Janet's Conner

This Blog tell the Truth and will never not tell the Truth. Impeach Bush

Wednesday, May 31, 2006


On Feb. 6, 2006, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, launched a conveluted attack on the Fourth Amendment before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This assault on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is, in my estimation, the biggest leap forward for totalitariansim in this country.

The following is an excerpt from Alberto Gonzales' Fourth Amendment catechism (emphasis mine):

"Finally, the NSA's terrorist surveillance program fully complies with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fourth Amendement has never been understood to require warrants in all circumstances. The Supreme Court has upheld warrantless searches at the border and has allowed warrantless sobriety checkpoints. See, e.g., Michigan v. Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); see also Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44 (2000) (stating that 'the Fourth Amendment would also certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack'). Those searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment because they involve 'special needs' beyond routine law enforcement. Veronica Sch. Dist. v. Action, 515 U.S. 646, 653 (1995). To fall within the 'special needs' exception to the warrant requirement, the purpose of the search must be distinguishable from ordinary general crime control. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001); City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000).

"The terrorist surveillance program fits within this 'special needs' category. This conclusion is by no means novel. During the Clinton Administration, Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified before Congress in 1994 that the president has inherent authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence searches of the private homes of U.S. citizens in the United States without a warrant, and that such warrantless searches are permissible under the Fourth Amendement. See "Amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Hearings before the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence,' 103rd Cong. 2d Sess. 61, 64 (1994) (statement of Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick). Se also In re Dealed Case, 310 F.3d at 745-46.

"The key question under the Fourth Amendment is not whether there was a warrant, but whether the search was reasonable. Determining the reasonableness of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes requires balancing privacy interests within the government's interests and ensuring that we maintain appropriate safeguards. United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118-19 (2001). Although the terrorist surveillance program may implicate substantial privacy interests, the government's interest in protecting our nation is compelling. Because the need for the program is reevaluated every 45 days and because of the safeguards and oversight, the al-Qaeda intercepts are reaonable."

The above statement from Alberto Gonzales is breathtaking. Notice how he never says the "terrorist" surveillance program satisfies the Fourth Amendment's probable cause provision. Instead, he says it passes the neoconservative "reasonableness" standard. Then, he uses three different types of examples that satisfies the probable cause requirement to imply that the Fourth Amendment doesn't really say what it says about probable cause.

Although I do question the constitutionality of sobriety checkpoints, a sobriety checkpoint on a public road is still different from invading the privacy of one's house, or eavesdropping on a phone conversation. Sobriety checkpoints are considered constitutional not just because they pass a "reasonableness" standard, but, because they are on public raods, they satisfy the entire Fourth Amendment.

***Sobriety checkpoints have proved to be a great idea! Nobody out there can deny that maybe many of our loved ones are still with us today because of these checkpoints. We'll never know that if a carful of our family is still alive today because of one of those people were taken off of the road by a sobriety checkpoint. I'd rather think of it that way, then ask myself, I wonder why there wasn't a sobriety checkpoint out there where they were driving? This is the kind of thing that you don't mind putting up with, but to go into the private home's of individuals? I agree with this writer. Nobody is going to tell me that the republicans aren't using this for political reasons. If only to hear what it is that the public wants to hear.

Gonzales then uses the example of FISA searches. It is important to understand that evidence obtained from a FISA search cannot be used in a criminal prosecution, precisely because the FISA standard doesn't meet the probable cause threshold of the Fourth Amendment. The evidence can only be used for narrow purposes, such as deportation of a foreign intelligence operative. So, yes, FISA searches don't meet the probable cause threshold, but that is exactly why they can't be used to obtain evidence for criminal prosecutions. The probable cause threshold is satisfied, since it isn't violated.

Notice the eclectic examples Gonzales uses. He fuses together "special needs" law enforcement operations with counterintelligence operations. This is a very dangerous comparison. Making counterintelligence operations part of "special needs" law enforcement programs is a calculus to use FISA-type searches for crime control.

Gonzales then repeats his view that the Fourth Amendment doesn't require probable cause warrants. The search only has to be "reasonable," pursuant to the arbitrary discretion of government agents. He then cites United States v. Knights. I have to wonder if he has ever read that decision, since the Supreme Court didn't rule against Knights because the search already passed the "reasonableness" standard. The search satisfied the probable cause threshold because Knights was on probation! He was subject to warrantless searches as part of his sentence.

Would it be constitutional for the government to execute all of us, since Ted Bundy was constitutionally executed? Or would it be okay for the government to force all of us to submit to urinalysis testing because people on probation have to?

The "reasonableness" standard is a neoconservative invention. None of the examples Gonzales cited give the Bush administration a detour around the probable cause threshold. Not all searches must meet the probable cause threshold, but all searches must satisfy the probable cause threshold.

Gonzales doesn't even pretend that the NSA's program satisfies the entire Fourth Amendment. Instead, he says searches only need to satisfy a "reasonableness" standard.

To fully appreciate the significance of the Bush administration's assault on the Fourth Amendment, one should place this in a historical context. For King George III's deputies to enforce his laws, Parliament passed the Writs of Assistance Act. Writs of assistance were warrants so general that they allowed the king's agents to go wherever they wanted, whenever they wanted, for whatever reason they wanted. Writs of assistance were basically licenses for the king's men to oppress the colonists. It was the writs of assistance that spawned the Revolutionary War. The Founding Fathers prevailed in the war against the Crown. The Founders gave us the Bill of Rights, which includes the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment condemns the concept of general warrants.

Fast-forward 230 years: King George W. Bush is surpassing George III, by attacking the concept of needing any type of warrant. Do we really want federal agents to go wherever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want, with impunity?

The usual refrain that I hear from neoconservatives is that we shouldn't be concerned about what the government is doing unless we are doing something wrong. I say the government shouldn't be concerned about what we are doing unless we are doing something wrong. If somebody is engaged in criminal activity, why can't an official say this under oath?

Consider all the statutes on the books. Are there no statutes that violate our rights? Perhaps some people do have a legitimate need to hide illegal activity---i.e., illegal activity that shouldn't be legal. Also, are there no legal activities that should be private? Would you trust your neighbors having the power to invite themselves inside of your house whenever they wished? Why would you trust somebody with that power just because they work for the government? As Paul Craig Roberts pointedly asks, "Why, if only evildoers have anything to fear from government, the Founding Fathers bothered to write the Constitution?"

Source: Anti-war
By: Mark Anderson
May 29, 2006


For the past five years, Congress and President Bush have been cutting taxes in the face of huge deficits, all the while peddling a math myth to the public.

Tax cuts won't make the deficits worse, they say. Tax cuts will stimulate so much economic growth that federal tax revenue will actually increase. Tax cuts, they are fond of saying, pay for themselves.

Actually, no. Economists of all stripes agree that federal tax cuts by themselves do not boost federal revenue back to the level before the cuts were enacted.

Tax cuts do not boost economic activity. This growth does replace a portion of the revenue once generated by the eliminated taxes. But far from all. Very far. Researchers' estimates of this replacement effect vary from around 15 percent to 50 percent, depending on the type of tax cut and the prior rate.

Any responsible politician should know this, buts pols persist in peddling the cozy myth. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), played around earlier this month when Congress extended tax cuts on capital gains and dividend income for two years, at a cost to the federal treasury of $70 billion.

"We've put these tax provisions in place," Santorum said, "and they've raised money."

Even President Bush's former economic adviser, N. Gregory Mankiw, concedes that activity spurred by the capital gains tax cuts made up only about half of the lost revenue.

What do you call the other half? Under this administration, you call it "deficit."

Data from the President's own Office of Management and Budget refute the argument that tax cuts "pay for themselves." Over the past three years, with tax cuts in effect, federal revenue was $316B lower than OMB had predicted, in 2003, that it would have been without tax cuts.

The federal deficit this fiscal year is projected at more than $330B.

From 2001 to 2005, federal revenue fell at an average of 0.06 percent when adjusted for inflation and population growth, according to the left-leaning think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

Some Republicans lawmakers point out that the tax receipts through April were up about $137B, or 11 percent, compared with the same period last year. Credit tax cuts for some of that, if you want, but be aware that national economies are complex creatures that grow or shrink based on dozens of factors, of which tax rates are only one. Inflation, too, could partly explain it.

But that increase still is not enough to offset recent losses to the federal coffers. Nor do the White House's own projections expect deficits to end anytime soon.

Again, the key point: No matter what you've been repeatedly told, an improved economy does not generate all the tax revenue that was lost due to cutting federal taxes in the first place. The evidence proving this basic point has been piling up since Ronald Reagan's tenure, but many tax-cut fans still won't admit it. Why? Because the pay-for-themselves theory was never based of fiscal evidence. It was a theology, a faith-based system defended all the more strenuously because of that.

(A side point: Tax cuts can come much closer to paying for themselves on a local stage, in a city such as Philadelphia, where comparatively high taxes really do discourage investment, and those seeking to escape those taxes do not have to leave the nation but merely take a step across City Avenue).

The federal tax-cut mythology wouldn't have such dire consequences, if Congress and the president reduced federal spending in line with the lower revenues.

Since Reagan, that draconian balancing act has been the goal of some conservatives bent on cutting the social programs that have aways irritated them.

Trouble is, that plan hasn't worked. In five-plus years of almost total domination of Washington by the self-described "conservatives" of the White House and Capitol Hill, federal spending has increased about 29 percent, even as tax cuts drained the Treasury.

And, no, not all that spending is due to hurricanes, terrorism and wars. (Let's not even get into the point that the wildly costly Iraq War was a choice, not a necessity). David Walker, comptroller-general of the United States, says only about a third of the stated deficit can be traced to those causes.

Remember those golden days of the 2000 presidential campaign when the big issue was how to spend the roughly $5.6 trillion in federal surpluses projected for this decade?

Instead, surpluses turned to deficits, with a vengeance, once the Bush tax cuts went into effect. During the Bush years, the national debt has soared from $5.8T to more than $8.3T.

Why haven't the Republican powers inside the Beltway cut government more? Well, some of them were too busy throwing government money at the corporate friends who keep them in power and get them onto all the nice golf courses.

But the bigger reason is that every time budget-cutters hover their ax over any of the middle-class benefits where the big money flows, voters scream bloody murder.

Turns out people really like most of what big government provides.

They like to help with J. J.'s college tuition, and with Grandma's nursing home bills and prescription drugs. They like having a teaching hospital full of brilliant doctors and expensive equipment nearby. They demand a strong national defense and better homeland security. And they are really, really fond of the tax deduction for their home mortgage interest.

Taxpayers are human. They like a good deal. If politicians tell them they can get all the government benefits they secretly love at a discounted price, they'll cheer.

And, as some genuine fiscal conservatives are ruefully coming to realize, people who are getting government at what feels like a discounted price (i.e. lower taxes) aren't going to clamor for less government. They're going to clamor for more, for benefits like a prescription drug benefit that Medicare has no idea how to pay for.

But, in fact, these government benefits aren't really being bought at a discount. They're being bought with reckless borrowing. They'll get paid for, all right, but the payment will come down the road in higher taxes, higher interest rates and economic anxiety.