands of years ago by men with a dream.  "[It] is the worst form of Government, except [for] all the others" – and it is widely considered to be the best reason to be an American, or Canadian, British, French, Australian, or a number of other great nationalities.  America can be proud that it was the nation that inspired the rest of the world to begin adopting this beneficent form of government.  America lead by example and the world is a much better place for it today.  

George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Carl Rove, are people, and they may yet be propaganda in the future.  They are responsible for the deaths of many American citizens, and they are not in hiding.   They were the creators of The War on Terror, they ordered the War in Iraq, and they have not captured Osama Bin Laden.  However, they have used these things to erode, undermine and shame America's greatest legacy.  The people who have been killed because of their actions are numerous, but worse is the compromise of the integrity of the nation which they have lead.  They have successfully attacked America's ideals and destroyed elements of what make America great, they have violated it's laws, and tarnished it's reputation.  And still they continue to do so every day, they tell us it is for our own good and we choose to believe them even though we know they are liars.

People say that America is being attacked, they say that it's enemies are growing stronger and that each person needs to realize this and take steps to protect their homes and families. 

I whole-heartedly agree with those words.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

If You’re Not with Me, then You Might as Well Hold Your Arms Out to Be Shackled!

This will be my fourth post tagged "freedom".

I write this because it's been on my mind a lot lately.  I've been increasingly frustrated with people who do not share my values regarding freedom.  It seems that there are more than a few people who rather than setting it lower on their list of priorities, out and out disagree with the very concept. 

My most recent frustrations with people who disagree with freedom as a fundamental concept began here, and my mood on the subject hasn't improved, instead it's been stewing and steaming and pissing me off more and more.  If you take the time to read the post and the comments I left you might wonder what Torturing terrorists has to do with freedom?  I'll tell you, it's just an example of how the powers that be are eroding core values of life and liberty and it's people are letting it happen.  Seriously, if the American people are allowing such a heinous and barbaric act such as torture to happen right under their noses and not care, what will they take a stand against? 

I am a student of history, and one of the things I read more and more about is the founding of America.  I understand what bravery it took for America's founding fathers to pen the Declaration of Independence.  Back then America was not a superpower.  It was a fledgling country desperately trying to prevent being further carved up by the decadent empires that existed at the time.  The founding fathers penned their constitution based on the principle I revere so much.  Freedom.  Every man, woman and child was entitled to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, what more could you really want? 

The American bill of rights is in my opinion one of the greatest achievements of modern man, however I think that a lot of those rights aren't properly understood.  I will do my best to explain the ones that I think modern American's are losing sight of…

The First Amendment addresses the right to freedom of religion, as well of freedom of expression, the press, assembly, and petition.  I've heard some people argue that freedom of religion is to make governments support atheism… not true.  The spirit of the amendment is based around the fact that there shall be no state-sponsored religion, and every person is entitled to practise whatever religion they so choose without persecution.  This amendment existed because many of the powers in Europe, particularly England had a state-sponsored religion.  The King of England was also the leader of the church of England… and throughout the middle ages, most kings were granted their right to rule by the pope.  America decided to have none of this, believing that politics should not be beholden to a god, and I applaud them for this.

The Second Amendment addresses the fact that a well regulated militia would be necessary to maintain a FREE state.  Modern rednecks call this "the right to bear arms" which comes off as a bit pretentious, and misses the original intent of the article.  The second amendment is about enabling the people to protect their freedom with force if needed.  If a force were to attempt to take away that freedom, then the people would take up arms against it.  This is in stark contrast to the mood today as it seems that the general populace seems helpless and castrated, unwilling to protect it's self as it hands over it's liberties to the state in return for protection from largely fictional entities.

The Fifth Amendment is what most people believe to be the "not talk in court" one.  The specific text is this: 

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

That means no torture assholes!  It also means the people are protected from state-sanctioned seizures, or unjust executions or imprisonments without a trial by a fair and impartial jury.  The sixth amendment covers more of the details of the public trials.

The eighth amendment regulates bail fines and prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.  I don't need to explain what that means, nor how it's being ignored…

And lastly today I come across this article about how nearly half of the country wants Uncle Sam to dictate what's an appropriate video game for their kids to play.  Why not just out and out say it?  You're shitty parents and you don't know how to say no to your children, so you want the government to say it for you! 

How does such a fine independent country fall so far?  Where did it change from a governing body providing order to a nation, to a populace demanding that the most trivial decisions must be made for it?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend