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

House Defies Bush on Wiretaps

ordinaryguy

The operative word here is foreign.
The whole purpose of the law and the court it created is to ensure that foreign surveillance (which is both legal and constitutional, without a warrant) doesn't become domestic surveillance (which is neither legal nor constitutional, unless a judge issues a warrant).

The legality and constitutionality of warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance is not now, and never has been the issue, which you would like to spin this to be.

The issue is whether the President, through the agencies of the Executive Branch, may on his own authority, without the concurrence of the Judicial Branch, spy on US citizens and other legal residents inside the United States.

excon

Hello again, ordinary:

Clarity is a beautiful thing.

excon

George_1950

You have completely mis-stated and mis-characterized 'the issue'.

"The following quarter-century saw a technological revolution. Foreign-to-foreign communications now travel in diffuse packets of digital data through sophisticated networks, which route them not via the shortest route but via the least-congested terminals. Because American networks are the system’s best, a Peshawar-to-Kabul phone call or e-mail may pass through the United States.

"This should be a coup for U.S. intelligence. Instead, because of FISA, it has become an obstacle. According to a ruling disclosed by House minority leader John Boehner, the FISA court has suggested that, absent judicial authorization, the NSA may not monitor even a foreign-to-foreign communication if it has passed through U.S. networks.

"This preposterous assertion is in fact a predictable result of FISA. The legislation’s authors, instead of focusing on just the target of communication, regulated according to its type: radio or wire. As technology advanced from radio to wire, the very foreign communications Congress took pains to exclude from FISA’s purview were swept into it."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...hiZmIwYWE5MWY=

tomder55

The issue is the expiration of the Protect America Act . This act was specifically about foreign communication intercepts and had nothing to do with so called domestic spying . The Senate including Sen Jay Rockefeller and many other Democrats voted to extend the law. The House Democrats thought that a 10 day vacation for President's Day was more urgent.

George_1950

You fellows know the definition of "prescience"?

pre·science –noun knowledge of things before they exist or happen; foreknowledge; foresight.
prescience - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Prescience is a characteristic of the editors of nationalreviewonline:

"Their bill does not address the fundamental conceptual flaws of the FISA regime, and, although it allows the NSA to intercept foreign-to-foreign calls, it does so only for now, requiring a review after six months.

The president and the Republican presidential candidates should thank their lucky stars for this Democratic blunder, which keeps a winning issue alive and demonstrates — once again — just how unserious the Left is about national security."
The Editors on FISA & Congress on National Review Online

At the end of the day, this is why neither Hillary nor Obama will be elected this year, because the American people are not going to elect a candidate who will return the nation to pre 9/11 status. If the Dems wanted to be elected, they would allow W the victory he seeks on the terror battlefield, as happened with his daddy in Kuwait, and then beat his successor. But the Dems have played politics and cut their own throats in this election cycle.

excon

Hello again:

Now I understand why George Bush, who had both houses of congress and the entire nation behind him, failed on the battlefield. The Democrats made him do it. Bwa ha ha ha ha.

excon

magprob

Or, we are becoming an imperial police state. Every war we have engaged in in the last 30 years has had a Bush behind it. From the CIA or the White House. What are we really protecting? Who are we really protecting? Will we be protecting Iran from themselves next? If we go to war with Iran, who will we really be protecting. Tomder55 so he can get a good nights sleep I suppose?
I would like to think there are some folks in Washington that know when to say enough is enough.

"Democrats responded with charges of administration recklessness and fearmongering."

talaniman

After 12 years of consevative republican rule, you still blame the democrats?? Unbelievable!

George_1950

"conservative republican" has become an oxymoron, which is why the GOP is in such difficulties. However, fortunate for the GOP, there is Obamary.

talaniman

I agree, with your poetry, McCain wont cave, Hillary/Obama will save.