Senate Democrats move to repeal warrantless spying and telco immunity

[bascule]

Some Democratic senators are moving to shut down warrantless wiretapping programs. Among them: Al Franken.

 

http://washingtonindependent.com/60611/al-franken-reads-the-4th-amendment-to-justice-department-official

 

“That’s pretty explicit language,” noted Franken, asking Kris how the “roving wiretap” provision of the Patriot Act can meet that requirement if it doesn’t require the government to name its target.

 

Kris looked flustered and mumbled that “this is surreal,” apparently referring to having to respond to Franken’s question. “I would defer to the other branch of government,” he said, referring to the courts, prompting Franken to interject: “I know what that is.”

 

The tacit opinion expressed by Mr. Kris both concerns and enrages me: It's okay until the Supreme Court says otherwise! That sort of attitude sickens me. ANY US Attorney questioned as to the constitutionality of their actions should have a suitable rationale in their mind. Responding "this is surreal" when questioned as to the constitutionality of their actions simply enrages me and screams ineptitude. But I get it, they simply respond to executive policy, regardless of its constitutionality. It's Bush's name on those executive orders... who are they to question it?

 

Al Franken isn't alone in his concerns. A group of Democratic Senators has pushed the Senate Judiciary Committee to reconsider the present position on warrantless spying on American citizens:

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/telco-spy-immunity/

 

President Barack Obama supported that telco-immunity legislation as an Illinois senator last year. President George W. Bush signed the bill, and a federal judge this summer dismissed the closely watched telecom lawsuits brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

 

On Oct. 1, the Senate Judiciary Committee likely will consider revoking that immunity legislation as it works to revise the Patriot Act and other spy laws with radical changes that provide for more government transparency and more privacy protections.

 

The proposed changes to reduce executive branch power come from senators of Obama’s own party. The proposals represent a test of the government’s stated willingness to negotiate a new Patriot Act as three key provisions are set to expire by year’s end.

 

What do you think?

[JillSwift]

I think that changing the rules of evidence was the only really scary thing to come out of the previous administration.

 

I would love to see that reigned back in.

[Pangloss]

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.

 

... and Washington bids a hearty welcome to the junior senator from Minnesota.

 

But seriously, I applaud this, because it has a two-way effect, not only forcing lawmakers to deal with the consequences of their often inattentive and reactionary post-9/11 behavior, but also encouraging the American public to pay closer attention and think more proactively about the issues.

[bascule]

Kris explained that the courts have held that the law’s requirements that the person be described, though not named, is sufficient to meet the demands of the Constitution. That did not appear to completely satisfy Franken’s concerns.

 

"Here's what we know: the guy we're after is either an AT&T, Qwest, Verizon, or Sprint customer"

 

"Good enough for me! Let's get a warrant based on that description and tap them all!"

 

"Stop being silly, we don't need warrants anymore!"

 

Anywho, that's a rather pathetic attempt to sweep the Fourth Amendment issues under the rug. There are still huge concerns:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#Fourth_Amendment_issues

Edited September 27, 2009 by bascule