The U.S. Supreme Court has slapped down the Bush administration “for a third time for its handling of the rights of terrorism detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying those in custody there have a constitutional right to challenge their captivity in federal courts.”
The presidential candidates weighed in following the decision, with predictable responses that should offer a clear direction for voters concerned about the constitution.
No comment, just a listing of votes on two important bills that have an impact on the fourth Amendment:
An amendment to the FISA revision act, which would have struck provisions providing immunity from civil liability to electronic communication service providers for aiding the government in electronic eavesdropping. A yes vote strips immunity.
Hillary Clinton — not voting
John McCain — no
Barack Obama — yea
On cloture, which prevented a filibuster on the FISA changes. A yes vote sent the bill to the floor; a no vote would have allowed a filibuster and could have resulted in the bill dying:
Hillary Clinton — did not vote
John McCain — yea
Barack Obama — no
On the FISA changes. A yes vote approved the changes, including the immunity provision.
Hillary Clinton — not voting
John McCain — yea
Barack Obama — not voting
The Intelligence Authorization Act, which included a ban on interrogation techniques not included in the Army Field Manual, including waterboarding. It passed 51-45.
Hillary Clinton — not voting
John McCain — no
Barack Obama — not voting
That’s four major votes. None of the candidates get particularly good grades (Clinton missed all four votes; Obama two of them, though he voted the right way twice; and McCain, well, he was 0-4).
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Those of us on the loony left — as the right likes to call us — have been saying since that night oh so long ago, back in the dark hours after 9-11, that the USA Patriot Act does little more than shred the U.S. Constitution, making a mockery out of all the rhetoric we use to praise ourselves as a nation of liberty.
Now a federal judge has finally backed us up on this (from The Washington Post):
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.
Marrero wrote in his 106-page ruling that Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”
He went on to say, according to the paper, that
“in light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual’s personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association–particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies–a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes.”
He ruled that only some of the NSL provisions were unconstitutional, but found that it was impossible to separate those provisions from other parts of the law. He therefore struck down the FBI’s ability to issue NSLs altogether.
None of this should have been a surprise. As John Nichols points out in his blog on The Nation Web site today, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold made these points when the Patriot Act first passed in 2001 and again during its reauthorization in 2005.
And it’s not like civil libertarians on the left and the right have not been offering these critiques.
But then, as with the invasion of Iraq, being right means little in a political culture that values obeisance and the conventional wisdom above all.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
So Alberto Gonzales has fallen on the sword, resigned his post as attorney general and that ends that. But it shouldn’t.
John Nichols sums the situation up better than most on the Web (his colleagues at The Nation, David Corn and Aziz Huq, complete some outstanding coverage). I have nothing to add.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
I’m still not sure that Cindy Sheehan is making the right move in threatening to challenge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi next year, but she is right about the weakness of the Democrats.
They need some backbone — especially when it comes to defending the basic principles of our constitution.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, in a farely pointed editorial today, calls the Democrats “gutless chumps” who “are worried about being cast as weak on terrorism” and “willing to cave before they fully understand how thoroughly they were hoodwinked by President Bush on other surveillance matters.”
Congress has only a scant notion of how contemptuously the White House has treated a 1978 law that requires special judicial review of surveillance in intelligence cases. And what are the Democrats poised to do? Give the executive branch anything it wants.
“Gutless chumps” might be an understatement.
South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
E-mail me by clicking here.
Hank Kalet 