the am-siberian...,
2011-02-10 13:17:17
| Main |
spies like us...,
2011-02-12 14:23:10
the barry doesn't fall far from the shrub:
If you look hard you can remind yourself of when Barrack Obama was the constitutional scholar who was going to defend the last few shreds of the 4th amendment against its chronic violation by the Bush administration. I've almost forgotten that brief week or so where there was some hope:
Obama said there is "little doubt" that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, "has abused [its] authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders."
"Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program.
"[The bill] does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."
Then he went ahead and voted for it a few days later.
When he became President you could hope against hope that from his new position of authority over the program - now he's the guy running it on naked executive authority, he can live up to his promises on a whim - that he would "seek full accountability for past offenses", but he continued supporting immunity from the Whitehouse, and not only that but now we know that he has been asserting, secretly, that he can continue the programs without oversight or accountability.
Our Constitutional Law Professor in Chief won't even let us see his legal argument for it. That's just how important open debate is to this President: about as important as the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is to say not at all.
