Doubleplusungood

"This bill will help our intelligence professionals learn who the terrorists are talking to, what they're saying and what they're planning." That is what President Bush said about today's passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, HR 6304. Like a crap container that's full, he's full of crap. What it will actually do is allow people and companies who broke the law, violated our rights and our liberties, to face no repercussions for doing so.

We've had a law covering the surveillance of foreign intelligence since 1978. Over time, as technology changes, as the types and sources of intelligence change, such an act would naturally need to be amended. Or, if you're President Bush, you simply completely circumnavigate the existing law and, by executive order, allow the National Security Agency monitor, without warrants, any and all communications (if they so desire) that involve a party the NSA believes to be outside the US. Don't matter if the other party is in the US, it's not domestic surveillance, lies the Bush administration. It's a legitimate power of the executive branch to do this, lies the Bush administration. Besides, they assure us, we're surveilling on terrorists, enemy combatants and other all-around evildoers. I don't believe them. I believe they used the program with the intention of spying on American citizens who they considered opponents. There would have been no need to go around the existing law otherwise. There would have been no need to create a new, secret (because everyone was always yakking about FISA before this broke) program that violated U.S. law.

Make no mistake - that's what they did. They broke the law. They engaged telecommunications companies to break the law in assisting the program. Of course they deny this. And some people believe them We call those people "idiots." Were their actions consistent with the law, one might wonder why the administration insisted on an amendment to the 1978 law that, among other provisions, retroactively grants immunity to those telecom companies. As their actions clearly violated the law, there is no need to wonder. They want to protect and benefit their business buddies. It's what they do. It's what they've done day in, day out since 1/20/01. It's the basis for damn near every policy and action of this administration.

Bush insisted that the new law was absolutely necessary to protect Americans from terrorists. ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. And yet, he was adamant that he would sign no such bill unless it provided said immunity. That's how much he truly cares about our safety and security. Again, there are those who believe him. They're the same ones we call "idiots," and for this we call them "morons." His only interest is the interest of businesses and corporations. (If one can call violating the law and facing no repercussions an "interest.") If the Bush administration was actually concerned with the safety of Americans, and truly believed that the provisions of this bill that... oh, I don't know - ACTUALLY DEAL WITH INTELLIGENCE GATHERING - are necessary to said safety and security, then President Bush would have gladly and proudly signed the bill regardless of whether it provides immunity to businesses that broke the law.

High-minded rhetoric extolling the public good which mask actions to the public detriment and the benefit of a select group is nothing new. In fact, one might say this administration's actions hearken all the way back to 1984. This kind of stuff, in one form or another, has always been the case, and I imagine always will. But these guys seem to take it to a new level. They're so far over the line, and so blatant about it, and have the balls to deny it. They'll walk up to you, knock you down, take a dump on you, steal your wallet, take the cash and give it to a CEO buddy, then look you in the face and say, "Wasn't me."

AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEM!!!!!

One of my state's Senators voted against the bill today. I emailed her and thanked her for the effort. The other voted for it. I'm familiar with his record, so I can't say I'm surprised. I wrote to him and told him that I think he should be ashamed. (I expect his reply to request an explanation of that concept.)

I'm disgusted.