The politics of warrantless wiretaps

Not too terribly long ago, we had a major todo over warrantless wiretaps. First there was a lot of rhetoric circling around this “abuse of the Constitution”. In March, 2006, Russ Feingold decided to make it political. He offered a bill to the Senate to censure the President over the use of warrantless wiretaps. Only two people would sign on to it, Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer. It got tossed around rhetorically and went no where. Then, in August, 2006, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the program illegal and ordered it stopped immediately. Needless to say, it didn’t. I wasn’t too pleased with her decision as it seemed to be based in a very distorted view of the US Constitution. And, I knew her decision would be tossed around like a hot potato. It was. The November elections came and the Democrats used the warrantless wiretaps as a shining example of the Republican contempt for human rights and some people claim it got them control of Congress. Specifically, the argument was whether or not President Bush had the authority to order the wiretaps in the first place. I never understood that argument. Apparently the courts didn’t either. It was eventually ruled perfectly legal and continued even while Russ Feingold and the DNC were telling everyone it was completely unconstitutional. So, the Dems took over Congress in January 2007 with promises to end all these abuses of the Constitution. The people believed them. So, what did they do with the warrantless wiretaps? After promising a censure or impeachment over the issue, they did this:

Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a Democratic alternative that would have required a court review within 15 days.

The vote was approved 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require 60 votes for passage.

I love how MSNBC is pandering to the Democrats by calling it “reluctant”. You’re either fer it or agin it. “Reluctant” doesn’t mean squat. They gave us four years of saying it was illegal as hell, then passed it. Anyone ready to call their hands on it?

I’ve always believed that terrorists are not going to go out of the way to properly notify authorities before targeting innocent women, children, and men. So, we’ve got to go get that info. If they wanna wiretap me, go right ahead. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear.

( I’d love to tear into the actual votes, but that information was not available at this time. )

Related Posts

  • May 14, 2009 -- Change we can believe in – civil liberties, Gitmo, indefinite detentions (0)
    On August 1, 2007, Obama posted on his site a long list of what he would do as President. Part of that included: .....This brings me to the fourth step in my strategy: I will make clear that the d...
  • May 2, 2007 -- Bush vetoes the Iraqi pullout bill ( and restores the Constitution ) (4)
    Yesterday Bush vetoed the Iraqi pullout bill. In that bill, it had emergency spending for the military as well. That was both expected politically, and I expected it for bigger reasons. Spendin...
  • July 10, 2008 -- Obama lurches away from his core (0)
    Barack Obama's having a rough week. First, he did the very odd thing of stating very publicly he liked President Bush's Faith Based Initiative so much he wanted to expand it.  That drew the ire ...
  • April 22, 2009 -- Nancy Pelosi’s culture of corruption – Jane Harman (0)
    This one is getting pretty wild pretty quick: Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat long involved in intelligence issues, was overheard on a 2005 National Security Agency wiretap telling a suspe...
  • April 13, 2007 -- Expanding Stem Cell Research (1)
    Yesterday the Senate passed a bill expanding stem cell research. That could be a big deal. I'm not all that excited as a ton of this research is already being done in the private sector where the...

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

NAVIGATION