Bush's Domestic Spying Scandal

The White House denies any change in policy.

The law requires government agents to get warrants to open first-class letters.

But when he signed the postal reform act, Bush added a statement saying that his administration would construe that provision "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances. ..."

"The signing statement raises serious questions whether he is authorizing opening of mail contrary to the Constitution and to laws enacted by Congress," said Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union.

I've posted several diaries sharing my own experience of illegal detention and hospitalization, and received mixed responses. Some believe my ordeal, others don't. Many people, I'm certain, don't want to believe that this could happen here.

I'm asking you to consider the ordeal of others who have had a similar experience.

Consider the case of Darlene Early, a paralegal in Albany, NY. She publicly displayed a cardboard protest sign on a vehicle that was legally parked in space she had leased. As a result of her action, Ms. Early was arrested, forcibly hospitalized and forcibly sedated. What I find most disturbing about her account is the journalists comments at the end of the article:

In this piece, NDN Chair Simon Rosenberg lays out how he sees 2006 shaping up.

 Here's his bottom line:

I've been skeptical about the fall elections becoming a 1994-like "change election." But given that in Mid-February the President has dropped below 40 percent, their weak agenda has nowhere to go, foreign policy and security issues are as likely to be as damaging to them as helpful, and the criminal cases against their leadership will spread and deepen, I think even the skeptics have to now acknowledge that 2006 is likely to become an historically bad year for the governing party.

Interesting strategy the Bush administration has.  First you wiretap people, and if you get anything incriminating, then you use that info to obtain a warrant.  Just what the founding fathers had in mind, I'm sure.

WaPo has more. 

Think Progress has some great coverage of Senator Hagel expressing his view that Bush ignored the law in his domestic spying program.  Hagel says Bush can't unilaterally decide to violate the law. 

As Think Progress points out:

Hagel joins other prominent conservatives — including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) — who have questioned the legal basis of Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program.

There's one thing this story from Newsweek makes clear, the Bush administration has always known that their domestic spying program was outside the law.

The entire system of American Democracy is premised on checks and balances in the system.  It is clear from this story that the Bush team wants to remove ALL check on their power.

They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president's power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it. A NEWSWEEK investigation.

Keep in mind, this story is about very conservative political appointees who were questioning the Bush administration's actions. 

Jack Carter, who is running for the United States Senate against John Ensign in Nevada, is a man worth keeping an eye on.  Thus far the pundits aren't paying much attention, but I have a sneaking suspicion that as 2006 wears on, that is going to change.

Here's an op-ed Carter wrote recently that appeared in the Las Vegas Gleaner. (Be sure to scroll down past the polling data to read the full text) 

 Here's a snip:

There is no doubt that torturing people is un-American. There is no doubt that unfettered eavesdropping on Americans by the executive branch is un-American.  There is no doubt that holding prisoners without due process is un-American.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times carry stories today regarding the Congressional Research Service report that  concludes that the Bush administration's legal arguments are unsound.

A report by Congress's research arm concluded yesterday that the administration's justification for the warrantless eavesdropping authorized by President Bush conflicts with existing law and hinges on weak legal arguments.