ANALYSIS: Democrats betray the Fourth Amendment

By ANTHONY GREGORY | Sunday, July 6, 2008 12:16 AM PDT ∞

The Senate put off voting on a controversial electronic surveillance legislation late last month that essentially legalizes Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

It would expand wiretapping powers against foreign targets, extend the grace period of warrantless domestic eavesdropping on Americans at home, and grant retroactive immunity to telecom companies that cooperated in illegal domestic spying.

The New York Times calls it the most significant revision of surveillance law in 30 years, but it is also just the latest example in 30 years of Democratic betrayals of the Fourth Amendment ---- designed to protect citizens against unlawful search and seizures by the government.

In 1978, Democratic President Carter signed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act into law. A meager response to Nixon's surveillance of peaceful activists and other such abuses, it established a secret court within the Justice Department to issue special warrants for wiretapping foreign suspects.

Even when spying on a "United States person," intelligence officials now had 72 hours before they needed a warrant. Carter said in his signing statement, "This is a difficult balance to strike, but the act I am signing today strikes it." The Fourth Amendment lost its teeth.

From 1979 to Sept. 11, 2001, more than 13,000 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants were issued. Not a single application was rejected.

But that wasn't enough for Bush. He demanded the Patriot Act, which amended the act to widely expand executive spying powers and weaken judicial review.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act had obstructed intelligence gathering before 9/11, we were told. (But the real problem was ineptitude. For example, the FBI in the weeks before 9/11 had legitimate cause to search "twentieth hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, but FBI agents misunderstood the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process and blew the opportunity.)

Intimidated by the administration in October 2001, the Democrats, including all but one senator, voted for the Patriot Act. They gave the president what he said he needed, on top of the rubberstamping Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process he already had, to protect America.

But that was still not enough for Bush.

In December 2005, we learned that the president had secretly ordered the National Security Agency, a military intelligence organ of the Defense Department, to ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and wiretap calls within the United States.

Upon this revelation, Congressional Democrats complained they weren't consulted about the program. Bush's defenders responded he had this unilateral warrantless spying power as "commander in chief," or due to Congress's post-9/11 authorization of military force, or just because it was an "inherent" executive prerogative going back to George Washington.

In January 2007, the Democrats retook the House and Senate with a mandate to curb Bush's domestic and foreign abuses in the War on Terror.

And now the Democratic leadership and almost half the Democrats in Congress have codified Bush's brazen, extrajudicial surveillance policy into law and given retroactive immunity to those companies that illegally cooperated with the NSA. Missouri Republican Sen. Christopher Bond, who led this legislative "compromise," says, "the White House got a better deal than even they had hoped to get."

This Congress has outdone the last one in encouraging Bush's surveillance power grabs. As civil liberties expert Glenn Greenwald notes, "in 2006, when the Congress was controlled by [Republicans] Bill Frist and Denny Hastert, the administration tried to get a bill passed legalizing warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty, but was unable. They had to wait until the Congress was controlled by [Democrats] Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to accomplish that."

Some Democrats dissent. Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, the lone senator to vote against the Patriot Act, calls the new bill a "capitulation."

Sen. Barack Obama, in contrast, expresses superficial misgivings but assures us this "compromise" preserves substantial judicial oversight. "Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay," the presidential candidate says, pledging that once in the White House he "will carefully monitor the program. ... and work with the Congress to take any additional steps [he deems] necessary to protect the lives, and the liberty, of the American people."

But that isn't enough for America. The point of judicial oversight is that we can't, and shouldn't have to, trust the executive branch.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created too many loopholes in the Fourth Amendment. The litany of unspeakable surveillance abuses under this and past administrations ---- both Republican and Democratic ---- and the executive's tendency to defy even the flimsiest safeguards, suggest that Americans serious about civil liberties should hold their representatives to a higher standard and bolder agenda: Repeal this last monstrosity, scrap the Patriot Act, and give the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the axe.

America's founding generation had just lost 25,000 men in a gruesome war against the British Empire when they crafted the Bill of Rights. Despite their dangerous world, they saw no need for wartime exceptions to the Fourth Amendment.

And neither should we.

Anthony Gregory is a research analyst at the Oakland-based Independent Institute.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.