My ranting on the wiretap investigation stoppage

[SHRED]

So much for the "open and honest" government the Bushies promised.
So much for the "transparency" promise.
So much for holding our elected officials accountable to the law.
So much for Arlen Spector's promises.

Goodbye 4th Amendment.
Goodbye system of "checks and balances".

What is so egregious about this is that "terrorists" will NOT be affected by these "wiretaps".
For instance, a lengthy message could be encoded through a picture displayed on the internet for a few seconds and then taken down.
Terrorists could time it so they receive the picture and then it is removed from the server in a matter of seconds.
That is just one simple way.

Wiretapping, I predict, is and will be used for political purposes domestically.
It's been done by the FBI by Hoover and Nixon and it is being done again.

They want something passed in Congress?
They want someone to NOT bring an issue up during a campaign?
They want to see where peace protesters are going and doing?
Wiretap.

If terrorism is the reason, for wiretaps, then why is Bush defending selling our ports to the UAE?

CLICK HERE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_go_pr_wh/port_security

2 of the hijackers were from there.
9/11 funding was channeled through UAE banks.

-----

Senate Rejects Wiretapping Probe
But Judge Orders Justice Department to Turn Over Documents

By Charles Babington and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, February 17, 2006; A06

The Bush administration helped derail a Senate bid to investigate a warrantless eavesdropping program yesterday after signaling it would reject Congress's request to have former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and other officials testify about the program's legality. The actions underscored a dramatic and possibly permanent drop in momentum for a congressional inquiry, which had seemed likely two months ago.

Senate Democrats said the Republican-led Congress was abdicating its obligations to oversee a controversial program in which the National Security Agency has monitored perhaps thousands of phone calls and e-mails involving U.S. residents and foreign parties without obtaining warrants from a secret court that handles such matters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/16/AR2006021602155_pf.html

[rodeodance]

1. and no one has called for stoppage of the wiretaps (as the debate goes

on).

[teryang]

2. How could anyone who signed on for Patriot Act extension...

...call for Congressional investigation of illegal surveillance of communications by the NSA? The so called Patriot Act reform destroys the 4th Amendment anyway. The feigned objections are nothing more than pretense by a complicit Congress. See Senator Feingold's critical commentary on the so called reform on Truthout.org:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021506R.shtml

Statement of US Senator Russ Feingold as prepared for delivery from the Senate floor, February 15, 2006.

<...NSLs can only be used to obtain certain categories of business records, while Section 215 orders can be used to obtain "any tangible thing." But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad. NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage; credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos.

Just as with Section 215, the Patriot Act expanded the NSL authorities to allow the government to use them to obtain records of people who are not suspected of being, or even of being connected to, terrorists or spies. The government need only certify that the documents are either sought for or relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that could be used to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. And just as with Section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent gag rule...>


<...One of the most fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that all citizens have the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The idea that the government cannot enter our homes improperly is a bedrock principle for Americans, and rightly so. The Fourth Amendment has a rich history and includes in its ambit some very important requirements for searches. One is the requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a warrant. The Constitution specifically requires that a warrant for a search be issued only where there is probable cause and that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does the Constitution require that particular description? Well, for one thing, that description becomes a limit on what can be searched or what can be seized. If the magistrate approves a warrant to search someone's home and the police show up at the person's business, that search is not valid. If the warrant authorizes a search at a particular address, and the police take it next door, they have no right to enter that house. But of course, there is no opportunity to point out that the warrant is inadequate unless that warrant is handed to someone at the premises. If there is no one present to receive the warrant, and the search must be carried out immediately, most warrants require that they be left behind at the premises that were searched. Notice of the search is part of the standard Fourth Amendment protection. It's what gives meaning, or maybe we should say "teeth," to the Constitution's requirement of a warrant and a particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or items to be seized...>

(comment: national security letters are the meaningless Orwellian substitute for warrants our elected representatives are using to eviscerate the First and Fourth Amendments.)