..out of the dark

The Surveillance State was, depending your point of view, inevitable. The technology available would make it possible. While the fear of the threats to the homeland would make it desirable. And for the last fifteen years, the course has been more or less expressive - from Clinton's executive orders and "Gorelick's Wall", and on to the Patriot Act and Bush's extralegal wiretapping - towards surveillance at the pleasure of the government, with no oversight needed.

The thinking was not exclusive to surveillance, naturally - just as Nixon would claim vast executive powers and declare that if the president does it, it is not illegal, the government this time (represented by the executive branch, the Telecom lobby, and selected congressmen) had already made it clear that they believed strongly in limitless executive power, and that breaking the law is not a problem when you get the order from the president.

You may laugh, but some Congressmen were quoted as suggesting they needed a Jack Bauer in the intelligence agencies.

Yesterday, the US Congress solidified this into law by voting in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "compromise" with 293 yays and 129 nays. The Bush followers needed exactly two minutes until after the declaration that a compromise had taken place, to boast that they got everything they wanted, and much more than they had hoped for.

Som time later, Kit Bond, vice chair of the select Intelligence committee, and member of the TSP surveillance committee, stated, when asked to justify this atrocity:

"I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do," Bond said.

Later, the democratic nominee for the presidency and missionary of hope, Barack Obama, was quoted as explaining he supported the bill because it was better than the Protect America Act (that just expired after giving the president full latitude for determining personally what a "threat" was, and who would be put in Guantanamo without hearing their charge), and therefore should easily be allowed to last until 2012 this time before it "sunsets". He furthermore suggested he would "oppose" the telecom amnesty provision in this bill, although it's evident that there is neither will or votes enough to pass such an amendment in the senate later on.

In other words, not only does this grant the executive branch the unlimited power they have sought for the last eight years (and which Nixon would only dream of). But it also ends, definitively, the several pending lawsuits against the telecoms who by all accounts were completely aware that they were breaking the law at the time (as one Bush- appointed judge confirmed when saying it was "not possible" to think this could've been legal, as most of the telecoms claimed (with some exceptions), and have been insisting on through their lobbying proxies and contributions to Congress lately.

Which means that everyone sat down, and weighed the pros and cons of shredding the constitution - and decided that, what with the juicy government contracts, the hefty campaign contributions, and in the name of Washington civility and protecting the homeland from imaginary threats - on balance it was probably best to throw out the constitution and take the money.

So - China allegedly is drilling oil sixty miles off the US coastline[/quote], democracy is on the march in Iraq, the IAEA's nine year running "outstanding issues" with Iran that "certain members" refuse to remove is hailed as "GRAVE CONCERN" in the media (while ignoring that the IAEA declares all other issues have been concluded properly). And by 293 to 129 votes, the US yesterday was transformed into a surveillance state. And there's no going back - the last avenues available to find out what actually went on have been closed for good with this bill: it is now legal to ignore the law on the president's say- so. And Congress approves. The question to me is, what will happen in Britain now that Brown is pulling his weight behind their surveillance state proposals, and where a broad coalition of conservatives and to leftists are ready to riot if the scheme is continued. I've been told I should try to be more positive, so I will hope for that this will ruin any pretense of a transatlantic union for decades. As well as render the US prisoner program operating through shady, but open transport air- strips across the continents - as opposed to being protected by our own governments as they have for a large extent up till now. Not in the least because such a thing also prevents us from passing a unified law in Strasbourg, to ensure that such a thing is not possible. And which ensures that we understand that rendering prisoners like this is ILLEGAL. Lastly - fuck the moral cowards, fuck the small- minded arrogance, and fuck the United States. addendum, 22nd of June: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/22/calabresi/index.html

It's hardly news that Time Magazine's principal function is uncritically to amplify false claims from government officials, but this article by Massimo Calabresi -- entitled "Behind the Compromise on Spying" -- is such a masterpiece in spouting simplistic government propaganda and rank falsehoods that it is revealing on numerous levels. The article has only one purpose -- to depict the spying "compromise" as a brilliant and heroic centrist masterstroke by Nancy Pelosi to protect us from Terrorists while simultaneously preserving our liberties -- and it employs one factually false claim after the next to achieve this. Let's just take it piece by piece,(...)

This is how it's done. It's not happening one time, or once in a while - it is what is done on every major decision like this. Just as Arlen Specter after proclaiming of the Military Commissions act that it was an atrocity like no other bill in the history of the United States, then proceeded to vote for the bill - it is understood here that not going along with the message is the same as being doomed and frozen out of politics for good. Specter's office responded in January, when the Military Commissions bill was made into law - that they just didn't dare to go against the Bush- administration on it. They instead claimed, cowardly, that the compromise was a good one, and that it delivered some power back to the judges - that was better than what Bush was claiming already. Now - then as now, this turns up - expertly written and carefully parsed to explain that judges are involved, that everything's taken care of, and that this does, contrary to any reading of the bill, keep civil liberties intact (apparently by those who themselves conduct the spying). Whether this is because they are ignorant, stupid, scared out of their minds, or simply insane - the consequence is the same. But I have to admit - defending something like this in this fashion. With this many falsehoods - without getting as much as a goddamn comment from the larger papers, who all pat themselves on each others backs every time they manage to deliver - not a regurgitated piece - but a well- written piece that not simply writes down what the politicians say, but also invents the facts and circumstances to support it. You can say what you'd like - but how this is possible to perpetuate this far is beyond me. I know of course, that there is much money in public outrage - it's basically a more potent strategy to inflame and piss off people than make them content some politician is doing their job - that's where the genius of the perpetual campaign comes in. You only need to say something stupid, or be attacked for something stupid you just said - and the money pours in. Either because now you have a good cause to seek donors with, or because you have donors who wish to defend you, genuinely, from the evil other ones, and so forth. But this is just too much. I could understand the war to some extent. I really can. It makes sense, in an insipid four year old's mind, it does make sense. But what the fuck is this? Propaganda like this, to convince the punters that the surveillance state is not, in fact, already happening? That it has not been kept runnning for the past seven years, and now has been solidified into law, while vesting the executive branch the power to define the law, and so ignore the courts at will? Does the democrats fear the logical conclusion to acknowledging what they're doing? I.e., that they'd be put between a rock and a hard place before the November elections if they started impeachment hearings, rather than eviscerate what's left of the constitution, and then making their excesses permanently into law? Because it's just too "shrill" to come up with a good reason for not vesting dictatorial powers with the president's office? I really can't say - I've seen examples of bad policies been carried on for years before. But never have I seen the political opposition as well as the position dig out the foundation for their right and ability to represent their constituents as eagerly as this. There's not even a protest in the parliament. Of course - if you have seen how much of a retarded bunch the American electorate really is, then you could be forgiven for believing that they would react more readily and with more effort to a made up story about some hooker, or some other smear - than to someone protesting that their country is being turned into a surveillance state. I suppose maybe that's it - that the people on the Capitol are this shallow, or cowardly. That they're willing to allow the Bush- administration and the NSA to run surveillance at will for just a period, in return for being more well- placed to win the presidency in November. And I guess then they'll have to avoid repealing the laws again, because that would make it worse to win the next election? Just like Pelosi did when they took over the House over new year - declaring that they were going to stop the undermining of civil liberties, as well as the TSP (the terrorist surveillance program) along with Bush's extralegal powers. Now how did that one turn out? Won them the election - because of the outrage and support for repealing the lawlessness, I suppose. editerer: heh. Yes, indeedy:

Stonewalling the Administration and letting the surveillance powers expire could have cost the Democrats swing seats they won in 2006 as well as new ones they have a chance to steal from Republicans this November. "For any Republican-leaning district this would have been a huge issue," says a top Pelosi aide, who estimates that as many as 10 competitive races could have been affected by it. . . .

Pelosi's centrist compromise doesn't just help House Democrats in the fall. It also gives the party's presumptive nominee for President, Barack Obama, a chance to move to the center on national security. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," Obama said in a statement Friday. "So I support the compromise."