Down the Drain...

Down the drain go our rights and liberties, one by one, and like the Germans in the time of Hitler's ascendancy, very few Americans seem to believe that it's happening. So many people seem to either think it can't be that bad, somehow trusting in the system to protect us when that system is being actively circumvented, or believe in the mistaken notion that giving up a few liberties is perfectly acceptable in the post 9/11 world, because after all, it's only the terrorists who have something to fear, right?

So all I can do is keep pointing out news articles like this one, from the AP (and posted on Yahoo).

According to the Justice Department, even legally privileged conversations such as Attorney-Client or Doctor-Patient conversations are open to surveillance. These are conversations for which no court would ever issue a warrant, because such information is legally recognized to be privileged. But not to the DoJ, they figure it's all just hunky dory.

And, they say, they have no compunctions against using information they gained through the program in court prosecutions. Their argument essentially boils down to "it's OK because we say it is", although the longer form is that because the program is legal (their assertion, absolutely not universally accepted), that therefore any evidence gathered through its use is also legal for use in court.

And as so often happens with these articles, they bury the most scary part at the tail end, as a kind of throw away. All throughout the article, the program is characterized as a foreign intelligence and surveillance program, involving at least one end of the conversation taking place outside of the U.S.

And yet, at the end of the article, it says: The department also avoided questions on whether the administration believes it is legal to wiretap purely domestic calls without a warrant, when al-Qaida activity is suspected. The department wouldn't say specifically that it hasn't been done.

If they refuse to state categorically that it hasn't been done, you may almost certainly rest assured that it HAS been. Fourth amendment be damned, if we want to assert suspicion of terrorism, who the hell are you to tell us you have rights?

Honestly and truly, our last hopes remain with the next election and the one beyond it, either next time (electing a Congress that takes advise and, more importantly, consent seriously) or in the Presidential election (including an election free of obvious fraud and serious questions as to the true will of the people).

If we don't reign in the Presidency, and soon, we're going to end up a monarchy. Let us all remember that the Framers of the Constitution considered the Congress, not the President, to be the preeminent branch of our government. Indeed they establish the Congress in Article 1 of the Constitution, waiting until Article 2 to introduce the President.

Congress needs a spine and the guts to stand up to the President and remind him that he is not the sole leader of this country, and that he does not have unlimited power.

Liam.