Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Spy On This

(Those with eyes that are sensitive to swearing might want to be careful. This one's kind of salty.)

Dear Congress,

You goddamn idiots.

What the hell are you thinking? That it was too hard to spy on people before? The only thing the Administration had to do under the FISA law was to get a warrant from a secret court - set up for the sole purpose of handing out spy warrants, mind you - within three days of the beginning of surveillance activities. That's it. It's not that hard to go to a judge and get a warrant, is it? Doesn't the whole process usually take a few hours?

This isn't about national security. This isn't about whether we can listen in on terrorists or not. This is about an administration that is too damn lazy and too damn conceited to follow the law. And you, in your infinite wisdom, think that if the President's too damn lazy to follow the law, the best course of action is to make it perfectly legal to be lazy. It doesn't matter if the new law opens the door to all kinds of potential abuses. We have to accommodate this President's laziness, don't we? Are you assholes going to peel him a grape and make his lunch, too? How about a law providing for members of the Intelligence Committee to carry Mike McConnell to work because he doesn't want to drive his car or take the Metro or even walk a couple of blocks?

Oh, wait, I forgot - the President's legal staff is too busy thinking of ways to screw over the gays to be bothered with paperwork. I guess it's just stupid of me to think that if the Administration can marshal all those lawyers to defend Scooter Libby that they can have someone fill out some paperwork within three days of a wiretap. My mistake.

And what the hell is that provision giving retroactive immunity to anyone who broke the law in previous illegal spying efforts, including the patsy spineless jackasses at the telecom companies and the lazy fat fucks in the Administration who apparently would rather listen to some Arab drone on about their love life to their friend in Saudi Arabia than simply file the paperwork for a warrant? Why do these idiots deserve immunity? Is being too lazy to follow the law not punishable any more? I got a parking ticket for not turning my car around so it faced the right direction before parking it, for fuck's sake. Can I get immunity, too? Oh, wait, that's right, I can't scare you with some bullshit claim about how national security interests depend on my laziness.

I don't know why the fuck y'all decided that you had to put in the effort to allow the President to be lazy. But pardon me for thinking that we ought to hold the highest law-enforcement agencies to the same goddamn standard that we hold the local cops to. Warrants mean something. They mean that it's that much harder for the Administration to fuck us all over.

But apparently causing a minor inconvenience in order to prevent massive abuse is passe for you guys these days. So fuck y'all.



Mike said...

Honestly, I was expecting more swearing. It is ridiculous bullshit that a Congress at odds with the White House would still cave in such an egregious fashion. Further proof that the Democrats have no spine.

And oh by the way, let us not forget that there are far more troublign examples of this administration's laziness - remember the month-long vacation shortly after the "Bin-Laden Determined to Attack U.S." email?

Incidentally, I hadn't heard anything about the administration trying to "screw over the gays" since Bush used it to get himself re-elected then promptly dropped it. What are they doing now?

Matthew B. Novak said...

How many Democrats supported this? How many of them are counting on Democratic presidents to use it in the future? How many felt they'd lose their next election if they didn't support it?

I have a feeling this bill wasn't about this bill, it was about what this bill means for future elections/presidents.

Which might piss me off even more.

Mike said...

18 Democrats (yes, I counted). Most of which may be counting on Democratic presidents using it but, much like the line-item veto, that doesn't make it right because you figure approximately half the time your guy (or gal) ain't in power. It's a good point about whether or not they'd lose their next election due to this vote (you can almost hear the "Senator So-and-So thinks the government shouldn't care what terrorists are talking about" smear ads) but that doesn't make it right.