The Democrats Embrace Big Brother

It may be July, but Christmas came early this year for Big Brother and the telecommunications giants. Unfortunately, it is average Americans who will pay — dearly — on three separate counts.

First, precious constitutional and other legal protections against warrantless domestic surveillance have been shattered. The federal government may now secretly and legally eavesdrop on virtually any American’s e-mail, cell phone and landline communications — without first getting a court-ordered warrant.

New federal legislation gives the government and phone companies sweeping new domestic surveillance powers. It allows for mass, untargeted, warrantless eavesdropping against ordinary American citizens and political activists. It sets back hard-fought free speech, civil rights and privacy protections that were won by popular pressure following the Vietnam War and Watergate era.

The second price that Americans will pay is by those who have been illegally monitored since 9/11. They will lose billions of dollars from dozens of anti-spying lawsuits pending against the likes of Sprint, AT&T and Verizon. These suits, covering the last seven years, will now be dismissed in a huge giveaway of immunity to the telecommunications lobby and big campaign donors.

The lawsuits arose from the government’s secret eavesdropping on American citizens, carried out since September 11 by Verizon, AT&T and others at the behest of the Bush administration, without court-ordered warrant, which until now had been legally required.

Third, Americans will be unable to discover the extent and details of the government’s post-9/11 domestic spying operation, which barely came to light three years ago. That domestic eavesdropping campaign will now continue and expand further — with legal sanction — in the dark recesses of total secrecy. The new bill is a huge and blatant cover-up.

Democrats had claimed to be against the bill for months, but — as they did with the earlier USA PATRIOT Act — easily and completely capitulated. The new legislation received overwhelming bipartisan support in the U.S. House of Representatives on June 19; its imminent approval by the Senate is a foregone conclusion.

Reversing himself along with so many of his colleagues, Barack Obama gave fresh evidence of what can be expected of him if he wins the presidency.

In February, when he was running against Hillary Clinton, Obama said he “was proud” to stand against this bill’s predecessor and its blanket immunity for the telecommunications companies’ violations of individuals’ civil rights. Four months later, no longer needing to position himself to the left of his former Democratic rival, Obama has revealed his real stance. He has announced he will vote in favor of the state powers and immunity for crimes and violations he so recently denounced.

At a time when Democrats are most ascendant — when Republicans, the war and bogus post-9/11 “national security” scams for gutting constitutional rights have been most discredited — Obama and “bipartisan” Democrats are giving the completely weakened Bush administration exactly what it wants. Why? There can be only one reason. It is what they want, too.

The new bill guts the post-Watergate Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was created in 1978 to require warrants from secret courts for domestic government spying in national security matters. These were created to curb blatant government domestic wiretap abuse, revealed by the Senate’s Church Committee and others.

The Church Committee, convened in the 1970s to investigate government claims against domestic “terrorists,” instead revealed a massive, secret official campaign of spying, sabotage, thug tactics, “dirty tricks” and criminal activity by the government against ordinary Americans. The secret surveillance and criminal sabotage were carried out especially against many thousands of movement activists — antiwar, civil rights, antiracist, left wing and many other dissenters.

The political opponents the government systematically “terrorized” covered a broad range: the Black Panthers, antiwar organizers, Puerto Rican nationalists, journalists, Native American groups, socialist organizations, peace vigil groups, Martin Luther King, Jr. Even congressional opponents were targeted.

The eavesdropping, disruption schemes, blackmail, assaults, assassinations and other crimes were carried out by the CIA, FBI and many other government agencies, through programs like the infamous COINTELPRO (COunterINtelligence PROgram).

Mass popular opposition won victories that curbed government thuggery and spying against the American people and political activists. But longtime official efforts to rehabilitate such programs have used 9/11 as a cover for supposedly “temporary” measures against ostensible “terrorists” (most notably via the Patriot Act).

Those efforts have now succeeded in getting exactly what was wanted all along — permanent “legal” license to listen in on any American’s communications at will, without meaningful “interference” or supervision from the courts, without the ability of ordinary folks to find out or challenge what the government is doing, and without recourse to legal remedies for what was previously known as breaking the law.

The demolition of civil liberties and human rights introduced at Guantánamo is coming home.

Candace Cohn writes for Socialist Worker, where this article first appeared. Thanks to Alan Maass. Read other articles by Candace, or visit Candace's website.

10 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. HR said on July 2nd, 2008 at 11:41am #

    How easily the gullible US herd is to embrace fakers like Obama. Guess it’s not surprising, though, given the herd’s track record over the last 40 years.

  2. Manitor said on July 2nd, 2008 at 12:01pm #

    They’re mostly the same people who gave Bush a 90% approval rating after the 9/11 attacks. What else can be expected?

  3. burt halli said on July 2nd, 2008 at 12:50pm #

    Your email will not be published! That’s very rich! Next will come the frigging cameras like in the UK. 1 camera for every 14 people. But the borders are left WIDE open. So how is we are being protected? Kiss your privacy goodbye folks. We all let it happen. M

  4. bozhidar balkas said on July 2nd, 2008 at 1:50pm #

    with one party system, what can we expect? it’s one funny goose w. two even funnier wings when it comes to cosmetic changes.
    but when it comes to US expansion, health care, spending on military, spying on amers, controling domestic and alien pops the two wings beat in unisson.
    thank u

  5. Sam said on July 2nd, 2008 at 2:50pm #


    True. Obama has a D behind his name so that’s the only requirement for the gullible herd. One wonders what the herd would do if overnight Obama re-registered as what he really is, a pro-war Republican. What would the herd do then?

    I heard a talk show host last night telling the truth about and railing against the Republicans in congress. But what he was saying about the Republicans could also equally be said about the Republicrats (a.k.a. Democrats), but unfortunately he wasn’t about to do that, because this talk show host is a partisan Democrat. He often has a blind spot when it comes to the Republicrats, like many other people. It’s one reason I have difficulty listening to him.

  6. hp said on July 2nd, 2008 at 5:00pm #

    Here’s Christopher Hitchens trying out a little “torture light.”
    He lasts all of eight seconds.
    Perhaps this should be a mandatory experience for the Congress.
    Just so they know.

  7. HR said on July 2nd, 2008 at 6:30pm #

    Sam, gullibility is not constrained by party affiliation. Nearly a majority of the herd put the current criminals in office, and actual majorities elected their predecessors as well as the scum in “congress”. Why do you bother with talks shows, anyway?

  8. Sam said on July 2nd, 2008 at 8:18pm #


    You wrote:

    Quote: Sam, gullibility is not constrained by party affiliation. End Quote.

    I agree. That’s a given.

    You asked me:

    Quote: Why do you bother with talks shows, anyway? End Quote

    I don’t. I don’t turn any of them on. My partner turns some of them on purely for “entertainment” most evenings. That’s how I heard the host I wrote about earlier.

  9. Tobe said on July 2nd, 2008 at 10:16pm #

    What I don’t understand is what mechanism exists that allows lawmakers to give away other people’s property. Could congress pass a law that allows government to come take our furniture? Or come empty our refrigerators? Or take our jewelry? I don’t recall placing my rights in the control of any other person on this earth, and I never would sign them over to anyone. Who would? Even in the name of this so called security they claim they need our blood won rights to provide us with, the bottom line is that legislators seem to believe they have some right to give away something that doesn’t even belong to them. They’re giving away other people’s property. And if our rights aren’t our most important property I don’t know what is. I challenge congress to explain at what point everyone in this country signed over their entire lives and rights to congress to do with as they so choose. I’m afraid this leaps well beyond the concept of writing laws to maintain and operate the country. They are helping themselves to our private property as if it were theirs to dispose of at will. We should be challenging this imho, and asking if it’s up to them whether we shall retain our rights, or if in fact it’s our call. I don’t see where they could make any claim but the latter.

  10. hp said on July 3rd, 2008 at 3:26pm #

    “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.”