Unreasonable Searches - Phone and Email

Over the last week or two we have been inundated with news about the Bush Administration's policy of intercepting International phone communications and email communications WITHOUT A WARRANT. These are American citizens we are talking about here. American citizens whose rights are supposedly protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

About 230 years ago, our forefathers fought to become independent and free of the tyrannical rule of the English king. About 215 years ago, our founding fathers, after great deliberation, drafted and signed the Constitution. Shortly thereafter, those same founding fathers drafted and enacted The Bill of Rights. One of the primary rights granted to ALL US citizens is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The US Supreme Court has defined searches protected by the Fourth Amendment to include wiretapping of telephone conversations. Email correspondence is similarly protected.

About 30 years ago, the US Congress, in reaction to efforts by the Nixon Administration to spy on American citizens without a warrant, passed a law that allows the federal government to obtain a warrant from a special court. The warrant can be obtained ex parte (without notifying the person whose correspondence will be searched. It can also be done after the fact - now the government can actually apply for the warrant up to 48 hours AFTER the phone lines have been tapped. The goal is to give the government as much flexibility as possible without completely eviscerating the whole goal of the Fourth Amendment - requiring an unbiased third party - a court - to approve the search so the government does not have absolute power.

Well, the Bush Administration - especially Dick Cheney - really wants to reassert the power of the executive branch. And so they have.... In secret.

Interesting that this whole concept of "spying on Americans without a warrant" was something that was done in complete secrecy. The Bush Administration apparently didn't even notify Congress that it had unilaterally decided that it didn't need to comply with the FISA warrant requirements. It makes you wonder if they knew they were breaking the law - or at least stretching it to its farthest point and then some.

The Bush Administration claims that it has the power to spy on Americans without a warrant based on the implied power granted to the President in the Constitution. Isn't that interesting.... They who argue so strenuously that judges should read the Constitution strictly and not find implied rights in it now want to find implied rights because it benefits them. Such hypocrisy...

Their other supposed justification is that Congress granted the President the power to spy on Americans without a warrant when it authorized the President to pursue the war on terror with all necessary force. Again they are implying authority that was never granted and frankly, never intended.

So what does all this come down to? It really is about power. The Bush-Cheney Administration wants to have unfettered power to do whatever they want. They want to answer to nobody. Not Congress; not the Courts; not the press; and not the American people.

The Bush-Cheney dream really looks an awful lot like the power of the King of England that the founding fathers fought so hard to be free of. In fact, it looks a lot like the dictatorship in Iraq that the Bush-Cheney clan overthrew after contorting and distorting the evidence against him.

The American People need to stand up or we will soon be subject to an all-powerful regime where even voices questioning policy will be muzzled and people objecting to policy in public will be jailed.

Stand up for your rights - All of them!

For an exceptionally thorough analysis of this issue and a debunking of the myths and arguments put out by the Bush Administration and its media lapdogs, go to Media Matters.

Liability Protection for Pharmaceutical Companies???

The New York Times has it right. Here's what they said today in their editorial page:

Republicans are using the last days of this Congressional session to try to grant extraordinary liability protection to the drug companies that will make the vaccines and other medicines to combat a possible influenza pandemic. But they have been slow to mount a comparable effort to help the people who may be harmed by adverse side effects.

Although liability protection is being portrayed as a vital step in carrying out the president's $7 billion flu pandemic plan, it serves a political purpose as well. The insulation against liability looks
suspiciously like an effort to reward the drug companies, which help bankroll Republicans, and punish the trial lawyers, who help bankroll Democrats.

Some form of liability protection is clearly needed, if only to allay the concerns of drug company
executives worried about lawsuits. We know how to provide sensible liability protection and have done so for routine childhood immunizations, and for the national swine flu vaccination campaign of 1976 and the smallpox vaccination effort two years ago. But each time individuals had a mechanism to seek compensation, and often, if warranted, the government could sue the manufacturers.
For a pandemic, however, Republican leaders would allow suits only if there was willful misconduct. The companies could be reckless or grossly negligent and escape responsibility. As for victims' compensation, the Republicans have been vague and secretive, but claim that they will produce a fair and robust compensation system. Their provision is expected to be attached to a defense appropriations bill that is now before a conference committee and, once approved,
cannot be amended on the floor. The conferees ought to shun that provision and leave the complexities to fuller discussion early next year.

The Impact of Tort Reform

If you think tort reform is a good thing, you need to read this article in the Texas Monthly magazine.

The article clearly shows that when you vote for tort reform in your own state, you may be biting your nose off and not even saving your face. This article shows how tort reform really hurt the people in Texas who were legitimately injured and now have no recourse.

The Republicans say Tort Reform is about eliminating frivolous lawsuits, but it goes far beyond that. Watch out or you may be voting to eliminate your legal rights when you are the victim.

Tom Delay's Legal Rights

It is always interesting to watch when a Republican legislator or administration official is charged with a crime. Obviously, right now we are watching the drama in Austin as Tom Delay and soon will be watching Scooter Libby deal with his indictment in Washington D.C. for outing an undercover CIA agent and then trying to cover it up.

When the same person who has devotes a large part of his or her career to limiting the rights of personal injury victims through "Tort Reform" and limiting the rights of criminal defendants, it is amazing to see how hard they fight and take advantage of those same rights when they are on the other end of the stick.

Tom Delay's high priced legal defense team is using every trick in the book to defend the charges against him and get him back in his position of power....

First, Tom Delay's high priced legal defense team fought to dismiss all of the charges. Well, they were partially successful as all but two charges have been dismissed. Unfortunately, the remaining charges appear to be the most serious. Now, that same high priced legal defense team is trying to convince the judge to split the charges and try the money laundering charge first (that is the most serious charge). If they are successful, a couple of things will happen. First, the conspiracy charge will not be heard at the same time. Presumably, they will try to exclude all the evidence relating to Tom Delay's conspiracy. Of course, this will have the "beneficial" (from their point of view) side effect of limiting the State's case against Delay. The second thing is that if Delay does happen to win the case, it will happen more quickly and he will be able to resume his post as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives.

Obviously, Tom Delay deserves to be able to take advantage of all of the rights afforded to him by the Constitution and under State and Federal law. But so do the common criminals who typically can't afford a high priced legal defense team like the one that Mr. Delay has put together. Legal rights should be available to everybody.

The Jose Padilla Case

It looks like I am not the only one troubled by the way the Bush Administration handled the Jose Padilla case. Now the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals wants some answers. Like, why the Administration failed to charge Padilla with all the crimes it continuously alleges in press conferences. By the way, these were the same alleged crimes that the Administration used to convince the 4th Circuit to allow Padilla to be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant....

Read this article - http://www.abanet.org/journal/ereport/d2padilla.html