posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 09:48 PM
Hoover's FBI (and NSA) survived under Congresses and administrations of both parties, until the 1970s bipartisan Church Committee dealt with its
The original Church Committee ushered in an era of reforms that we've come to take for granted: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts and executive orders banning assassinations.
But it's hard to survey the legal and moral wreckage of the "war on terror" and conclude that those reforms have stood the test of time. When the
country faced another "implacable" enemy, the reforms of the Church Committee were subverted, circumvented, rolled back and outpaced.
An excellent read!
The key word here is BIPARTISAN. The partisan buildup of Congress started in the 1990s, with Newt Gingrich leading the charge to make "Clinton
Democrats as the enemy of normal Americans." So liberals and Democrats became "enemies" to conservatives and Republicans. The George Bush years not
only cemented Congress into perpetual bipartisanship, but 9/11 turned Americans into either patriotic or un-American.
Congress, which has oversight over Homeland Security (NSA), could never come up with the bipartisanship necessary for oversight. Plus, with every
issue so politically charged, it's easier to go after AG Holder on lesser items and pretend to be tough.
And God was on the side of the GOP, with AG John Ashcroft stating, "Our rights don't' come from government, they come from God", when he wanted to
assure Americans that the Patriot Act was ok. Who's going to question God?
The Tea Party etal push to take America back to the Founding Fathers and strict interpretation of the Constitution, precludes opportunities to expand
"rights to privacy":
The future of privacy protection remains an open question. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for example, are not inclined to protect privacy beyond
those cases raising claims based on specific Bill of Rights guarantees. The public, however, wants a Constitution that fills privacy gaps and
prevents an overreaching Congress from telling the American people who they must marry, how many children they can have, or when they must go to bed.
The best bet is that the Court will continue to recognize protection for a general right of privacy.
No, I would not elect a severely conservative POTUS, who would replace Supreme Court justices with more conservative judges, who could end up finding
no Constitutional basis for protecting privacy in the 21st Cen.
Unless we either hit the streets, or support those that do, in order to demand an end to the security state American style, we'll have to wait years
for the return of a bipartisan Congress willing to stop the madness.