Rex est Lex

What's with Congressional Democrats when faced with a Bush tirade? Bush's approval is at an historic 17%. Democrats -- the ones actually making laws, not campaigning for Bush's job (uh, sorry, no difference there) -- are being reviled in public opinion polls for their refusal to stand up to Bush. Why?

Case in point, is the new FISA bill approved by the House and Senate (alass Russ Feingold couldn't pull off a filibuster). It has some big anti-democracy flaws in it:

* Telecom companies are given immunity for committing crimes on Bush's behalf. Congress need not have acted on this matter. The courts could easily sort out if a crime had actually been committed.

* The old law allowed wiretapping for three days while getting approval from the FISA court. The new law extends it to seven days, allows wiretapping to continue through the appeals process, and allows the gov't to keep whatever it collects even if FISA doesn't grant approval.

* Blanket approval is given for data mining of email and phone calls. No court required.

The second and third items mean the executive branch no longer needs judicial oversight for spying. That has left it in the hands of congressional oversight, and this is evidence they have effectively punted on the issue. That is why the public is upset with Democrats.

We got into this mess because "Democracy will subsist only when the people value freedom and understand the properties that constitute it. When the people submit to superstition, ignorance, and the lies and distortions that inevitably accompany war, then freedom and its logic are ever at bay." The people have woken up. Why not Democrats?

Alas, the reason seems to be simple: Telecom companies were very generous to Democrats with their campaign contributions. The Dem level of corruption is approaching GOP levels. Democracy has been sold out.

Another opinion about the FISA bill. Most lawmakers haven't read the actual bill because the language is so opaque, with even a spokesperson from the Justice Department saying it is so intricate the guys who must apply it will be stumped. That sounds like the standard Bush operating procedure: since nobody will be able to figure out what the thing actually means he can do whatever he wants and claim the law gives him permission. But the opacity gives rise to myths:

* "It's a compromise," says Steny Hoyer, one of the authors. Russ Feingold responds "It's a capitulation." Feingold is right. Why else would Bush agree to it so quickly after spending a year threatening a veto if it wasn't exactly what he wanted?

* We need it to intercept enemies abroad. Nope, the old law would allow wiretaps if just cause can be shown. What this bill does is abolish warrants, a key instrument of the founders to preserve liberty.

* Telecom companies still must go before the courts. Well, yeah, but their defense need be nothing more than "Bush told us to."

* Democrats folded to avoid being tarred with standing with the ACLU and trial lawyers against security as the election approaches. Standing with Bush and AT&T is better?

* The new law is the "exclusive means" of surveillance. Dems are patting themselves on the back for making sure the law includes the language of the old law that Bush has ignored since 2001.

Bush has effectively kept a review of his illegal actions out of the courts by simply saying this stuff is so classified we can't let it appear in court for litigation. And now they get a retroactive blessing of their crimes.

No judge can make an assessment of what Bush has done, cannot declare willful violation a crime, cannot produce a landmark ruling as a warning to future presidents about government excess. Instead, we have the precedent of a president setting aside a law he doesn't like. Rex est Lex. The king is the law.