If you have "no place to go," come here!

When do we get to the "burlesque" part?

Check out Chris Floyd's Empire Burlesque.

And speaking of the age of the anti-Cassandra, go read Arthur

No votes yet


Submitted by hipparchia on

i'd been wondering for some time now just how many of those warrants were being issued. thanks for that link.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

even with this already-existing spineless FISA rubberstamp court that approves whatever they want--they're still gonna get more power to spy on us and order companies to commit crimes.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

amberglow writes:

even with this already-existing spineless FISA rubberstamp court that approves whatever they want—they’re still gonna get more power to spy on us and order companies to commit crimes.

It's not possible to get individual warrants for what they're doing. They're tapping all the peering traffic. All of it. They would need a warrant for every citizen of the US. That's why they keep insisting they need unconstitutional blanket warrants and must bypass the spineless FISA court.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

...of constitutionality. It is a secret court, and was designed to be, but it was a compromise that seemed reasonable at the time, based on what the Church Committee told Americans about what had been done in their name, over the years, and not only by Nixon, by pretty much every post-war administration.

I do think there is evidence that those findings of the Church Committee and the kinds of checks and balances that were put in place did have a salutary effect on the CIA. It started to unravel again under Reagan.

What has made it worse is the willingness of the SCLM to accept the right-wing version of our recent history that brands the work of the Church committee as problematic and its solutions extreme, a point of view that was repeated after 9/11 over and over again by people like Joe Klein and Mark Halperin and so many others.

What's so insane about all this - the fact of the greater ease of communication, the great traffic made possible in a digital world, along with the greater ease of government surveillance and the greater ease of abusing that power should lead to demands for greater scrutiny and greater supervision and transparency of those who are so anxious to spy on their own citizens. I also think that if the majority of Americans were made aware of the breadth of this intrusion by big brother on their privacy, they'd be outraged, post 9/11 or not, especially if they were also aware of how little of this surveillance had led to making any of us safer, which is what I suspect to be the case.

That's why it's so important to continue to think about ways to demand an investigation into what the exact nature of this surveillance has been, during the Bush years, and how effective it's been. It's the very people who are so gung-ho on gutting the 4th amendment in the service of "security," who never tire of using the word accountability when they are talking about non-villagers - you know, all those wretched boomers and their expensive retirement, all those single Moms...all those voters who need desperately not to be pandered to, to be told the harsh truths about how miserable they can expect their lives to be; well the time has come to throw that word, accountability, back in their faces of our ruling classes. Accountability, accountability, accountability: from the government, from international corporations, and from the so-called free press.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--but at least it was a check on them--the officials knew that they couldn't just do it, and had to go thru at least some procedure about it and it was based on individual cases/people/targets--vacuuming all data/traffic like now isn't legal and could never be so.