Congress is taking another swing at amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. A proposed bill by the Democrats in Congress, H.R. 3773 entitled “Responsible Electronic Surveillance That is Overseen, and Effective Act of 2007” or the “RESTORE Act of 2007” (how witty) passed both the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees on Wednesday.

Naming this act “RESTORE” is more than a stretch. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test. In their proposed legislation, Congressional Democrats (a.k.a. parliamentary invertebrates) have done next to nothing to “restore” the protections of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.  Read more 

The outcome in this case seemed like a victory for the Constitution.

Upon further research, the reasoning of the Oregon court is open to attack and as discussed here, the court’s ruling will be reversed on procedural grounds.

From the Plaintiffs’ (Mayfields’) Memorandum in Mayfield v. United States:

In March 2004, Brandon Mayfield - a United States citizen, an Army veteran, a member of the Oregon State Bar - unknowingly found himself, along with his wife and three school age children, within the crosshairs of the United States government. The full power of the federal law enforcement and foreign intelligence communities was focused upon the Mayfield family. The family’s most intimate conversations were recorded. They were followed. When the FBI thought the Mayfields were not at home or at work, FBI agents on multiple occasions surreptitiously entered their house and law office, looking at and copying their personal and private documents, legal files and computer hard drives. The government admits that over 300 photographs were taken inside the Mayfield home, and additional photographs inside Mr. Mayfield’s law office. On at least one occasion one of the Mayfield children cowered in a bedroom closet while government agents searched the family home. Mr. Mayfield had committed no crime, and no court had approved the eavesdropping, wiretapping, or covert physical searches of the Mayfields’ home or law office under the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause warrant requirements.

While the latest decision in Oregon Federal District Court by Judge Ann Aiken ruled two of the Patriot Act’s amendments to FISA unconstitutional, the ultimate outcome will be nothing to cheer about.  Read more 

He’s so drunk he can’t even adhere to the Patriot Act, which was written by Federalist Society operatives in Cheney’s dank, mushroom-filled bunker basement to give Der Decider more power than a President could conceivably need or even want.  Read more 

This won’t surprise anyone here, but I found this telling:

On the February 15 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News national correspondent Catherine Herridge uncritically reported the assertion by Justice Department officials that “the decision to force out” seven U.S. attorneys recently “was based on, quote, ’performance-related issues.’ ” But contrary to the Justice Department’s assertion, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty has conceded that performance played no role in at least one of those cases: the forced resignation of H.E. “Bud” Cummins III as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Moreover, the Justice Department has provided no evidence publicly backing up the claim of “performance-related issues,” and, according to a February 14 McClatchy Newspapers article, “at least five of [the U.S. attorneys who were fired] received positive job evaluations before they were ordered to step down.”

Cummins was replaced by J. Timothy Griffin, a former research director for the Republican National Committee and White House senior adviser Karl Rove. During a February 6 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on matter, McNulty said that regarding the Cummins replacement, “the fact is that there was a change made there that was not connected to, as was said, the performance of the incumbent, but more related to the opportunity to provide a fresh start with a new person in that position.”

According to a February 16 Arkansas Democrat-Gazette article noted by the weblog TPMMuckraker.com, Griffin, currently serving as the interim U.S. attorney, has decided that he “no longer wants the job permanently” and will not submit his name for Senate confirmation. Under a provision in the 2006 renewal of the USA Patriot Act, interim U.S. attorneys can remain in office until the Senate confirms a replacement. Before this provision was enacted, the attorney general could appoint an interim U.S. attorney who could remain in office for up to 120 days, after which the local federal district court could appoint someone to serve until a permanent successor was confirmed. The provision was reportedly added by the office of then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA), who said at the February 6 Judiciary Committee hearing that a member of his staff had inserted the provision without his knowledge. On February 15, Sen. John Kyl (R-AZ) blocked Democratic efforts to pass legislation that would reverse the provision’s changes.  Read more