It was commonly accepted that the FISA Warrantless Surveillance Bill violated several sacred constitutional principles including the right to privacy. It was passed in the wake of 9/11 because American politicians were scared shitless of terrorism, or of the public perception that they might not be doing enough to prevent future terrorist attacks, which might kill another 3,000 people, even while the public was delighted that they did nothing to prevent 30,000 people a year from dying by gunshot.
The rationale was thus: yes, it is wrong. Yes, it violates your privacy. But these are extraordinary times– we are at “war” with violent terrorists. The law is justified. Just to reassure everyone, they included a sunset provision: this law will expire in 6 years. See? We’re not violating your rights. We’re not spying on everyone. We’re not instituting measures that begin to make your government look and function like Big Brother. Oh no– because there is an expiry date.
Even the Supreme Court bought that we live in extraordinary times. We can no longer afford privacy.
I predicted, when it was first passed, that the measure would never be repealed. That U.S. politicians (and Canadian) were lying. Why?
You don’t need to understand philosopher Karl Popper to appreciate the philosophical framework behind my point. But it would help. In essence, if something is really true, you could, theoretically, prove it was false. In this particular instance, we have two truths that qualify. Firstly, that our political leaders will be true to their words and repeal the measure once the crisis has passed. So here’s the proposition: George Bush Jr., or Obama, or McConnell, or Ryan, will lead a drive to repeal the measure because the crisis has passed. Can you serious imagine that proposal? Can you imagine it being made, aloud, in a press release, at a campaign rally? I can’t. I don’t believe that the theoretical here exists. So the idea that this law exists to deal with a terrorist threat is false. It will exist regardless.
Secondly, we are asked to believe is that we are (or were) under such dire threats from terrorism that we need this extraordinary law in order to deal with these unusual, exceptional, threats. What “proves” that we are under constant, continued threat? Terrorist attacks, anywhere, anytime. But we are in a “crisis” only if this period is unique in that regard. It is not. It is not! Check your history of the 1960’s, the 1970’s, the 1980’s, and so on. We have always had regular intermittent terrorist attacks, hijackings, bombings, and assassinations. What would justify rescinding the law, according to the politicians, are conditions that have never existed anywhere. Therefore, the law is always justified.
It will never be rescinded. We have voluntarily and willingly allowed our government to adopt repugnant measures depriving us of rights we have always been told were sacred.
Since 9/11, there has really been no significant attacks in the U.S. from foreign terrorists (which is what the FISA Warrantless Surveillance Act is supposed to address). We have had numerous, horrific attacks by domestic terrorists. Nothing will be done to stop them because that would involve a teensy, weensy infringement of the rights of white Americans to carry powerful weapons around with them. Nothing can be done. Not a thing. Too bad! Suck it up and hope none of your loved ones happen to be a victim!
Yet, Congress will re-enable the FISA Warrantless Surveillance Act. Because they can. Because the authorities want this power and they DO NOT CARE about your right to privacy. They really do not. They don’t. They sing praises and anthems and worship at the alter of the Constitution mainly for your entertainment: they don’t really believe it. They don’t really care. They want to spy on you.
They will sell it to you as this: they really believe that the only reason you would not want the government to read your mail or listen in on your phone call is because you are up to no good. All right-thinking Americans have nothing to fear. Do they really believe it? Do you really believe that the FBI or Homeland Security would tell Congress that they really don’t need FISA anymore? We don’t need it. We don’t mind not being able to read anyone’s email whenever we damn well feel like it.
Would a single politician– other than the heroic Bernie Sanders– campaign on the policy of repealing FISA, or even not renewing it? Only a politician with courage and real principles would do that. That leaves Bernie Sanders, and, I think, Ron Paul. And Russ Feingold, who lost his quest for re-election right after he voted against the Patriotic Act. Yes, the lone vote against it.
There will always be incidents in Europe and America that can easily be made to justify the FISA Warrantless Surveillance Act because you Americans are so easily manipulated and so gullible that you will believe whatever they say.
You Americans don’t deserve Democracy. You rolled over like mewing kittens as soon as your senator or your congressman said “boo”!
If I was in Congress and had enough support, I would add a proviso to the bill. I would require that all conversations, emails, texts, and other communications by all members of Congress be recorded and handed over to the FBI, and your local police, and maybe the school board, and maybe posted on the internet, and transcribed in pen and ink and mailed to their mothers.
Why would they object? What’s the problem? What are you hiding? You’re not a terrorist, are you?