Oh! Glory!! It's a miracle!!

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps

tomder55

Yeah DC it is possible that there is still the pre -9-11 law enforcement capablities that worked so well to protect the country. The consequences of their inaction is real.New terrorist surveillance cannot begin without needless and dangerous delays.

The NY Post detailed a story where American forces in Iraq had to wait 10 hours to secure permission to get a wiretap to begin searching for 3 American soldiers who were kidnapped . One of our soldiers was found dead, two others remain missing. 'WIRE' LAW FAILED LOST GI - New York Post

Unconscionable delays have consequences. The Senate Democrats understood that Excon . Yes I am bashing the House Democrats .They deserve it.

Look ;here is the real issue for the Democrats ,who are out to throw a bone to their biggest lobby, the trial lawyers. There is a provison in the bill that would grant protection from liability to telecommunication companies like AT&T that cooperated with the intelligence agencies .Companies that act in good faith to help prevent terrorist attacks should not be punished for such help. But the trial lawyers and the ACLU see big paydays if they can litigate against the big telecom. companies. That is the real reason for their inaction .

excon

Hello again, tom:

So, the only reason they want to sue the telephone companies is to get paid???? It doesn’t matter that the telephone companies were breaking the law???? Like I said earlier, you pick and choose which laws you want obeyed. That's not very Republican of you.

Well, to some of us, it DOES matter that they broke the law. It really does.

By the way, there was a company who told them to stick it when asked to spy on their customers. I wish I could remember which one.

excon

talaniman

Put the blame where it belongs, with hagling lawyers. All americans are at their mercy. Its hard to believe and suspicious, that some high level joker didn't step in and contact a friendly judge in the first place, and deal with the legal ramifications later, as they always do.

George_1950

So Senator Jay Rockefeller is in bed with President Bush and Mr. Cheney, is that what you guys are saying?

The Senate-passed bill that Pelosi and House Democrats consider less important than wedding receptions and steroids abuse got a bipartisan majority of 68 votes in the Senate last week. Much of it was written by a liberal Democrat, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The bill gives U.S. intelligence agencies "the tools they need to track down terrorists," as Rockefeller noted. It also provides retroactive immunity to telecom carriers being sued for assisting in the terrorist surveillance program.

Firms such as AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon face lengthy litigation, and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, spearheaded by the ACLU all because they helped save lives.
Sounds like the highest bidder to Pelosi & Pals is the american trial lawyers.
See more: IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- No Time For Recess

excon

Hello again:

The right apparently doesn’t mind being searched without a reason. You hear it time and time again from them, “if you ain’t got nothing to hide, then you ain’t nothing to fear”.

This, of course, is from people who have never been searched and are confident that THEY won’t be searched. Because if they were, they wouldn’t like it one bit.

Oh, they say they’d be fine with it, but anybody who actually lives in the real world knows that they haven’t a clue.

Fortunately, our Founding Fathers DID have a clue. That’s why they wrote the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution so very clearly.

Those amongst you (George) who sing the praises of the Constitution, should support the ENTIRE Constitution. Like tom, you can’t pick and choose. If it’s ok to violate ONE provision, then it’s ok to violate the rest.

Besides, I just don’t believe spying on Americans saves lives. I just don’t.

excon

Dark_crow

Here it is OG; a news flash…Clinton has done more for the protection in counter- terrorism than Bush has. Here is something interesting about Al Gore, dubbed the “Tree Hugger” that might surprise you. “The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: Lloyd says this. says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his A*s .'”

Clinton took the counter-terrorism Budget from 5.7 billion in 1995 to 11.1 billion in 2000.

Some democrats has always had a backbone.

George_1950

ordinaryguy posits that "House Democrats grow a backbone". The hotlink is to washingtonpost.com, titled: "House Defies Bush on Wiretaps". What are we really talking about? The quoted piece from washingtonpost.com says: "It expanded the powers of the government to monitor the communications of foreign suspects without warrants, including international phone calls and e-mails passing through or into the United States." Other than parading over Washington politicians trying to score points, get serious for a moment and explain to me what is wrong with monitoring the communications of foreign suspects without warrants? Try to do this within the context of the Twin Towers and the other terrorist killings around the world before and after?

Dark_crow

Some people just don’t get it George, (Often conspiracy theorist) as you point out, it is for SUSPECTS, that is, where there is already some evidence…the conspiracy theorist however worries that it must follow that in time it will be poor old maids.

George_1950

check this: it is important to step back and put things in historical context. First of all, the Founding Fathers knew from experience that Congress could not keep secrets. In 1776, Benjamin Franklin and his four colleagues on the Committee of Secret Correspondence unanimously concluded that they could not tell the Continental Congress about covert assistance being provided by France to the American Revolution, because "we find by fatal experience that Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets."
The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article

tomder55

as I and SCOTUS (what did you call them ? final arbiter ? I think you did ) have pointed out ,the operative words in the 4th amendment (which only applies to domestic surveillance anyway ) is UNREASONABLE SEARCHES .

But you are confusing the issue here. What was not renewed was the PAA (Protect America Act) . It involved updating the ability to intercept foreign terrorist communications outside the country .
Foreigners outside the U.S. are supposed to be outside the protection of the FISA statute, just as they are outside the protection of the Constitution. Saying the government can go to the FISA court is no answer: Government is not supposed to have to go to the FISA court. These people are not supposed to have FISA rights. They are not supposed to have Fourth Amendment rights.
But back to your point about the 4th Amendment regarding foreign survaillance