Dear NSA... time to stop spying on ordinary Americans

Dear NSA:

I am writing to request that you return to looking for terrorists, and stop watching the American people - people who you know damn well are not terrorists and are not 'public enemies', and who have no connection with terrorists.

Bush and Cheney are out. Please cease spying on us. I do not believe that you want to spy on us ordinary Americans... I believe this order came down from Bush, or more likely Cheney. Now that they are out, perhaps you can return to the business of looking for actual terrorists and actually keeping our nation safe, rather than 'watched.' This is not Stazi East Germany.

Thank you.

P.S. This sounds so much like Nixon's famous 'enemies list.'

The data you have been collecting... were you directed to watch everyone that Cheney didn't like or trust? Why on earth would spying on the media be related to hunting terrorists? The fact is -- its not.

Nixon hated the media. Cheney hated the media. That doesn't make them 'dangerous,' or a threat to national security.

Who else were you directed to spy on... our congressmen and senators? Because that would explain a lot of the erratic behavior we've been seeing out of the Democratic congress over the last eight years.

Also, where is this famous database? We've heard it was outsourced... to whom?

Democracy is not open to outsourcing. Neither is our privacy as American citizens. (Dear God things went to hell while Bush and Cheney were in power.)

You are Americans too - our fellow Americans. I don't believe you bear us any ill will. Please make this right. It is our Constitution that ultimately keeps us safe in a democracy. What you do to keep us physically safe means little if we lose our freedom in the process. Our ancestors died for freedom - not safety.

Fourth Amendment to the Constitution

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.

ACLU on the job

Doing the work Congress is unwilling to do, the ACLU once again has our backs on domestic surveillance.

They asked the Foreign Surveillance Court to require that the White House release "orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans." The White House has until August 31st to comply.

Thank you to the ACLU and to the FISC for safeguarding our civil liberties! Congress... take notice. You don't have to be lapdogs. In fact, I can't imagine why any of us would vote for lapdogs.

In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public (8/17/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented order, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has required the U.S. government to respond to a request it received last week by the American Civil Liberties Union for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. According to the FISC's order, the ACLU's request "warrants further briefing," and the government must respond to it by August 31. The court has said that any reply by the ACLU must be filed by September 14.

"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny.We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."

The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.

"These court orders relate to the circumstances in which the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens and residents," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The debate about this issue should not take place in a vacuum.It's imperative that the public have access to basic information about what the administration has proposed and what the intelligence court has authorized."

FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative." Those orders are among the documents requested by the ACLU.

Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass the new legislation expanding the government's surveillance powers. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.

The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.

A copy of the FISA court order, the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying

In addition to Jaffer, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro, Melissa Goodman, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.

I'm gonna be an informer!

At last... a return to the good old days of witch hunts!

The FBI has proposed building a network of U.S. informants; right here on our soil! This is great news, because you see -- I really need a job.

There are lots of suspicious people living all around me. That, and people I just don't like.

For example, everyone who tailgates in those freakin monster SUVs. On my list -- and like yesterday bozos! As of now, you're all terrorists!



From the ABC Blotter:

The FBI is taking cues from the CIA to recruit thousands of covert informants in the United States as part of a sprawling effort to boost its intelligence capabilities.

According to a recent unclassified report to Congress, the FBI expects its informants to provide secrets about possible terrorists and foreign spies, although some may also be expected to aid with criminal investigations, in the tradition of law enforcement confidential informants. The FBI did not respond to requests for comment on this story.

The FBI said the push was driven by a 2004 directive from President Bush ordering the bureau to improve its counterterrorism efforts by boosting its human intelligence capabilities.

Thank heavens for President Bush -- he's going to have us all watching for brown people among us, and of course those left-wing weenies that I don't like. Where do I sign up? I can't wait to be a spy! Do I get to wear a special badge? Can I carry a gun?

The aggressive push for more secret informants appears to be part of a new effort to grow its intelligence and counterterrorism efforts. Other recent proposals include expanding its collection and analysis of data on U.S. persons, retaining years' worth of Americans' phone records and even increasing so-called "black bag" secret entry operations.

It does look like I'm going to have some competition for a job, which is annoying. I was reading through the comments out on ABC's site... so many patriots stepping up to spy on their neighbors. I guess everyone is out of work these days.

Damn. I'll have to get to them before they get to me -- the early spy gets the terrorist!

Bravo! It's long overdue. It's about time we did something about poten tial terrorists and the left-wing apologists who want to "make-nice" with people who want to kill us.

Ha. I know where all of the left-wing apologists hang out brother... I'm gettin to em first!

WHERE IS THE SIGN UP SHEET? AND WHEN DO I REPORT FOR TRAINING?.............

First you need to learn to type in LOWER CASE, bozo...

I don't want to experience another 9/11. And most of all, I don't want my children to ever experience another 9/11. Let's not forget these people will stop at nothing to kill innocent Americans. The world has changed since 9/11. It will never be the same in the US. Do you think when we have a new president it's just going to go away back to pre-9/11. Don't be fools. Be smart, think safety for you and your family. Even if that means having informants among us. Folks, be happy, we won the OVARIAN lottery. We live in the greatest country on the Earth.

Now here's a patriot! Grr. Competition. That 'greatest country on the Earth' thing will impress the FBI recruiters. Gonna have to get some dirt on this guy, and fast.

Whats the big dillio... if ya aint doin nothin wrong you aint got nothin to worry about... pedal to medal dudes.

This guy sounds a little unhinged, dudes. Can't wait to have him looking in my window at night with a notebook.

Great! The lefties and the cowards are sure going to raise hell over this but every law-abiding citizen in this country should applaud this idea. There are too many goodie-twoshoes living in this country who do not full appreciate what this country stands for..Freedom and security for all its citizens. May God always protect our President, Mr. Bush..The democrats sure as hell do not want to protect us.

We want the freedom to be imprisoned! This guy gets it. Makes my eyes tear up with patriotic joy.

If anyone finds out where we can sign up, I'll do it for free.

Dammit! I ain't doin this for nuthin!

This is a good idea. Informants brought down the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Mississippi after the Chanery-Goodman-Schwerner murders, and succesfully aided in the investigations into other heinous acts.
Of course, pro-terrorists and other cretins DO have something to fear. Patriots do not.

Ah, but who decides who is a 'cretin' and who is not? I'm signing up so I can make sure that 'decider' is me me me!

Happy August: you hope

Welcome to August! The month of devastating hurricanes, searing heat... and the month when Congress takes a little 'recess' and leaves the nation's capitol unguarded.

A few days ago I received a 'warning' email about a new bill the GOP was trying to shove through Congress before the recess bell.

The bill (HR 3138) offered by Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) redefines the meaning of 'electronic surveillance.' Her new definition subtly would expand the NSA's access to the telephone conversations and e-mail communications of Americans who have no connection to Al Qaeda or terrorism: and one party doesn't even have to be outside of the United States.

As long as you're not the subject of a search, you should feel relief, right? Wrong. According to H.R. 3138, as long as the government doesn't target a specific person with "electronic surveillance," it should be able to search anyone's phone and email conversations. This bill is being given a hard push before the August recess, with the assumption that any member of Congress who doesn't vote for it isn't willing to do all that it takes to stop terrorism, even though the Administration has refused repeatedly to provide key information to Congress on its NSA wiretapping program(s).

This one is particularly chilling, if in fact it has anything to do with whatever Bush and Gonzo are already hiding (and of course, we don't know yet.) That anyone is willing to vote on anything right now, without knowing what the White House is hiding, would be Patriot Act knee jerk all over again (and we know that one plays out for the American people and our Constitution.)

According to the email from the The Bill of Rights Defense Committee, the Bush administration is warning that if the Democratically controlled Congress fails to take this action before recess, it 'will be blamed for any terrorist attacks that may happen while they are gone.'

Where have I heard that one before?

Oh that's right, this is Chertoff's gut again. And Rick Santorum's solution to our misguided, anti-Iraq sentiment (because of course seeing 'them' attack us here will convince us that fighting them over there has made us safer over here... um, huh?)

Oh yes, the GOP is once again standing on a chair and screaming 'the terrorists are coming!' And it appears we are to believe they they are coming while Congress is away. Within the span of one month. When we haven't had any terrorist attacks within the country since 9-11. And this so that they can get even more power to spy on American citizens while refusing to come clean about the spying they've already done.

And of course, this means the obstructionist GOP, is suddenly producing bills that must be signed and passed immediately (unlike removing Gonzo the perjurer) before anyone leaves town. Democrats must guard against these terrorists now; quickly, knee-jerk-like, right now! Don't think -- just sign! Oh, and trust us (wink wink, nudge nudge.) And the Democrats will probably do it too. Not because they fear the attack as much as they fear being BLAMED for an attack if they don't allow Bush to spy on us again.

This is beginning to remind me of the Sopranos. Congress paying protection money in the form of domestic spying bills?

I'm sorry... how strange to imagine terrorists actually sitting around waiting for scary Congress to leave town before striking.

It now seems obvious to me that if Congress is such an effective deterrent of terrorism, they should cancel recess and stay in Washington. Obviously if they stay in town, the blame for any terrorist attack will remain with the White House, where it belongs (after all we're fighting them 'over there,' right?)

Besides, they have the White House (almost, kinda) on the ropes. They can charge forward and pursue the Constitutional crisis already in progress. When the momentum shifts in your favor, you'd better run the ball into the end zone. Momentum doesn't magically return after halftime, (especially if one team is allowed to stay on the field; with no defense to resist them, and free to run the ball into the other end zone, unopposed, for an entire month.)

Does this seem wise? Does this seem smart? Is this Democratic majority really so naive?

I'm no lawyer, but I do know that I wouldn't turn my back on the Bush administration for one second, let alone a month. And I certainly wouldn't let them bully me into passing a law 'forgiving' any behavior that hasn't even been investigated due to continual obstruction of justice.

Gonzo; up to his neck but still paddling

After the head of the FBI, Robert S. Mueller III offered testimony that sharply 'conflicted' with Gonzo's sworn statements about a 2004 confrontation (the Ashcroft bedside party,) in which top Justice Department officials threatened to resign over a secret intelligence operation (turns out that was data mining, by the way; which explains why everyone was ready to quit their jobs. Illegal!)

While Justice Department lawyers continue to express their despair, describing departmental moral even lower than during Nixon's Watergate era, and as the New York Times is calling for either a special prosecutor or Gonzo's impeachment...

Jon Stewart continues to entertain.

Or is that Gonzo doing the entertaining? Lately it's hard to tell. But you have to imagine that Gonzo is every comedian's dream come true...

Coming soon: 'Domestic spying surge!'

Torture, secret prison camps, the suspension of habeas corpus, American war profiteers in Iraq, the abuse of our troops abroad -- and the wounded that return... this administration is a veritable cesspool of corruption and abuse of power. It is hard to single out a particular abuse and call it 'most infuriating' given the endless stinky bubbles burping to the surface of the Bushie oil slick.

Everyone has a hot button issue. If I had to pick one issue that continually makes my head explode, it would be the rampant use of domestic spying by this very obvious partisan and power-hungry administration -- and the lack of real excuses given for watching our every move.

A new commentary by Fred Kaplan in Slate, entitled "SPY SURGE: Prepare for more Domestic Spying," discuses an interesting section in the latest National Intelligence Estimate that appears to push for even more domestic surveillance.

Why am I not surprised?

I believe the direct assault on our forth amendment by the illegal and warrantless wiretapping of all American citizens, without knowledge or consent, is the single most impeachable offense that has been committed by this administration:

Amendment IV

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.

Many conservative scholars agree. Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said:

"I think if we're going to be intellectually honest here, this (domestic spying) really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed."

It doesn't seem to matter (off the table, off the table, we're too busy, it's not worth the time.)

Meanwhile... you can imagine that if the Bushies consider it open season on their more famous political enemies - to the point where former Surgeon General Richard Carmona wasn't even allowed to attend the Special Olympics because the Kennedys endorse it - oh just imagine how the the vast majority of Americans who oppose the war are hanging in the partisan, political wind.

With all of our recent and persistent noise about ending the war and impeachment, are we to illogically believe that this administration bears us no ill will?

Perhaps this is at the heart of my endless frustration with Congress. Our Constitution was devised to protect us, the people, from abuse of government power. I expected our representatives in this government to stand up for us - and the Constitution they swore to uphold and protect - and call off these very obvious partisan dogs of war.

At the very least, I expect them to verify that this domestic spying is not being abused for partisan purposes.

Now that the war is going badly, and people are starting to notice that we never went after Al Qaeda where they really live, do the Bushies suddenly decide to step up action against Pakistan?

If they really wanted to stop Al Qaeda, they've known for some time exactly where to find them:

Since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush has been able to deflect criticism of his counterterrorism policy by repeatedly noting the absence of any new domestic attacks and by citing the continuing threat that terrorists in Iraq pose to U.S. interests.

But this line of defense seemed to unravel a bit yesterday with the release of a new National Intelligence Estimate that concludes that al-Qaeda "has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" by reestablishing a haven in Pakistan and reconstituting its top leadership. The report also notes that al-Qaeda has been able "to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for Homeland attacks," by associating itself with an Iraqi subsidiary.

The Bush Administration has known for some time that Bin Laden was in Pakistan. And many recent news reports have claimed that we are in fact much less 'safe' since our invasion of Iraq than we were in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Even the military has soured on the surge, as shown in a recent poll by Military.com. One comment jumped out at me, because it made me realize again, how badly these troops have been misused in this war - this war they thought would protect the homeland from any future attacks of terrorism:

"Or we pull out, use the money for the war to bolster our forces and anti-terrorism capabilities and be ready to respond when [enemies] show themselves," writes "userArmy."

So if this was indeed about fighting terrorism at all: the obvious choice for any administration would be to redeploy and pressure Pakistan to give Bin Laden up. We pressured Afghanistan... and surely we would be justified in demanding that Pakistan stop harboring terrorists hell bent on attacking us within our country.

If we were to withdraw from Iraq, our claim that we are 'only waging a war on Terror' would be much, much stronger. As things currently stand, we are viewed the world over as an invading force.

But of course... I'm talking of reason, I'm speaking of rounding up the actual terrorists that attacked us, and forgetting all about the OIL. And because we citizens are wising up to the real motivations behind this war, we must be watched. And I'm hoping that is the least of it. Conservative and former Reagan Administration official Paul Craig Roberts wrote a harrowing commentary in Counterpunch:

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

And the government is spying on us?

In his commentary in Slate, Fred Kaplan revisits reports about the National Security Agency's "data-mining" technologies, and the intrusive "Total Information Awareness" network the Pentagon was originally advocating - without any proof that this assault on privacy was even effective. Apparently all previous domestic spying was for naught, because if recent reports can be believed, Al Qaeda is once again operating on our soil:

Most of the report (which I analyzed here) concerns an alleged resurgence of al-Qaida. But toward the end, the authors mention a small but expanding number of "violent Islamic extremists inside the United States" who are "becoming more connected ideologically, virtually, and/or in a physical sense to the global extremist movement."

Kaplan has also noticed a slight modification in what - and who - they're now monitoring:

The report also notes dangers posed by "non-Muslim terrorist groups," "single-issue groups," and "even small numbers of alienated people" who might "find and connect with one another, justify and intensify their anger, and mobilize resources to attack—all without requiring a centralized terrorist organization, training camp, or leader."

Small numbers of alienated people? Single-issue groups? Pardon me if I'm wrong here, but I'm guessing they're not talking about the KKK or skin heads. Or even the nation's most vocal homophobic and racist haters - because these can be found all over the radio dial, and even on TV. So who are they talking about?

And honestly: couldn't such vague and sweeping language include nearly every angry citizen in the United States? How about every citizen calling for impeachment? Or every citizen who wants the United States to withdraw from Iraq?

Small numbers of alienated people? What does that mean? Alienated from what -- from Bush? I'd like a little clarification.

One thing is perfectly clear. We were told that we were fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq as a justification for the continuation of this escalating war. We were told that we had to fight them 'over there, so they wouldn't fight us over here.' We have known for some time that Bin Laden was probably in Pakistan, and that Al Qaeda was in fact rebuilding there. Finally the government admits as much. And their idea of a solution?

Spy on the American people again. 'Spy on us here so you don't have to fight them over there.' Yes, we get it.

BREAKING: Update to FBI NSL abuse

File this under 'Spying on me pt VII?' (I've lost track)

It would seem our judges are swinging into action! It appears the Rovians didn't get past the prosecutor stage of their infiltration scheme, because we still have quite a few determined judges who still believe in upholding the Constitution (and if I may be so bold: THANK YOU and God bless you!)

From the EFF's website:

June 15, 2007
Judge Orders FBI to Release NSL Abuse Records

New Evidence of Misuse Prompts Immediate Response in EFF FOIA Lawsuit

Washington, D.C. - A judge ordered the FBI today to finally release agency records about its abuse of National Security Letters (NSLs) to collect Americans' personal information. The ruling came just a day after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) urged the judge to immediately respond in its lawsuit over agency delays.

EFF sued the FBI in April for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about the misuse of NSLs as revealed in a Justice Department report. This week, more evidence of abuse was uncovered by the Washington Post, and EFF urged the judge Thursday to force the FBI to stop stalling the release of its records on the deeply flawed program.

"The reports we've seen so far about NSL abuse are just the tip of the iceberg," said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann. "FBI officials told the Washington Post that there have likely been several thousand total instances of misuse. Americans deserve answers about this scandal and how the FBI has abused its power to spy on ordinary citizens."

Under the PATRIOT Act, the FBI can use NSLs to get private records about anyone's domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions without any court approval -- as long as it claims the information could be relevant to a terrorism or espionage investigation. Without a judge's oversight, the law is ripe for the abuse that has been uncovered in these recent reports.

"The law itself is the source of the problem. It's time for Congress to repeal these expanded NSL powers and protect Americans from this abuse of authority," said Hofmann.

The judge's order requires the FBI to process 2500 pages of NSL-related records by July 5, and then 2500 pages every 30 days thereafter.

The judge's order

EFF's supplemental memo

Washington Post article on NSLs

Call me crazy or old-fashioned, but I just love seeing the law being enforced.

Spying on me, part... III? IV? V?

This time, from the Washington Post (if they're covering it, its a disaster:)

An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

Well isn't that special. Aren't I so very surprised. Like the Justice Department could ever be accused of telling the truth.

I wonder - has the FBI also been reduced to just another partisan arm of the Bush/Cheney/Rove RNC squad (like every other department of the Federal government?) I wonder what the chances are that this is not the case? I can't imagine that Rove Inc. would have overlooked the FBI, when seeding partisan yes-men throughout the ranks of government.

The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling.

Between 2002 and 2006, the FBI identified 26 potential violations in its use of National Security Letters to gather phone, Internet and bank records without traditional warrants. A 2007 Justice Department report that sampled a small number of cases found 22 additional violations, raising the total to 48. That report prompted the FBI to review 10 percent of the cases since 2002. The number of potential violations found has now grown to more than 1,000 as a result of that review.

-- snip --

But two dozen of the newly-discovered violations involved agents' requests for information that U.S. law did not allow them to have, according to the audit results provided to The Washington Post. Only two such examples were identified earlier in the smaller sample.

Yeah. Probably just 1000 innocent mistakes in a tiny, 10% testing sample. Probably just a few FBI agents who don't understand the law or the Constitution. No partisan intent here, of course not, none whatsoever. There isn't any partisan intent anywhere else in our government.

I am so sick of the bullshit.

Is it my turn to scream 'PARTISAN' back at you, Mr. Lott and Mr. Stevens? Or can I simply throw the Constitution in your face and remind you of your oaths again? This isn't the Yankees vs. the Red Sox; this is our government, our laws, and our freedom on the auction block.

All partisan, all the time.

I'm wasting bandwidth even talking to you, but if we citizens don't scream -- who will? If you don't hear each other (mostly all rich guys in matching gray suits;) you surely won't care what I think. But I care about my country.

Jon Stewart was right; you don't listen to each other, and you don't even make sense. I watched the coverage of your hamstrung Gonzales vote-to-not-vote on C-Span, and felt like I was eavesdropping on a Country Club award dinner... or perhaps a roast. Of course you weren't all patting each other on the backs, oh no; you only pat members of your own party, then scream 'partisan!' at everyone on the other side of the aisle. Issues be damned. Law be damned.

Great governing, guys. Terrific job. And thank you! Little wonder that you can't get anything done, any bills passed. Maybe if you all vote to give yourselves a raise, or award yourselves new golf clubs, you can find some common ground at last.

But back to the real issue at hand; the one you obviously won't protect us from:

The change -- combined with national anxiety about another domestic terrorist event -- led to an explosive growth in the use of the (National Security) letters. More than 19,000 such letters were issued in 2005 seeking 47,000 pieces of information, mostly from telecommunications companies. But with this growth came abuse of the newly relaxed rules, a circumstance first revealed in the Justice Department's March report by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

Wait a minute... roll that truck back. The 'national anxiety about another domestic terrorist event?'

I felt no such anxiety. Did you ask me?

Oh sure, another terrorist attack may happen -- it is probably guaranteed now; now that we've rampaged through the Middle East, sowing destruction and anti-American sentiments like an angry bull in a china shop. But back when this all started after 9/11, and despite what your ditzy corporate media mouths were saying, not all of us were cowering under our beds. No sir.

Not one damn person asked me - an American citizen - if I was so terribly scared that I would give up my constitutional rights in the hope that next time (unlike last time, when the threats were received in advance) my government will intervene.

Here's the rub. Generations of Americans have faced 'danger' and 'fear' and 'insecurity,' and never once did they gut the Constitution. Not once!

Who are we to be so cowardly, so weak-kneed, and so swayed by our media's propaganda that we would ever consider giving up the very heart of what our ancestors fought and died to protect? No one asked me, and no one asked any other American citizen. The media said 'Americans are scared,' the President said 'I will make them safe;' and then proceeded to spy on us... not the terrorists. Us.

This isn't about terrorists, this is about power. The American people are not terrorists in their own homes and in their own country.

And yes I do take offense. And yes, I'm mad as hell.

You Senators who think of nothing but partisan name-calling: you have no idea what 'defending the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic' means.

Does this all sound vaguely like a Keith Olbermann rant? Well I'm sick of reading things like this. And I'm sick of seeing that no one in Congress will do a damned thing to stop it.

I have spent many hours of my life reading about historic struggles in our past, and admiring those who stood up for me -- before I was even born. Imagine my disgust at you, my Senators, when you can't even differentiate between the law and selfish, party interests.

You are no one's representatives. You have betrayed us all. If that isn't worth a little rant... what is?

UPDATE: Appears at least someone in the House is angry too:

The Democratic Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties expressed outrage at a report about how FBI agents possibly violated a surveillance law over and over again while misusing the National Security Letter (NSL) authority vastly expanded by the Patriot Act.

-- snip --

In a press release sent to RAW STORY, New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who also co-chairs the bipartisan Patriot Act Reform Caucus stated, "Today's reports only heighten the clear need for fixes to the NSL authority. The Justice Department's Inspector General previously found wide-spread abuses of the FBI's authority to issue NSLs - we now know that the problems go much further than initially disclosed. From the beginning, I have said that unchecked power would lead to rampant abuse. It's clear, yet again, that reforms are needed."

"These abuses by the DOJ and FBI have proven that legislative fixes are necessary," Nadler continued. "In the coming weeks, I plan on holding continued oversight hearings on the NSL authority as part of a series of hearing entitled, 'The Constitution in Crisis: The State of Civil Liberties in America.' I will also work with my colleagues to consider and craft legislation that would place adequate checks on the FBI's investigatory power."

Nadler added, "The new FBI guidelines regarding the use of NSLs fall far short of protecting the privacy of innocent Americans. It is not enough to mandate that the FBI fix internal management problems and record keeping, because the statute itself authorizes the unchecked collection of information on innocent Americans."