Benjamin Franklin would look down his nose at us: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

We might not ever be comfortable enough as a people to actually reflect back on those questions and answer them honestly. I believe now, though, that we, as Americans, have once again decided that we have the right to be secure in our persons, houses, papers, and effects and that we simply won't allow President George W. Bush and his professional fear-mongerers to back us into that corner again.

They're trying, though.

Congress just did an immensely responsible thing: The House of Representatives allowed the Protect America Act of 2007 to expire. While that in itself wasn't such a success, the success came from the fact the Democratic Majority wouldn't allow the President and his Republican cronies in Congress to stuff a bill down the throats of the American people that violated our very most deeply held belief- the right to be secure from government searches without a warrant.

This should be a no-brainer Democratic success, right? Well, yes, it should be, but the Republicans continue to do what they do best- lie, and play politics with our most fundamental rights.

Majority Leader Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

“This morning, the President repeated the untenable and irresponsible claim that our national security will be jeopardized unless the House immediately rubber-stamps the Senate [Protect American Act renewal] bill.

“Let me be clear: this representation is categorically false.

“In fact, a wide range of national security experts has made clear that the President and our intelligence community have all the tools they need to protect our nation, if the Protect America Act – temporary legislation passed last August – expires.

“For example, Richard Clarke, the former Chief Counter-Terrorism Advisor for Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, has stated: ‘Our ability to track and monitor terrorists overseas would not cease should the Protect America Act expire. If this were true, the President would not threaten to terminate any temporary extension [of the PAA] with his veto pen.’

“Mr. Clarke is exactly right.

[...]

“We believe the President’s rhetoric is inaccurate and divisive, and an attempt to stampede the House of Representatives to rubber-stamp legislation by stoking the fears of the American people – or, in the words of one Republican advisor, they are trying to get us to ‘blink.’

“We will not be stampeded."

I ask this question, though: If we are really less safe now that the Protect America Act has expired, how in the world, then, could have all the Republicans voted against and the President threatened to veto extending the bill as-is for 21 days? Why was letting it expire preferable to keeping us "safe" for 21 more days? Oh, yes- it's because they know perfectly well Richard Clarke is correct and that we are just as safe now as we were before the act expired.

They're actually blatantly using our very fear for our lives, our fear of another September 11, to get permission to violate the Constitution.

Honestly, I think the Republicans realized this line of attack wasn't working anymore, so know they're approaching it from a different angle: We've got to pass the President's version of the bill because we've got to have immunity for all the telecommunications companies that, uh, might be helping us, because if we don't promise them they won't be sued, they won't help us.

The President, again, threatened to veto any legislation that didn't include retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies that might have facilitated the wiretaps. So, again, the crazy contradiction: If we don't have the bill, we'll all die, but if you don't do it my way, we won't have a bill. In response to that lunacy, Senator Edward Kennedy said, applying Bush's own logic, "He's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies."

I'm sorry, but this seems simple to me. If they think they're going to get sued, isn't that a pretty good indication they know they're being asked to do something illegal? And if they're doing something illegal, shouldn't we, as Americans, have the right to sue them?

Do I really need to quote the Constitution again?

I honestly can't say it any better than Keith Olbermann from MSNBC said it:

I've never been more proud of the Democratic majority (and my member of Congress, Nancy Boyda) than I have been through the debate on the Protect America Act extension. Finally, we've called George W. Bush on his bluff, and, finally, we're all standing up for the Constitution again. I only hope it's a trend that continues, and that we really have learned the lesson that this administration, and their cronies in Congress don't really care about whether or not we're safe as long as they get the unlimited power they're after.