Aren’t you tired of government promises?

I am.  Whether that is a new liberal program that promises jobs, that it is helping the poor, that it is making the world a better place to be, or, as in this case, whether it is a big, smiling Republican, looking eerily like a used car salesman, saying “Trust me.”

Today’s issue?  The new warrantless wiretapping bill submitted by R-PEN Arlan Spectre in the Senate.  I’m pulling the story from Wired, but I imagine similar stories can be found other places.  Now, this bill isn’t yet law, but as with most such laws there mere fact that this was submitted as, presumably, a “good idea” should be enough to scare the bejesus out of any liberty-minded American.

Just a sampling of items within the story that deal with trusting a government promise:

1.  In contrast, Specter’s bill concedes the government’s right to wiretap Americans without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own, dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies.

How many times has the government done something with a “stated purpose” that is either a lie or a manipulation?  Surely even if (or especially if) you are the most partisan person in the world you can find examples where “that other party out to destroy America” has misled or lied regard a “stated purpose.”

2. Specter, who called NSA’s warrantless surveillance a “festering sore on our body politic,” champions his bill, since it allows, but does nor require, the administration to submit the whole surveillance program to review by a secretive court. Specter says President Bush promised to submit the NSA program to the court, if the bill passes.

The whole program?  I’m sure this is in writing somewhere.  HA!

3.  Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying, such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country, so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.

Someone, quick check to make sure he doesn’t have his fingers crossed behind his back!

Here are some more bits that ought to perk your ears up:

Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote, called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU’s Graves. Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill.

Wow, now that sounds like a system of accountability there!

Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

I just need to stop on this one for a minute.  Can someone, anyone, explain to me how any person supposedly sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America could propose that the above is consistent with the following language:

“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.”

If the argument is what I think it is, it is the grossest misappropriation of the term “persons” as I’ve ever seen in the context of the Constitution.

Here’s another gem:

Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight. Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.

How is that not surveillance?  You’re capturing data about Americans without their knowledge for the purpose of screening for potential criminal activity?  Uh, by what definition is that not surveillance?  See that thing over there?  It’s pink, it likes to wallow in mud, if you kill it and prepare it properly you can enjoy such foods as bacon, or make a nice ham sandwich.  But it’s not a pig, no sir.  That’s not a pig.  Yes, it just made an oinking noise, but it’s not a pig.  Nothing to see here, no pigs.  Well, yes, he is being tended to by a pig farmer, but it’s not a pig.  Because it’s not.  WTF kind of logic is that?  Orwell would have been proud.

But the government promises that they’re only going to use their powers for good and right.  I say let’s just scrap civil liberties altogether an install a dictator.  But it’ll be ok, ’cause we’re Americans so our dictator will be a benevolent dictator, unlike the rest of the world’s dictators.  Why?  Because we say so.