The US government was created by, for and of the people and operates at the ‘consent’ of the governed. Governments provide and maintain infrastructure and services for the public benefit and are also charged with maintaining order and enforcing public safety. The US Constitution is designed to ensure government serve the people for the public good without also violating certain inalienable rights of the individual.

Coequal branches of government, legislative, judicial and executive were established to protect our civil liberties from abuses of power by any one branch. Oversight is a responsibility and right of the public. In order to participate in their governance and ensure against abuses of power the public are provided access to public information and given opportunity to testify and exercise their rights.

Elected officials are sworn to uphold the constitution before entering office nevertheless Congress recently passed a bill that eviscerates the fourth amendment, relinquishes its legislative authority and eliminates court oversight of wiretapping. If that wasn’t enough, Congress removed, retroactively, any rights of the citizen to seek judicial remedy for warrant less snooping. Congress passed this bill when 70% of the Senate, those not on the Intelligence Committee, did not even know what they were granting immunity for.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin, “They that can give up essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Americans are expected to accept on faith, absent any and all transparency and under the guise of national security that the violation of our individual privacy is for the public good.

Without judicial or other oversight we are expected to believe on faith that those administering policies that affect citizens are both competent and qualified and any results beneficial to the public good. This is true at the local level as well where lack of transparency or difficulty in obtaining public information limit oversight as well.

Recently, an applicant for the position of police chief in Coquille who took the time to research the city took an interest in the Leah Freeman case. After reading the limited files available online, the applicant, a seasoned investigator from Georgia believed he could bring some resolution to this eight year old case.

The investigator, anxious to bring resolution to the family was willing to fly out and work the case for nothing more than expenses. To that end, he wrote DA, Paul Frasier, cited his credentials and requested an opportunity to view the case files to assist in solving this murder. Frasier denied his request citing secrecy in the case.

Sadly, locally just as nationally, the public are prohibited from assessing the competence and progress of their paid public servants. We are all too often expected to accept on faith that the jobs we are paying for are being administered correctly, competently and to the benefit of the public at large despite a lack of results or supporting evidence.

Feingold speaks to urge Congress to support the Dodd amendment and strike telecom immunity from the bill.

Video from Rawstory

Russ Feingold discusses FISA, from Rawstory Regarding blanket immunity and the evisceration of the 4th Amendment

“This is an astonishing giveaway,” Feingold said.

The FISA update passed the House Friday, less than 24 hours after it was released. The bill was crafted after negotiations among moderate Democrats, Republicans, the White House and telecommunications lobbyists. The Senate is expected to pass the bill this week, and Feingold sounded pessimistic about the chances to improve it, although he said he would work with other skeptical senators to try.

Feingold and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Friday to urge him not to simply rush the new surveillance bill through the Senate. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also has been critical of the proposed FISA update.

“I’m very worried we’re not going to be able to prevail,”

According to Peter DeFazio’s office, he voted NO. Good for him.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act update passed 293-129, with support from just 107 Democrats. Opposing the measure were 126 Democrats and one Republican, according to an unofficial count on C-SPAN.

More on this later, after a long bike ride to collect my thoughts and cool my anger.

Essentially the democrats have sold us all down the river to cover their own asses

It was close, 217-197 but the House managed to pass a bill that does not include retroactive immunity for telecoms involved in illegal wiretapping. President Bush has promised to dig in his heels and veto any bill not including immunity. Nevertheless, a big thank you to those who got this bill passed as is.

Blumenaur, DeFazio and Wu voted Yea, Hooley did not vote and Walden voted with the GOP and voted Nay.

Apparently our domestic mail has been opened without benefit of warrants needing only the approval of the US Postal Inspection Service Director. Each day our freedoms erode further and further and we can thank the extended use of signing statements for some of it.

There’s reason to believe more mail may be being opened, as well.

In late 2006, a signing statement issued by President Bush suggested that his office had expanded executive branch power to open mail without a warrant.

The signing statement accompanied H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006, which reiterated a prohibition on opening first class mail without a warrant.

“In 1996, the postal regulations were altered to permit the opening of First Class mail without a warrant in narrowly defined cases where the Postal Inspector believes there is a credible threat that the package contains dangerous material like bombs,” the ACLU said in a press release at the time. “Instead of referencing the narrow exception in the postal regulations, the president’s signing statement suggests that he is assuming broader authority to open mail without a warrant.”