As has been noted by conspirators, the exposure of Americans to federal wiretaps has increased many thousand fold under the Bush administration. When this was noted by news organizations last year, the Attorney General (you know, a real expert in constitutional law) said that the FISA law passed in 1978 allowed the NSA to spy on Americans. It was then noted that the law did NOT give permission to eavesdrop on Americans, even if a foreigner was on the other end of the phone. Gonzales tried to call this "foreign" surveillance, when, of course, it was, by definition, domestic, since an American citizen's line was being tapped. Gonzales then tried to explain it away by saying that "Congress gave the President 'broad discretion' when it granted him permission to use military force in 2002."

As, of all people Tom Daschel once noted, this is false, and the "permission to use military force"... Hmm that's not in the US Constitution. Now... let's see... It MUST be here somewhere... There's a power to, well, DECLARE WAR, but no "grant permission to use military force" clause... Hmmmmmmmmmmm... mmmm.. m... m.................mmmm.

Still looking... Hold on... ..... .

Well, anyway, the Constitution doesn't matter, right?

Well, now it certainly doesn't, because CONGRESS just approved the expansion of FISA to allow for wiretapping of Americans WITHOUT need of FISA COURT PERMISSION.

Does anyone recall when we discussed the firing of the Justice Department prosecutors by the Bush administration, and we noted that they were most likely fired because they didn't approve of the Bush Administration wiretapping people without FISA Court permission? Yes... Look back through the misty veils of time... See, friends, see the history unfolding... Yes...

Well, now Congress has granted the President permission to toss your Fourth Amendment rights without any court being involved, even the secretive FISA court.

Enjoy your "right to privacy".

Hmmm... One wonders... If he were talking to a foreign doctor about an abortion, would the "right to privacy" espoused in the Roe case trump the new FISA law?

Tricky stuff, this anti-constitutional jerry-rigging, isn't it?

But then again, standards can be soo burdensome. They can really cramp one's style!

Here is the piece, from the AP:

_____

House Approves Wiretap Bill

Sunday August 5, 2007 3:31 AM

By CHARLES BABINGTON

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. He had urged Congress to approve it, saying Saturday, ``Protecting America is our most solemn obligation.''

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals ``reasonably believed to be outside the United States.'' Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that ``foreign intelligence information'' is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don't touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Congressional Democrats won a few concessions in negotiations earlier in the week. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general. Congress has battled with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on several issues, and some Democrats have accused him of perjury.

The new law also will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. The administration wanted the changes to be permanent.

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess.

``This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances,'' said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. ``I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment,'' which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Republicans disputed her description. ``It does nothing to tear up the Constitution,'' said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

If an American's communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, ``we go through a process called minimization'' and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat.

The administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the FISA court. That decision barred the government from eavesdropping without warrants on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

--

The bill is S. 1927.

The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law

Wild in the Streets

Supernature