'Stampeded by fearmongering and deception' - Dems cave on illegal eavesdropping.

Why? Why?

Fear is such an effective tool. Just throw a tiny bit of fear into the air and suddenly the debate automatically becomes Manichean: "You are either with us or against us." You are either with Bush or soft on terror. Apparently there is no such thing as watching out for Americans' privacy or protecting us from governmental abuse.

Honestly, I am disappointed in the Democrats. When they backed down on the war spending bill I could understand, at least partially. It was difficult to stand up to Bush by refusing to fund the troops because the Democrats were fighting uphill against potent rhetoric ("You don't care about the troops" yada yada). But when it comes to FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, oft used to justify illegal wiretapping), the Democrats had strong, legitimate reasons to stand and fight. But once the Republicans turned their fear mongering up to high it was all over.

Ever since 9/11 the Bush administration has been complaining that FISA is out of date and inadequate for the digital age. As a result, Congress has revised the law 8 times. The administration was fairly quiet during these revisions, neither praising nor berating the Republican Congress. But of course, now that the Democrats control Congress, it is prime time for the administration to bring FISA to the forefront and blame the Democrats for the fact that it isn't up to date.

This whole Republican push reeks of politics (obviously), not of concern for the American public. Why not begin FISA debate in January, and spend the next 6 or 7 months coming up with a satisfactory revision? Nah, that wouldn't be damaging enough to the Democrats. Instead, the administration saved the debate for the end of the congressional session and put Congress's back up against the wall. Allegedly, the administration came to a compromise with the Democrats on Thursday, but then pounced with new demands, withdrawing their original near-agreement (while the congressional session was scheduled to end the next day, Friday, leaving no time to renegotiate). "I think the White House didn't want to take 'yes' for an answer from the Democrats," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), an intelligence committee member. Thus, the Democrats had no compromise bill to bring to the floor, failed to get the two-thirds majority to end debate on their own, much narrower, FISA revision, and were faced with a dilemma: to go home without a new FISA law and look "weak on terror", or to capitulate to the administration and pass all of their demands without any compromise.

You can guess what happened: the Democrats bowed to the pressure. They were "stampeded by fearmongering (sic) and deception" into voting for the bill, said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). How weak; aren't the Democrats supposed to be in the majority?

I understand the need for increased surveillance in order to combat terror, though I do believe the extent of the threat is overblown for political gain. I agree that the National Security Administration (NSA) needs an updated FISA in order to effectively combat high-tech terrorism. But what I do not agree with is the Bush administration's belief that none of this should be done under court supervision. They just want to be handed absolute authority over wiretapping and eavesdropping and circumvent the court of law to make the process more expedient. The new FISA bill give Attorney General Gonzales (the most trustworthy man in the administration, by far) and the director of national intelligence the power to authorize surveillance of essentially anything or anybody, whether they are an American citizen or not, without having to consult a judge. "In place of a court's approval -- which intelligence officials worried might come too slowly -- the NSA would institute a system of internal bureaucratic controls" (The Washington Post).

"What?!" you cry, finally understanding that the Bush administration is claiming to be above the law. Exactly! The administration wants us to trust that they will follow the law, without any real, tangible accountability to the law. "White House officials have repeatedly argued that the president has broad authority to carry out such programs without explicit permission from Congress, even if the programs appear to violate long-standing legal restrictions" (New York Times). And imagine, we actually elected these people to make and uphold "legal restrictions."

Are you angry yet?

House Passes Changes in Eavesdropping Program - New York Times
House Approves Wiretap Measure - The Washington Post