Can we get a "Duh!" on that one, brothers and sisters?

A Federal District Court Judge ruled that the Bush administration's secret illegal wiretapping program was...wait for it...wait for it...illegal. No way! Of course, to anyone who's looked at the case against the Bush administration and who has any inkling of how the United States Constitution is written, interpreted and applied, it has been obvious for quite some time that the surveillance in question is not legal; but it's nice to hear that from a federal judge. So we're pretty happy to see this outcome. Sure, it will be appealed, and the fight is far from over, but it's good to see that round one has gone to the civil libertarians.

We wrote recently about some of the massive and insane excesses of the "War on Drugs," and if left unchecked, we're sure that the "War on Terror" would only lead to even more gross abuses of civil liberties. In that earlier post, we noted that it is absurd to make the sale of Sudafed, matchbooks, and antifreeze illegal under the umbrella of the War on Drugs just because the person buying them could use them to make crystal meth, and we joked that we might as well do the same for gasoline and styrofoam coolers which could be used to make napalm. Sure, it was a joke, but if this ruling had gone the other way, we might be telling you to stock up on coolers and gas now to avoid the rush.

Back to the case at hand — from the ACLU press release:

In the first federal challenge ever argued against the president's NSA spying program, a district court declared the program unconstitutional and called for an immediate halt to this abuse of presidential power.

"It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights," wrote Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in her decision in ACLU v. NSA.

...

As Judge Taylor ruled, the program violates the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act passed by Congress in the wake of the Watergate scandal.

So hey, if you knew that this shit was illegal, but you weren't sure which laws were being broken, now you've got the complete list. Handy!

What does the White House have to say about the ruling?

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the Bush administration "couldn't disagree more with this ruling."

Really. No shit. This ruling reigns in what Bush seems to think of as his unlimited and unassailable executive powers, and reaffirms those pesky checks and balances that are spelled out in the Constitution. In effect, the decision states that the president is not above the law, and that he is bound by the Constitution to safeguard the civil liberties of American citizens. Gee, what a pain in the ass for Bush, huh?

Remember folks, we're not talking about wiretapping here, we're talking about warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. We're talking about a complete lack of any oversight; we're talking about the executive branch making a secret end-run around both of the other branches of government. So when we hear Bush apologists whining about how this decision will weaken the country, we have no choice but to call bullshit. Case in point: John Bambenek, a research programmer at the University of Illinois:

The ACLU has convinced a federal judge that monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is against the constitution.

No, asshole, that's not what's going on. For fuck's sake, pay attention. Monitoring overseas communications of terrorists is not against the Constitution, and neither we nor Judge Taylor are saying that it is. Monitoring the phone calls of American citizens without the requirement of producing sufficient evidence that they are connected to terrorists to obtain a proper warrant, however, is unconstitutional. How fucking dense can you be, Johnny boy?

Ah, but then, in his next statements, we see that John is attempting to answer that very question:

Despite the evidence, the media still calls the case a matter of 'warrantless wiretapping' despite the fact that the clear intention is to monitor international calls. This ongoing deception is an attempt to create hysteria that the US is becoming a 'police state' and that the treats [sic] are from Republicans, not terrorists. This is the same political quarter that brings you the idea (despite all evidence to the contrary) that George Bush and not Al Qaeda is behind 9/11.

What the fuck is this guy on about? He states that there is evidence contradicting the classification of these activities as "warrantless wiretapping," and then, instead of producing that evidence, he goes on to address how the intent of the program is to monitor international calls. Sorry, but what do those two assertions have to do with one another? We're talking about warrantless wiretapping, no matter what the intent or goal of the wiretapping may be. Not only has John failed to provide his claimed evidence that these activities are not really "warrantless wiretapping" (a false assertion on his part, since no one denies that proper warrants were not obtained — which is probably why he can't provide any evidence), but he's also managed to change the subject entirely while making a nonsensical argument on his new subject. Way to go, moron. From here, John equates people who don't like the NSA listening to their overseas conversations with abuelita to conspiracy nuts who think that Bush and the PNAC planned the events of 9/11. Truly, John's intellect is staggering.

And how about this nugget of uninspired lunacy?

Many scoffed at the idea of framing resistance to the Patriot Act and the 'warrantless wiretapping' programs as an attempt to establish an 'Al Qaeda Bill of Rights', however, with Judge Taylor's ruling and the help of the ACLU, the shroud of the First Amendment has been extended to protect those who plot to kill Americans.

Oh, yes, he's nailed it right on the head here. We, like the ACLU, aren't concerned about the plaintiffs in this case, who are US citizens that aren't suspected of any ties to terrorists, and we aren't concerned about any other Americans in similar situations. What we're really worried about is protecting the constitutional rights of actual terrorists who don't live in our country and hence aren't protected by our Constitution.

Damn, he's figured us out.

If you read the rest of his screed, you'll see that not one of his arguments holds water. Not one. Go to the post and read it, sentence by sentence. Other than his statement that the judge who handed down the ruling was appointed by Jimmy Carter, every sentence is either patently false or massively misleading. Seriously, we aren't exaggerating here. His basic (and totally unsupported) assertion seems to be that anyone who opposes the government's warrantless wiretapping program is helping the terrorists and hurting our country. He completely fails to see the other — and much more reasonable — side of the coin, and instead paints those who disagree with him as "E-ville."

As such, you'll find yourself asking the same question that we ask of such people every day: is John really as stupid as his post makes him seem, or is he just dishonestly twisting the facts to suit his own agenda? Either way, moron or liar, it's clear that he — and all those who would offer a similarly vapid defense of this clearly illegal initiative — is an asshole, and, more importantly, that his arguments are 100% Grade-A bullshit.

Now, compare John's approach — characterizing the ACLU and the others who oppose this warrantless wiretapping program as terrorist sympathizers — with this statement from a column in the Daily Illini that laments the current state of political discourse, and chastises reactionaries that paint their opponents as evil, hateful degenerates:

When people talk about privatizing Social Security, the voices that challenge the policy on economic grounds are drowned out by the voices who claim that it is a sinister plot to kill off old people. For those who discuss immigration reform, those who disagree with amnesty are not people with a different perspective, but xenophobes who are stirring anti-immigrant furor. Individuals who voice criticism of the war in Iraq, no matter how legitimate, are labeled as traitors and terrorist sympathizers.

To add one more sentence to this admonishment: "Individuals who voice criticism of the NSA wiretapping program, no matter how legitimate, are labeled as traitors and terrorist sympathizers." We agree with this columnist's point — too often, extremists pigeonhole their opponents in such a way that they close their ears to anything that their opponents might say, no matter if they have a valid point or not. And that is exactly what John is doing in his post — leveling unsubstantiated and illogical accusations at anyone who opposes Bush's wiretapping program.

So here's the bonus question: who wrote the paragraph quoted above? If you guessed John Bambenek, we owe you a cigar. (A cheap one, sorry.) Apparently, his hypocrisy knows no bounds.

As a note, and to head off anyone who thinks that we are the hypocrites here, we'll note that while we are pretty harsh toward people like John, we are completely open to opposing points of view — just as long as they are accompanied by rational arguments supporting them. In his rambling babble, John has failed to muster even one rational argument in support of his position. And while we have undeniably insulted his intelligence and painted his stance here as idiotic (for which we do not apologize), we've also provided our rational arguments for disagreeing with him.

Look, if the NSA wants to read someone's e-mail or listen to someone's phone calls, they should follow the laws of this country, and then wiretap to their heart's content. And despite what ignorant asshats like John Bambenek would have us believe, forcing the president and the NSA to follow the law isn't "weakening" our country — but pissing all over the Constitution by stripping away the civil liberties of innocent American citizens and expanding presidential powers such that the president has no checks to keep him in line...well, that certainly is weakening the country. It's really that simple.

The level of political hate in America is weakening our ability to defeat a philosophical and religious movement that is hell bent on destroying our liberties and lives. It's hard to get to the truth in the public forums because of all the political hate, cheerleading and need to always be right and always destroy the "others" argument. I don't know about you but when someone politicizes an argument and especially when they demonize their opponent or resort to name calling I am immediately unsure what to believe if anything in what they have to say. I wish everyone would try to be as accurate with the view of their opponents as they are with their own and leave the politics and name calling out all together and stay focused on the truth.

Wouldn't it be better for those like the ACLU and liberal lawmakers and others in positions of power to protect our lives as well as our liberties to be a little more creative in working out solutions that accomplish what needs to be done in a way that not only satisfies legal concerns but is also practical and enforceable?

In a time of war every American should be working together to defeat the enemy and we should be pooling our thoughts to make that goal. Sadly, the political "debate" is not a debate but a shouting match of hate, cursing and name calling. No one is tapping into the goodwill on both sides of the political isle or in the public domain to do the right thing.

Does anyone believe that our federal lawmakers can't write a bill or procedure that allows our protectors to do their jobs efficiently? That should be the easy part. The hard part is actually getting a handle on what an intelligent enemy is doing in our very complex technological world and how to work a fix around it.

If we are all patriots and we all want to know what the enemy is doing then lets get down to doing it together. We can start by being upfront with our intentions and leaving the politics out of things.

I bet there is more than 2% who would agree with me on this.

With the luxury of hindsight, we now know it is all okay. Because our newly elected Democratic controlled Congress has blessed President Bush like the prophets of old and said in effect, "you are forgiven, go forth and sin no more ... oh wait, how about we just not call it a sin anymore?"