impeachment talk and the incremental loss of privacy

Why another thread about impeachment? Because all of the chest beating on this issue seems to ignore a basic reality: the lack of a true level of outrage about chimpy's warrantless eavesdropping.

But it shouldn't come as a surprise that the public at large is relatively indifferent about this. Sure, they don't think its such a good thing. But enough to demand impeachment? Not seeing it. Why?

Well, for starters, let's dispense with the oft-repeated fiction that warrantless searches are unconsitutional. While the Constitution may seem clear on the issue, there is a long long history of exceptions and many (if not most) searches take place without warrant.

In fact, I daresay that most DUers have knowingly been subjected to warrantless searches on numerous occasions and haven't raised a peep. That's right, every time you go through an airport screening device, every time your luggage gets x-rayed, you've just been subjected to a warrantless search.

So think about it. The American public, while not particularly thrilled about it, now puts up with having to remove their shoes to get on an airplane, to not being able to lock their luggage, to knowing that their bags are going to x-rayed and, in some instances, opened and looked through. Warrantless eavesdropping? Just another incremental loss of privacy.

Rather than focusing on impeachment, we should be focusing on convincing voters that its time to change the direction things are moving. Its going to take incremental steps back in the other direction. Its not realistic to expect the public to say we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it about an eavesdropping program that probably has far little direct impact on them than something that they've grumpily decided to put up with: having to take off their belts and empty their pockets to get on a plane.

onenote

our constitution. The constitution is what stands between the public and an overzealous congress/president. When any part of the constitution is allowed to be transgressed, the whole of the constitution has been rendered impotent. This cannot be allowed to pass any longer than is necessary.
Enough with the talk of letting it slide and count on elections instead. There is a very good possiblity of the elections being stolen once again. Even better possibility when impeachment is the outcome of a republican loss.

4th Amendment
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.

Clinton let the FBI search FOREIGN agents. aWoL let the NSA search and SPY ON American Citizens. There is a difference between security at the airport and BIG BROTHER listening to your private conversations and emails.
Nice try but that straw man is not going to fool anyone.

Since I don't see the average person getting all that upset about the eavesdropping program. Like I said, a lot of folks don't like it, but they aren't storming the palace gates about it. Its a plain and simple fact of life that searches take place all the time without warrants and thus simply citing the Constitution is the start of the discussion, not the end. The SCOTUS for many years has recognized various exceptions to what would appear on its face to be a clear prohibition on warrantless searches.

So the discussion has to proceed to the issue of whether this particular form of warrantless search falls within yet another unwritten "exception". I don't think it should or does fall within any exception, but it hardly comes as a surpise that the average person might not immediately come to the same conclusion (and it doesn't appear that they are leaping to that conclusion). The fact is that the average person sees their privacy invaded all the time and is putting up with it. I think that's unfortunate. But the fact that some people (and until it is known who those people are the average person is going to assume it is someone "different" than themselves) had their phone conversations and/or emails tapped in the name of "security" isn't going to seem all that more outrageous to a lot of people than having to let government agents rifle through their own luggage just to go visit Aunt Edith in the name of security.

onenote

They frame it as listing in on TERRORISTS and FIGHTING EVIL. They are not outraged because they believe the lies. We on the other hand know that there is no exception allowing the illegal unconstitutional invasion of privacy. If you believe that it is we permissible for the NSA to spy on American Citizens, without cause or accountability, we have to agree to disagree.

But the fact that you or I or others here on DU think it was illegal and that Chimpy should be held accountable doesn't mean that its going to happen. If the world was the way I wanted it (and the way most DUers want it) there would be no need to even have this discussion, since chimpy wouldn't be president and the repubs wouldn't control the House and Senate. But the world is the way it is not the way I wish it would be. And I don't see anything in your post to suggest that you think the average person (or the media from which they obtain information) is about to experience some shining moment of enlightenment. So I stand by my contention: while I'd like to see chimpy held accountable for his warrantless eavesdropping, the only "accountability" that I think will occur is that, with some good candidates and a message that nudges the average member of the electorate but doesn't get so far ahead of them that they tune us out, the Democrats will recapture control of Congress and the presidency by 2008 and we'll be able to start reversing some of the damage done by chimpy and his gang.

onenote

subpoenas and testifying in committee that NOT ONE MORE ELEMENT OF THEIR CORRUPT POLICIES GETS PASSED. We start to reverse the damage in 07.

But I don't think we recapture the House by running on impeachment. We recapture the House by running on the fact that the repubs are incompetent and corrupt and care more about building bridges to nowhere and putting their cronies in office and accumulating power by influence peddling than they do about taking care of people when disaster, natural or otherwise, strikes. That they care more about cutting taxes for the wealthy than about the fact that wages for working men and women are stagnating. That they care more about the oil companies than they do about either the average person trying heat their house or commute to work or about the environment. If we can recapture the House we can begin to shape the agenda. And we can begin investigations that hold the implicit threat of impeachment. Which sets things up nicely for 2008.

onenote

Drug testing in public schools?

Shall I go on how the 4th amendment has been pissed on and the American people accept it?

I wish that chimpy's wireless eavesdropping would be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but realistically, its not going to happen that way. The intrusion into privacy accelerated dramatically in response to 9/11, but the pendulum is beginning to swing back. But its not going to happen overnight, as much as many DUers sincerely wish it would.

onenote

...in terms of a huge outpouring of outrage would be if it could be shown that Bush used this to spy on his political opponents. As long as it is framed as "we only use this on bad people", it will not get much traction. The same is true with DUI & drug testing as long as it is "bad people" who are mostly effected, people will put up with the inconvenience.

dupe

Unless and until it comes out that the eavesdropping wasn't really related to security concerns but was political or personal in nature, the average person is going to shrug and say that they wish it wasn't this way but the world has changed.

onenote