Today, the Obama truth is revealed. Change has come in the form of familiarity. Some American's are embarrassed. Others embrace what, when presented by the previous Administration, they rejected. Apathy helps most Americans to avoid a sense of shame. It was announced; Obama defends Bush-era secrets. This Administration has gone further to establish government sovereignty. As a nation, the Obama White House tells citizens, our country will be better protected if details about the surveillance program are considered "Top Secret - Sensitive Compartmented Information."
The draft of the Democratic party platform is out. Does the section entitled "Reclaiming Our Constitution and Our Liberties" go far enough? How does it compare with Get FISA Right's proposals?
The Silverback Ironside March 20, 2008
A comic book collector wonders about his civil liberties
by Mike Madias
This is an essay about the Patriot Act, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and old Wonder Woman comic books with covers that show the Amazon princess in bondage drag. Often she is cinched as tightly as a plump rolled pork roast.
One of the provisions of the Patriot Act of 2001, section 215 to be precise, allows any FBI agent, of the rank of Assistant Special Agent or better, to confiscate books, records, documents and any other items from anyone; if that seizure is connected to any investigation of terrorism that might have happened, or is happening or might happen in the future.
Note that this is not the confiscation of materials belonging to someone suspected of terrorism. A person does not have to be a suspect. It says that any assistant special agent can take anybody's anything if it has the remotest connection to an investigation of terrorism that might have occurred or might occur in the future at any place on the whole damn planet.
Consider this. If I am six degrees of separation (I know someone, who knows someone to the power of six) from John Ashcroft or Kevin Bacon; then the odds are that I am also six degrees of separation from someone who might have a remote connection to the Academy Awards in Hollywood, or the Miss Universe Pageant, or the Board of Directors of the Microsoft Corporation. I might even be six degrees of separation from someone who might be suspected of perhaps having a remote connection to a terrorist.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows some Junior G-man (complete with secret decoder ring) to come to my deluxe apartment in the sky and confiscate my comic book collection, not to mention my comprehensive library of guerilla weapons and tactics.
But I am pretty well assured that I will not lose vintage Wonder Woman comics to the FBI. That is because the Patriot Act states that these confiscations of stuff will not be done on a person "solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States." So I guess that journalists are safe.
All I have to show is that the information I have in boxes and folders in my closet are for the use of writing a news story.
Now I am not on the payroll of any major metropolitan daily newspaper. I am an independent reporter-a blogger.
I have enough bylines to have an attorney make a credible claim that I am legitimate. Most of my readers are in the media.
But many of those who read my copy are not fellow journalists. You, gentle readers, are just sitting there six degrees of separation from god knows who and could get caught up in the dragnet for evil doers. I worry about you. Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men?
The anti-terrorist Dick Tracys do have to get a court order before they snoop around and cart off your stuff. It can be a magistrate, a junior judge, who allows for the search. This is fine. But here is the kicker. The FBI does not have to tell the target of the search and seizure the reason they are carting away crates of documents. They do not have to say that this is in connection with an investigation of terrorism.
I do not know how the provisions of the Patriot Act, section 215 have been used. Maybe you, dear reader, are safe, or perhaps the knock might come on your door (you who are not journalists) in the next five minutes.
I, for one, believe that such promiscuous seizures of documents and equipment as allowed by Section 215 of the Patriot Act violates Amendment IV of the Constitution which says: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now, I am not a legal expert. I flunked out of law school, and I have had some uncomfortable experiences with the local police over four ounces of Romano cheese. But it sure looks like a clear issue to me. Such promiscuous searches as allowed by section 215 of the Patriot Act do not measure up to the "probable cause" provision of the fourth amendment.
I may be wrong. But the best advice for you is this, either become a journalist or stash your old Wonder Woman comics, especially those with the bondage covers.
Shalom
Mike
And good night Mr. Darrow, wherever you are.
= = = =
When I took a leave of absence from my job in Washington in 2000 to work in the Montana Senate race, I didn't have much clue what I was in for. Growing up on the East Coast, I thought of the Intermountain West as a huge, far-off, mysterious place of square states and cattle herds - and like many people on the coasts, I didn't know much else.
In the years since that first campaign, I have been working in and reporting on the West, telling people what I say in my new nationally syndicated newspaper column today: That this region is the most politically misunderstood place in America.
Something's happened to Dennis Kucinich. There's a newfound confidence; a deeply resigned, yet boldly assertive tone gathering in his voice. I don't know what it is. Maybe it's his recent progress in major polls and grassroots support. Maybe it's the fighter coming out, now that impeachment has gained some life. Maybe it's the realization that a majority of Americans side with him on the issues and that he is the one pushing this party back to the people. Or maybe it's that he's been the candidate who has best exercised the leadership and judgement on huge issues, such as Iraq, the Patriot Act, Iran, Trade, and Impeachment.
Based on the Bush Dog vital statistics chart that I produced yesterday, which I think can serve as an important reference point for the upcoming campaign against the Bush Dogs, over the last 24 hours I have discovered some more useful information about this caucus:
Of the thirty-eight members listed in the Bush Dog chart I produced yesterday, twenty-seven of the them were in the 109th Congress. Twenty-two of those twenty-seven voted in favor of the 2006 Military Commissions Act, and only ten other Democrats voted in favor of destroying habeas corpus. Cooper, Costa, Lipinski, Melancon, and Snyder actually showed some decency on that vote. Now, of those five, three come from solidly blue districts (Cooper, Costa and Lipinski), one come from a swing district (Snyder) and one comes from a red district (Melancon).
In 2005, looking at those same twenty-seven members, only Gordon, Matheson, Peterson, Salazar, Snyder, and Tanner voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. In this case, none of them are from blue districts, but some of them are from swinging districts.
Looking further back, only seventeen of these thirty-eight members were in Congress in 2002, during the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. Every single one of them, except Rep. Snyder, voted in favor of the use of military force.
Considering that his name keeps appearing on these lists, I am starting to think that there is real hope for Representative Vic Snyder. It is always possible to stop being a Bush Dog. It also makes me wonder if there is any hope at all for the older members who never appeared as exceptions to any of these votes: Boswell, Boyd, Cramer, Edwards, Etheridge, McIntyre, Pomeroy, Ross and Tanner. They just appear to be neo-cons. Considering that Leonard Boswell's district is both in Iowa and lean Democratic, that might be a nice high visibility location to run a primary challenge. It wouldn't even be a waste of money, either, considering that the DCCC is constantly forced to spends money to defend Boswell, who appears to be a weak candidate, in that district. Rather than giving money to the DCCC to defend a Democratic neocon, let's defeat Boswell in a primary, and then give money to the DCCC so they can support someone else as the Democratic nominee. That way, the money the DCCC spends in the districts won't be such a waste.
Disturbingly, fully twenty-one of the Bush Dogs have entered Congress since 2002. while that still makes them only about 25-30% of the new Democratic members since that time, that also means they have a larger presence among newer members than they have of older members, where they are only about 10% of the Democratic House population. This makes me wonder just how anti-progressive Democratic House recruiting practices were from 2001-2006. To a very real extent, Democrats seem to have brought this working conservative majority on themselves. DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen can complain about the Bush Dog campaign all he wants, but until he demonstrates improved recruiting practices on behalf of the DCCC, I am not budging.
36 of the 38 Bush Dogs are men, with only Melissa Bean and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin representing women. By way of contrast, 48 of the 194 Democrats in Congress who are not Bush Dogs are women. Overall, that is a difference of 5.3% to 27.4% female representation. Being a Bush Dog, and supporting neo-conservative foreign policy despite being a Democrat, seems to be a male habit. In fact, I think there is a much more direct correlation to Bush Dogs being male Blue Dogs, than there is to them being Blue Dogs from red districts. It is a dude thing.
All food for thought. You can sign up for email alerts on our Bush Dog campaign in the upper right hand corner of Open Left. Also, you can read the entire Open Left Bush Dog archive here. The more we learn about these problem Democrats, the better our campaign against them will become. Keep digging.
STATE BLOGS
