Uppity Wisconsin

Those who are coming to this story today have jumped into the middle of quite a tale.

I put myself in a tough position last time by promising to link a British “garden of lust”, Benjamin Franklin, and 18th Century bloggers into a narrative that concludes with the nascent United States of America and its shiny new Fourth Amendment.

So far, amazingly enough, I’m pulling it off.

If you need to catch up, here’s what’s been going on:

When last we met...it was in a world of scandal and intrigue; with King George III and the Earl of Bute (and of course, their assorted minions) very upset with John Entick, author, and John Wilkes, author and world-class raconteur (and drinking buddy to Franklin), because they had the temerity to...well, blog.

The Earl of Bute had taken so much abuse from the Johns that he had been forced to resign from his position as Prime Minister...leaving the minions under his control, many said, only now from behind the scenes.

Something needed to be done...and when you have minions, you put them to use.

This may be one of the strangest tales I have ever brought to the table, Gentle Reader, and yet one of the most fundamental in describing the birth of our Bill of Rights...and most especially the Fourth Amendment.

As many of you know, the new FISA compromise may or may not allow warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on a wholesale scale.

Something you may not know is that a similar debate raged in England (centered around the right of Government to seize the papers of whomever they chose, and use the papers as evidence against those persons) during the reign of King George III—or that it involved scandalous sexual behavior, Benjamin Franklin, the 18th Century version of blogging, and two men who decided to take on the corruption of the Crown...and won.

And because of all that, we have a Fourth Amendment today.

Ready for a tale of liberty and ribaldry?

Then let’s plunge right in, shall we?

So you live in 18th century England, you’re rich...and kind of bored.

What is a gentleman to do?

In a few short minutes you can watch this and easily understand how Congress today shredded the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

If you don't know how important this is, for godsakes, click the link above and watch the video below.

The bottom line is that the government, with the help of telecommunication corporations, will be able to spy on Americans accused of no crime. Your email, your cell phone messages ... and there's no oversight to know how they're using the information. Will it be used against political enemies? Who knows!

This IS NOT tinfoil hat stuff, folks. 

UPDATE: The folks who will be doing the spying aren't equipped to keep classified information classified. Great! Now the government gives a more robust assist to identity theft on all U.S. citizens! Love it!

UPDATE: The U.S. military is being spied upon by politicians.

See Original Post

Yesterday, I went up to Bloomer, WI with my parents to talk about Thailand at a retirement home. On the way, we decided to stop at Culver's along Highway 53 to have some lunch. I saw a man sitting in a booth that looked fimiliar--I had to do a double-take, but I was certain it was Senator Feingold. My mom and dad concurred when they joined me at our table. I almost approached him and let him know that I appreciate his stance on FISA, but he seemed to be enjoying his ButterBurger a LOT. I am not sure if anyone else in the restaurant recognized the Senator--if they did, they allowed him to enjoy his 4th of July weekend "off the job".

It is always cool to see national figures in the Chippewa Valley; it is doubly cool to see them at such an everyday spot. Keep up the good work Senator Feingold!--I'll treat you to some custard next time I see you.

Democrats in Congress who voted against immunity for the telecommunication companies in March, then flipped their votes this month and now do not support prosecution for illegally eavesdropping on Americans, received more money from AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, than those who did not change their votes.

None of the 94 Democrats who changed their vote are from Wisconsin, thankfully - and a big shout out of support to Russ Feingold for attempts to lead a filibuster of the bill - but there are many fellow Midwesterners who did flip.

Were contributions to their coffers the reason? It looks like those who voted to give immunity received double the money from the telco PACs, than those who did not.

Here's the list, courtesy a great organization, MapLight.org.

Update: House passes FISA legislation without telecom immunity provision.  According to the Washington Post :

" it challenges the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by restoring the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal protections to the telecom companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and now face about 40 lawsuits alleging they had breached customers' privacy rights."

Portions of the debate regarding the secret session concerning FISA legislation in the House. Most representatives voiced a very concerned skepticism at this "final hour" request.

Part 2, here.

I am at the moment listening to the FISA cloture vote in the senate. It's sounding more and more like the cloture vote is going to fail, with a number of senators voting no on it who are slightly surprising. Both Obaama and Clinton have shown up to vote no on the issue (though McCain is apparently too busy campaigning, which may have an effect). Many of the "middle of the road" Democrats are voting against cloture, I think because even they have become tired of the lies and misrepresentations that the Republicans have been using in an attempt to ram this down the throats of the American people.

Ah wait a second - I have to answer my phone - what's that weird clicking in the background???

I'll let you know how it turns out.

45 Against Cloture

Discussion on the bill will continue. Now the Republicans are asking for a vote against a 30-day extension of the current bill "because the president won't sign it".

What's next? We don't pass any bills that the President doesn't like because he might be unhappy?

The cloture vote on the amendment has failed as well, and they are adjourning to truck over to listen to the State of the Union speech. 

I can never resist an alliterative headline.

Russ is almost always right, and in this case he's right on the money.

This morning, the Senate starts debating legislation to expand the government's surveillance powers.

Unfortunately, the bill we are going to be considering is the one reported out by the Senate Intelligence Committee in October, S. 2248. It did not have to be this way. Thirteen Senators joined me last week in asking the Majority Leader to instead bring up a bill that includes the changes approved by the Judiciary Committee last month. That bill, while not perfect by any means, was the product of an open process and heeded the advice of many experts and advocates to provide greater protection for the international communications of innocent Americans. And, unlike the Intelligence Committee bill, the Judiciary bill does not provide automatic, retroactive immunity for companies alleged to have cooperated with the administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

Read more at the TPM Cafe.

The Richard Nixon years (1969-1974) saw an acceleration of warrantless surveillance and presidential claims of executive power to wiretap and spy on American citizens under the umbrella of national security and the acclaimed inherent power of the presidency to engage in action deemed necessary to protect national security just as President Nixon perceived this obligation.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney make the same claims for themselves.

Such Nixonian claims led Congress to pass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, mandating the government to demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant before placing Americans under surveillance for national security rationales within the United States.

FISA negated claims of inherent executive power to engage in extra-Constitutional programs and action.