Another Bush assault on the Constitution

"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 Fourth Ammendment to the Constitution (just a reminder)

After the House failed to pass the "Protect America Act" last Saturday, Bush had this to say, "House leaders are blocking this legislation, and the reason can be summed up in three words: class action lawsuits." That, of course, is complete bullshit. But there is at least a modicum of relevance to the statement. If telephone companies broke the law by cooperating with the government in illegal surveilance activities, shouldn't they be sued?

But that's really beside the point. The real reason the House declined to pass the bill might more accurately be summed in in these 6 words: IT EFFECTIVELY REPEALS THE FOURTH AMMENDMENT. It is crucial to understand that the Protect America Act does not allow the government to do anything they wouldn't be able to do under original FISA provisions. Again, the only effective thing the legislation accomplishes, other than allowing the Government to spy without judicial over-sight, is protecting phone companies from lawsuits. In the words of Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, "There should be no question in anyone's mind that the United States intelligence agencies have the legal ability to take all actions necessary to protect the security of the American people. For anyone to suggest otherwise is irresponsible and totally inaccurate." The administration's arguments to the contrary are just pathetic, and may be summed up as follows, "It's way too much of a hassle to get a warrant to spy on people, dude." How does Bush get away with spouting such utter garbage on a daily basis?

In this previous post, I implied that the reason Bush is so desperate to pass legislation which includes retroactive imunity from lawsuits for phone companies, is that he is trying to protect his corporate friends. I'm sure that's part of it. But perhaps more importantly, blocking lawsuits against phone companies would prevent details about the illegal spying program from coming out in legal proceedings. Details which are, no doubt, breath-taking in their breadth of illegality.

It really does appear to be quite that simple.

On another note, why did phone companies cooperate with the government in illegal spying activities, at their legal peril? That turns out to be pretty simple as well. Quest Communications is one company that declined to cooperate with the government. Shortly therafter, the Government withdrew pending lucrative contracts they made with Quest. No doubt the Government has other means of applying pressure.