4th Amendment?

UPDATE: John Farmer's blog seems to be having some difficulties, right now; fortunately, I saved a copy of his remarks, here.

Who will defend it from the excesses of the Executive? Not John Farmer, who's a Tennessee Congressional District 8 candidate. My response to his post (which actually started here) goes something like this:

Your arguments seem to condense down to one main point: Trusting the POTUS. A lot of Americans have trusted this POTUS about matter, such as:

* WMDs in Iraq;
* Getting to the bottom of (and terminating those responsible for) the leak of a CIA anti-proliferation operative’s identity to the press;
* Finding and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden;
* Administering a Department of Homeland Security that can respond swiftly and effectively to crises, natural or man-made;
* Administering a Medicare prescription drug benefit that actually provides benefits to our seniors;
* Etc., etc., etc.

Given the track record of this administration to-date, it strains credulity to play the fear card in defense of the indefensible.

Either we are a nation of laws, or we are not. If we are, the POTUS is as beholden to obeying them as anyone else. Period.

FISA allows for law enforcement to start a wiretap, and get the warrant retroactively within 72 hours (and depending on whether or not we’re considerd officially “during wartime,” FISA allows this period to stretch out to 15 days).

Sen. Mike DeWine (R - OH) proposed legislation that would have lowered the standards for obtaining a FISA warrant from “probable cause” to “reasonable suspicion” (what General Hayden suggested WAS the FISA standard, a few days ago) but the Bush administrations DoJ said that wasn’t necessary — that in effect, FISA was working well, as is.

And that was no partisan hack bureaucrat writing that DoJ opinion — that was James A. Baker.

It is also disingenuous to suggest that those who wish to do us harm are unaware that our government has both the technological means, and the wherewithal to employ said means, to surveil their activities. No one — NO ONE — has ever suggested that we make FISA warrants available for scrutiny on the Internet (they never have been before, after all), nor has anyone suggested that we shouldn’t surveil terrorists. What has been suggested is that there is a legal way to do this, and that this POTUS has gone outside those legal limits.

So, really, why would the POTUS circumvent the checks-and-balances that have served us so well for 230 years? The answer seems clear: This domestic spying program goes beyond tracking enemies, and without oversight, no one is the wiser. Recall this quote:

“I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don’t agree with each other, but that’s OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator,” Bush joked.
— CNN.com, December 18, 2000

I’m sorry, but I’m just not laughing at that, any more.

Now, there's nothing here that you don't already know if you've read Glenn Greenwald's excellent piece (and if you haven't, please do)... but the message needs to be clear, out there, in light of the obfuscating and shifting standards and justification being put forth by the Bush administration.
.