maddogs hideaway

Which is more dangerous to personal liberty in a free society: a renegade who  tells an inconvenient truth about government lawbreaking, or government  officials who lie about what the renegade revealed? That’s the core issue in the  great public debate this summer, as Americans come to the realization that their  government has concocted a system of laws violative of the natural law,  profoundly repugnant to the Constitution and shrouded in secrecy.

The liberty of which I write is the right to privacy: the right to be left  alone. The framers jealously and zealously guarded this right by imposing upon  government agents intentionally onerous burdens before letting them invade it.  They did so in the Fourth Amendment, using language that permits the government  to invade that right only in the narrowest of circumstances.

Congress is the chief culprit here, because it has enacted laws that have  lowered the constitutional bar the feds must meet for judges to issue search  warrants. And it has commanded that this be done in secret.

And I mean secret.

The judges of the FISA court – the court empowered by Congress to issue  search warrants on far less than probable cause, and without describing the  places to be searched or the persons or things to be seized – are not permitted  to retain any records of their work. They cannot use their own writing materials  or carry BlackBerries or iPhones in their own courtrooms, chambers or conference  rooms. They cannot retain copies of any documents they’ve signed. Only National  Security Agency staffers can keep these records.

Indeed, when Edward Snowden revealed a copy of an order signed by FISA court  Judge Roger Vinson – directing Verizon to turn over phone records of all of its  113,000,000 U.S. customers in direct and profound violation of the  individualized probable cause commanded by the Constitution – Vinson himself did  not have a copy of that order. Truly, this is the only court in the country in  which the judges keep no records of their rulings.

Judge  Napolitano’s brand new book explains how the government is taking your  constitutional freedoms and how you can fight back: “The Freedom Answer  Book”

At the same time Vinson signed that order, NSA staffers, in compliance with  their statutory obligations, told select members of Congress about it, and they,  too, were sworn to secrecy. Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden was so troubled  when he learned this – a terrible truth that he agreed not to reveal – that he  mused aloud that the Obama administration had a radical and terrifying  interpretation of certain national security statutes.

But he did more than muse about it. He asked Gen. James Clapper, the director  of national intelligence, who was under oath and at a public congressional  hearing, whether his spies were gathering data on millions of Americans. Clapper  said no. The general later acknowledged that his answer was untruthful, but he  claimed it was the “least untruthful” reply he could have given. This “least  untruthful” nonsense is not a recognized defense to the crime of perjury.

After we learned that the feds are spying on nearly all Americans, that they  possess our texts and emails and have access to our phone conversations, Gen.  Keith Alexander, who runs the NSA, was asked under oath whether his spies have  the ability to read emails and listen to telephone calls. He answered,  “No, we don’t have that authority.” Since the questioner – FBI agent  turned Rep. Mike Rogers – was in cahoots with the general in keeping Americans  in the dark about unconstitutional search warrants, there was no follow-up  question. In a serious public interrogation, a committee chair interested in the  truth would have directed the general to answer the question that was asked. 

Since that deft and misleading act, former NSA staffers have told Fox News  that the feds can read any email and listen to any phone call, and Alexander and  Rogers know that. So Alexander’s “no,” just like his boss’s “no,” was a lie at  worst and seriously misleading at best.

This is not an academic argument. The oath to tell the truth – “the whole  truth and nothing but the truth” – also makes those who intentionally mislead  Congress subject to prosecution for perjury.

President Obama is smarter than his generals. He smoothly told a friendly  interviewer and while not under oath that the feds are not listening to our  phone calls or reading our emails. He, of course, could not claim that they lack  the ability to do so, because we all now know that he knows they can.

These Snowden revelations continue to cast light on the feds when they prefer  darkness. Whatever one thinks of Snowden’s world-traveling odyssey to avoid the  inhumane treatment the feds visited upon Bradley Manning, another whistleblower  who exposed government treachery, he has awakened a giant. The giant is a public  that has had enough of violations of the Constitution and lies to cover them up.  The giant is fed up with menial politicians and their media allies demonizing  the messenger because his message embarrasses the government by revealing that  it is unworthy of caring for the Constitution.

Think about that: The very people in whose hands we have reposed the  Constitution for preservation, protection, defense and enforcement have  subverted it.

Snowden spoke the truth. Knowing what would likely befall him for his  truthful revelations and making them nevertheless was an act of heroism and  patriotism. Thomas Paine once reminded the framers that the highest duty of a  patriot is to protect his countrymen from their government. We need patriots to  do that now more than ever.