Greenwald on FISA, Congress
Glen Greenwald has an excellent piece up about the FISA amendments that are about to expire, the Bush administration’s bullying scare tactics that got them passed in the first place, and how the “imminent” danger no longer seems important to the president.
If the threat isn’t present, why shouldn’t we let the invasive surveillance measures lapse permanently? If it is, no gap in time should be allowed.
What’s a Congress to do? How about standing up for what’s best for the country? How about showing just a hint of personal and political courage? How about “making change” by reining in a runaway security apparatus?
Glen’s conclusion:
Any rational person has long ago given up the hope that Congressional Democrats will stand for any actual political convictions, but the most basic sense of personal pride and human dignity — which one thought was an intrinsic part of human nature — would preclude their capitulation today. If they don’t stand up to the White House and Senate Republicans under these circumstances, one might as well accept that they never will do so.
I’m with the two of you on this one. If the imminent danger is gone, there’s no need for these … strategies.
(there never was a need for it imo)
Quick, one of you–tell me what the bill ACTUALLY says! What part of it do you object to? What specific authorization do you feel is an egregious violation of civil rights, or whatever?
Yeah. I thought not. Greenwald doesn’t mention those slight details either, just forwards a second-hand hyperbolic claim of it being a radical expansion of existing powers, which nicely complements his own frothing hyperbole. Greenwald is a tool, a left-handed nutwrench, and you’ve just been torqued.
The bodies of Spc. Alex R. Jimenez, 25, of Lawrence, Mass.; and Pvt. Byron W. Fouty, 19, of Waterford, Mich. have never been recovered.
Tully, there are answers to your questions, if you really want them. Try reading through Greenwalds’s archives, or perhaps his book, which gives a fair-minded history of the FISA statute. Or go read Sentor Dodd’s recent speeches on the floor of the Senate.
Tully, how about the bill giving the government the right to eavesdrop on american citizens without having to obtain a warrent? Before the socalled "Patriot Act" the FISA court had only declined to approve warrents a handfull of times. Now the administration and it’s politically corrupted law enforcement agencies do not have to answer to anybody to explain who they are spying on or why they are doing it. And what about giving immunity to ATT, Sprint and the rest so that nobody will ever know the extent of the administrations past abuses. If you want to blindly trust the Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzalles etc. crowd that’s your choice. I would like a little oversight.
If you willingly surrender rights or freedom to counter a perceived threat (genuine or otherwise), don’t expect the government to return them without a fight.
I personally have a hard time giving Greenwald’s analysis any credibility because Greenwald is so frequently dishonest (who can forget the sock puppeting?) and demonizing (he perpetually throws around “warmonger” and “neocon” labels to describe pretty much everyone he disagrees with at the same time he complains about Republicans who label people they disagree with) and he is relentlessly partisan. Greenwald simply cannot be trusted for fair or accurate discussion of anything related in any way to the Bush administration or Republicans generally.
What is needed is a relatively neutral analyst of this complex legal issue rather than someone who routinely throws pejorative names around as a replacement for arguments and explanations.