The Empire 534

1984 in 2010: Hijacking Democracy to Spy on Americans
Wednesday 17 February 2010
by: Shahid Buttar, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed



Nearly a decade ago, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) stood alone as the Senate's constitutional conscience. Casting the only dissenting vote against passage of the Patriot Act in 2001, he was powerless to stop an opportunistic power grab by neoconservatives who had long sought, well before the tragedy of 9-11, to expand our government's reach into the lives of law-abiding Americans.

Today, the draconian authorities foisted on an unsuspecting public by the Patriot Act once again place the Constitution in the crosshairs of a complacent Congress, acquiescing to another administration whose political agenda lies at conspicuous odds with its leader's oath to defend the Constitution.

An Administration Asleep at the Switch

Repeating the same story with different actors, we have gained little (and lost a great deal of) ground in the struggle for sanity since 9/11. The Constitution suffered a stunning bipartisan defeat in Congress last fall, and 2010 begins with an even worse landscape, conditioned by the surprising results of an election in Massachusetts, an underwear bomber whose implications have been contorted and completely confused by pundits and policy wonks, and an impending hijacking of the Senate by a Democratic leadership marching in lockstep with an administration actively undermining its own stated agenda and public promises to restore rights and liberties.

Over the past year, according to the conventional wisdom, the Obama administration has opted not to continue the Obama campaign's critique of the national security establishment, as a matter of political strategy: Rahm Emmanuel chose instead to focus on health care before the Constitution. But with the departure of White House counsel Greg Craig and the administration's increasing solicitude to the right wing, suggestions that our president might one day "come around" to respecting his campaign rhetoric appear increasingly unlikely.

Moreover, with Massachusetts' electoral results calling into question the delicate health care "compromise" with (or capitulation to) the right wing, President Obama appears to have fallen even further back on his already well-worn heels. Put simply, the administration appears both unwilling (when it had the chance), and now increasingly unable, to lend life to the president's campaign promises to restore the rule of law.

Yet, assertively championing constitutionalism would be shrewd, as well as principled. Hundreds of cities and towns across the country (and a compelling handful of unholy bedfellows among the states) have already rejected the beltway consensus favoring domestic spying. Restoring constitutional rights is thus a political imperative: whichever of the major parties more assertively defends the populist principles at stake stands to siphon the support of significant portions of the other's base.

If neither party engages on that front, what began as the Bush administration's assault on long-established constitutional principles could become - by virtue of its ratification and entrenchment by a Democratic administration - a seemingly permanent fixture of American politics.

Spy Agencies Twisting the News

In the wake of the underwear bomber's failed attack in December, the intelligence establishment has redoubled its calls for greater surveillance authorities. The reaction to the news cycle was so forceful that (with a few notable exceptions) calls to reform domestic spying were silenced essentially overnight. But the reaction doesn't fit the facts.

First, more surveillance doesn't help security, but undermines it: the reason the underwear bomber wasn't flagged by our government's intricate maze of so-called "intelligence" agencies was because earlier reports of his dangerousness were lost in the haystack. There are simply too many false leads to separate the wheat from chaff, as close observers have noted for years. Even senior FBI officials have argued this point to the NSA, whose dragnet surveillance scheme has clogged the system with thousands of false reports.

Moreover, the underwear bomber proved that profiling focused on ethnic characteristics will always overlook potential threats, and, thus, cannot meet our security needs. In sharp contrast, profiles based on behavior - the cornerstone of Israel's vaunted airport security system - are vastly more indicative of criminal predilections.

Despite its demonstrated ineffectiveness, however, right-wing hand wringing over airport security has lent credibility to unapologetic profiling according to race. This is not only politically opportunistic, but also crass. And, appropriately, Americans from all walks of life are raising concerns.

But this year's attention to airport security overlooks a more troubling array of government programs, many of which remain largely secret. And while our nation distracts itself with the relatively insignificant inconvenience of airport screening, Congress readies itself to reauthorize the Patriot Act, a monumental - and constitutionally offensive - piece of legislation passed in the figurative night to allow intrusions and abuses far more profound than looking at your naked body.

Co-Opting Congress


Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/1984-2010-hijacking-democracy-spy-americans56974