Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Senate Approves Wiretapping Bill

Yesterday, the Senate approved a wiretapping bill that expands law enforcement's surveillance powers, shields telecommunication companies from liability, and prevents judicial review of the surveillance program until after the wiretapping is complete. The targets of surveillance include Americans suspected of having ties to terrorist networks. Nineteen Democrats sided with the Administration on this one, likely in fear that they may be called weak on national security one day.

I think that this describes a divergent trend in American war politics today (not to mention Democratic sissy-ness).

For a lot of us, it's shocking to think that our government may spy on us one day based upon the mere suspicion that we've become linked to a terrorist network. After all, we all learned in high school history class that the Founding Fathers feared tyranny and oppression, and so they formed a government of limited police powers, with the limits taking the form of the Bill of Rights. However, what makes this area of law so confusing is that at the same time that the Founders were debating the role of government vis-a-vis its citizens, there was already a well-established common law theory of the laws of war.

The law of war basically deals with the powers of the various branches of government when a nation is at war. It's an English idea that carried over to our legal system. Some of the basic notions, such as the head of state (a president or king) acting as the commander-in-chief, are familiar. Others, such as the role of the courts as a non-policymaking body with almost no competence with military matters, are less familiar. However, the common law of war is a well-established, although murky and fluid, doctrine. It grants the executive broad powers to conduct war and gives the legislative branch a strong advisory role.

Although the common law of war might be well-established, it's interaction with our Bill of Rights is very unclear. The two are not always compatible, and that, I think, is the political discussion we need to have today. Each is born from a different socio-political system. The common law of war comes from a aristocratic monarchy where the rights of individuals is not well-defined. Our Constitutional system is democratic with the rights of individuals well-defined. When the two clash, we must decide which must give and how. Do we want a strong executive who can bend the law as he sees fit? Do we want to the rights of individuals to bend the the will of the state? How far should we go in paying for war?

I'd like to suggest that politically, we're branching off into two groups. Conservatives want a strong executive, and they identify with the common law approach to war that views civil rights and the role of government during war as a fluid continuum based on the government's needs. Liberals, on the other hand, adhere to the Constitution, which rigidly explains the roles and rights of both the government and individuals. One, the liberal approach, is democratic. The other, the conservative approach, is not.

Scary to think that after 232 years some of us would want a king again.

10 comments:

Jack Gonzo, MD said...

Isn't that how we've been ruled the last 8 years, by a king?

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...

My point exactly

SayHey Kid said...

"The Madness of King George"

Jack Gonzo, MD said...

When I heard about this yesterday it made me sick. Spying upon Americans is unconstitutional and I wish this could be taken to court and ruled as such.

The thing this administration has given this country over their reign is living in fear, that there's a giant boogeyman out there trying to getcha. Likely because most of them never adjusted to not living in a cold war, so they created their own cold war of sorts.

Some have said, if you've done nothing wrong you shouldn't be concerned, fuck that. That's not the point, the point is not turning this republic into a police state. If you don't think the government wouldn't abuse this power, then you've obviously not been paying attention the last 8 years.

Dews said...

Really think we should post the names of the 19 senators that voted for the immunity clause on the side of this blog as a reminder of just how spineless the Democratic party really is...

Pathetic...

Citycat said...

Let's not forget that this isn't new. Martin Luther King's phone, along with many of his followers phones were tapped during the time of the freedom rides and beyond because he was feared to be a communist. I agree it's wrong, but I think we have a more powerful argument if we view things in historical context, instead of acting like Bush and the rest are doing something brand new.

Dews said...

This is true, along with other "subversives" like John Lennon and those "damn pinkos".

I just always seemed to write some of those off as the crossdresser Hoover's brilliant political maneuvering to keep certain programs running during the "Red Scare", but assumed most of them went away after he was no longer steering the FBI's ship.

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...

It's not new by any means. Oldness doesn't make it legal or just by any means, though.

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
People Power Granny said...

You're so right! We have more in common with many folks across our oceans than we do with our government. Check out my site at peoplepowergranny and vote in my poll on just who do you trust!