It’s not like it hasn’t been said before…

In fact, it’s been said ever since we got there (you can check all those links if you want, but they all just talk about lies).  When Hussein is the gold standard (oh, gee, was he actually telling the truth there?) for truth, the country has problems.

I can’t decide if it’s comforting or depressing that we’re in the middle of another Bush-lies cycle.  They seem to crop up on internet media sites like Digg or Fark on a semi-regular basis, but they never really manage to accomplish much.  After all, we re-elected him in 2004 in the middle of one of these cycles.  On the other hand, the cycle has gotten louder and closer to MSM each time.  It certainly was a factor in 2006, when the cycle was much louder than ‘04.  And it certainly seems to be cresting now, with websites like www.publicintegrity.org creating documents like the Bush War Card just in time for the run up to the election.

Of course, chances are with the short attention span of the media in general and the internet in particular,  this particular story will be gone and largely forgotten at about the same time it actually matters.Oh well. 

One more step along the path…

This bill, introduced to the House by Christopher Shays, purports to require “ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran”. Yeah.

Let’s be honest, shall we? This is a transparent ploy to justify a brand-new war in the Middle East. The “ongoing assessments” will dutifully report that sanctions do nothing, or are at best unclear. This will be used as yet another reason to justify ongoing aggression, and increase our presence in the region. After all, it’s not like Our Dear Leader isn’t capable of using faked and misleading reports to rush the country into another land war in Asia the Middle East.

Keep in mind that this bill has been proposed by Chris Shays, who was more than happy to push the war in Iraq for years and act as an apologist for our crimes. Of course, he’s switched sides in the debate now, distancing himself from a war unpopular in his own district, perhaps expecting a difficult 2008 campaign.

At least I don’t live in his district anymore.

Dear Congressman Lungren,

Where oh where did you get the idea that we like being wiretapped (I know, old story, but it still matters)?  And why would we want to give the Telecom Industry a free pass for enabling it?

Yes, yes, we all understand that wiretapping is an important tool in the fight against domestic terrorism, or whatever the soundbyte of the day is, but that “necessary tool” can be restrained to protect the rights of American citizens without harming our safety.  After all, Lungren argues, “The attempt to legislate warrant requirements on foreign individuals outside the U.S. based on whether they place a call to another foreign destination or to a U.S. destination would create an impossible nightmare for our foreign intelligence operations.” (Keep that link handy, I’ll be referring back to his speech again)

As it happens,  FISA § 1805, “Issuance of order”, provides…

“(f)  Emergency orders

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.”

 

Now, perhaps I misunderstand, but the plain language seems pretty clear that as long as the Attorney General or a designated person notifies one of the FISA judges at the time the wiretap is deployed and gets an application in front of the court within 3 days after the wiretapping, they’re clear to go.  

 

I fail to see how, exactly, this poses an insurmountable burden for our intelligence services.  If we’re trusting these people with our security they should be able to find the time to get a piece of paper rubber-stamped by a kangaroo court as a token of good faith.  

 

I mean, as the system is set up it may or may not be mere lip service to the Constitution, but it seems that these process serve the important purpose of reminding our law enforcement apparatus that they are in fact bound by the law in their investigations.  Heck, the FISA Court may even occasionally bestir itself to block a particularly egregious abuse of the wiretap system.  We should be so lucky.

 

Returning to Lungren, he treats us to this little gem:  

“Not only did the majority party’s legislation, which passed this body in November, fail to address the needs of the intelligence community, it also added insult to injury by throwing under the bus those telecommunications providers who responded to the call of their government after 9/11. And if the press reports are true, the issue of liability protection for these companies is one of the major sticking points of FISA in the other body.”

 

Because, you know, God forbid we actually obey the law on our little witch-hunt.  Lungren goes on to compare the lawbreaking telecos to “a doctor who comes upon an automobile accident”.  Now, forgive me, but comparing a company spying on me on behalf of Uncle Sam to a passer-by stopping to administer CPR seems a bit of a stretch.  After all, we have the Good Samaritan laws because, as Lungren helpfully reminds us, “it is better to have people coming to the aid of their countrymen, coming to the aid of someone who is in need.”  

 

He’s right about one thing, though.  ”And this has nothing to do with what you think of President Bush. It has nothing to do with what you think about the war in Iraq or the larger war on terrorism. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic issue.”  

 

Care to guess whose issue this is?  Bought and paid for by your local telecom industry, hoping against hope to jam full-fledged immunity to lawsuit down the public’s throat before they can be forced to pay for their crimes.  Perhaps Lungren should pull his snout away from the corporate trough long enough to read this document again, with an especial eye towards Amendments I and IV. 

 

Read the full transcript of Lungren’s speech here, in case you missed the link above.

Can You Take Huckabee Seriously?

I <3 Huckabee, mostly because I don’t think he can win a national election. But what scares me is his ability to win primaries, despite, or because of, the full-on crazy things he says. Some people, apparently unaware of how deep the crazy goes, actually endorse his candidacy because of his honest, “populist” message. Of course, nothing says “electable” like a mandate from God.

Taking the front is his newest proposal, amending the Constitution so that “it’s in God’s standards”.

Of course, this ignores his apocalyptic worldview. This country needs to be planning for the next hundred years, not engaging in brinksmanship because the Commander-In-Chief believes that World War III heralds the return of Christ The Lord and the inevitable victory of Heaven. The problems that currently face our country, such as the environment, oil and coal dependency (at roughly 43% of our total power production), the widening class gap, and the tanking economy, just to name a few, are long-term difficult problems that will require careful planning and foresight. Not exactly the traits associated with cultists expecting the world to end.

To me, a serious candidate should be presenting a long-term view for the country, planning ahead for the challenges that will face us in the next century. Whether or not you accept the Bible as literal fact or illustrative metaphor, the next President can’t be elected on a platform of imminent destruction.