If the letter writers were allowed to rate comments (+/-), and filter those below a user defined threshold, then comments like Ondolette's, or vitually everything written by the more erudite/persuasive commenters here would remain. And the inane, vacuous leavings of the likes of You Know Who and Sharter would be easily filtered out.

John Ashcroft defends the forth Amendment against the totalitarian encroachments of the Clinton administration:

http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itgic/1097/ijge/gj-7.htm

He may be an odd duck but he at least does have a passing familiarity with the Constitution.

If Ondelette is holding them off, does that make her Agent 99?

(The Clash)

The soldier boy for his soliders pay

Obeys theeargent at arms whatever he says

The seargent will for his seargent's pay

Obeythe general order of the battle play

The generals bow to the government

Obey the charge you must not relent

What of the neighbors and the prophets in bars?

What are they saying in the publiz bazaar?

We are tired of the tune

You must not relent

At every stroke of the bell in the tower there goes

Another boy from another side

The bulletins that steady come in say those

Familiar words at the top of the hour

The jamming city increases its hum

And those terrible words continue to come

Through bras music of government hear those

Guns tattoo a roll on the drums

No-one mentions the neighboring war

No one knows what they're fighting for

We are tired of the tune

You must not relent

The name is French for wavelet.

Sorry.

let's look honestly how the system has functioned in fact, as opposed to theory.

Ever since 1789, the country has, in fact, been dominated by a small elite. Early on it was agricultural; later industrial (a little war was fought over that one). We have in theory been a popular state, but in fact a managed democracy. It's either the smoke filled rooms of the early 20th century, the monolithic media of the mid-20th, the party machines of the the late 19th century, and so on... But always a "managed democracy" with sovereignty in the name of the people, but not in the people themselves.

For most of the 19th century, only a minority could even vote, and they were fragmented throughout the nation. In the first half of the twentieth century, a significant minority were excluded from any form of political participation. Union members were gunned down in cold-blood. Dissident political movements were crushed - members jailed or blacklisted.

It was only in the second half of the 20th century that things changed. We were competing with the Soviets, who had their own propaganda of "freedom" and sovereignty. New modes of communication opened up - TV, universal phone service, and then fax machines, copiers and computer networks. Actual political participation by the poor, women and minorities began to occur. They infiltrated even our corporations!

And so we have the backlash. Bush isn't going against our historical constitutional order. He is trying to re-implement it. As society changes, to keep the same social order requires new techniques. People have the internet - the elite will respond with TIA. People have cell phones - grab all the phone traffic. People can travel nationally and communicate internationally - massive databases to track every human detail.

So all this outcry about the Constitution: what Bush is trying to do is adhere to the spirit of the document. The details? Bah, they're just some freedoms we could afford when no one could in practice use them.

Totally devastasting (to Bush & Co.) analysis, Glenn.

Remember DARPA's Total Information Awareness (TIA) Project? It was basically a huge (and completely unconstitutional) DoD data mining effort that would collect information on EVERYONE from every conceivable source available. I remember there was a chilling flow chart on the TIA website that showed how an individual's medical records and bills could be tapped to build a profile on anyone.

But then Congress got wind of it and the DoD promised to suspend the project. Except they didn't, of course. They broke up the project into separate projects administered by different agencies. I have no doubt that at the right moment, these various databases could be combined in a single keystroke.

I can't help but believe that a similar program was being indiscriminately used as part of the NSA protocols. The fact that Ashcroft, one of the most zealous enforcement figures to hold the AG office, found the program completely over-the-line speaks volumes.

Everyone should direct their congressional representatives to Glenn's post and DEMAND an immediate investigation.

I made the same mistake...

http://tinyurl.com/38ver9

Cheers.

If the Bush administration were a soap opera, it's so ridiculous it could run forever on daytime TV.

I'm just praying that we don't find even more entertaining jokers to replace them next season.

Electronic Spying:... At the bottom, if our laws will not permit surveillance, find a country that will: the extraordinary rendition of the search warrant.

I haven't heard of any other governmental entity that has data gathering capabilities that come close to what the feds have. Over time they might be able to "outsource" electronic spying in a way analogous to extraordinary renditions... but not all of it overnight.

...this surveillance thing is not going to be a genie that can be put back in the bottle without a lot of work. Any warrant laws the Congress writes can be subverted by finding a friendly, or even an ignorant, government and taking the operation offshore [...] Nobody even notices anymore that if the Supreme Court shuts them down on something, and they just take infinite time to "study the problem in order to bring our programs under compliance."

You know that subversions of this nature have been going on for decades. The activities of certain elements of our federal government in South America over the past 3-4 decades would enrage and depress anyone who cares about human rights -- or even America's longterm best interests!
The Bush administration has been especially aggressive in using and expanding on what was in place, but they couldn't have done half of what they have if they were working from scratch. Their desire for utterly unfettered spying and "operations" was aided by a myriad of "black budget" bureaucracies that remained untouched despite the end of the Cold War. I don't know if all the heads of this Hydra can ever be cut off, but we haven't actually seen Congress make the attempt in my lifetime either.

Glenn is right to ask if we know which program we are talking about. There are probably tens of them, it would cost the surveillors nothing to ritually shut one down whenever the outcry got too loud.

Yes. The problem is many of them have partially legitimate or even necessary functions. But we live in the modern world. If neurosurgeons can cut out a deadly brain tumor in 2-3 10 hour surgeries, it should be possible to excise malignant programs from our Federal bureaucracy. We just need accurate imaging technologies.....