Oh! Glory! It's a miracle!
House Defies Bush on Wiretaps
|
Oh! Glory! It's a miracle!
House Defies Bush on Wiretaps
Good news
This morning we are significantly less safer than we were yesterday. Good job House Dummycrats! Enjoy your vacation ! OBL is charging up his cell phone as we speak.
At least the Senate Dems acted responsibly . In a Senate controlled by the Democrats, the bill passed by an overwhelming 2-to-1 margin. To attract such numbers, the Bush administration compromised on critically important issues of executive power and expansion of the FISA court's role.Both sides compromised because they understood that failing to preserve current surveillance authority, would endanger the United States.
Sadly the circus Madam Mimi runs was more interested in if Roger Clemens was getting kickapoo joy juice injections. The term 'useful idiots 'comes immediately to mind.
I think it is time to ruin their vacation :
Article 2 Sec 3 US ConstitutionQuote:
he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;
Day by day they have proven to be completely incompetent in running Congress in a responsible manner.
Hello tom:
Why would that be? You're not telling me that they stopped, are you? You're not telling me that they CARE about the law, are you?? Nahhh, you know them better than that.
And, what's the worst thing that could happen? They'll need to get a warrant until they get their bill. Oh my gosh. A warrant. Geez, they don't want to mess around with no warrant...
So, they're going to let OBL talk away on his cell phone so Bush can blame the Democrats if he decides to attack. That is the kind of a$$backwards thinking the dufus in chief does.
excon
A warrant to listen to the enemy talk to each other??Quote:
And, what's the worst thing that could happen? They'll need to get a warrant until they get their bill. Oh my gosh. A warrant. Geez, they don't want to mess around with no warrant...
Hello again, tom:
I know you don't like the law. There's a few I don't like either. So what? Here, in this great nation of ours, we can't pick which ones we're going to obey. Your dufus ain't no exception.
excon
Yeah well now there is no statutory authority to monitor foreign terrorists at all. Smart move Pelosi!! There is no legal intelligence gathering on OBL ;who has no right to American privacy protection at all ,as of today .
The Senate bill for all it's flaws was better than no bill at all.
The sad thing about it is that every court to rule on the issue ; including the court created by Congress strictly to rule on surveillance matters, the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review, has concluded that the president has inherent constitutional authority to order surveillance on foreign threats to national security.
At this point the President SHOULD tell Congress that until they get their heads out of Clemen's butt that he will exercise his Article II powers to protect the country . Like I said... call them back into session and demand from them responsible legislation like the Senate produced on this matter .
Hello again, tom:
I never thought the steroid thing was a partisan issue. But, I thought wrong. Apparently, the Republicans think it's just fine and dandy that Clemen's is a cheater... Which, upon reflection, shouldn't surprise me at all.
Like I said, your dufus in chief isn't listening to congress. You, yourself say that he has Constitutional authority. You're not telling me he hung up, are you??
No, tom. You just want to rant about the Democrats who are about take over all THREE branches of government. I guess they're going to do that because the dufus in chief did such a wonderful job... Bwa, ha ha ha ha.
excon
I'm not sure that's accurate Tom. Didn't Clinton long ago extend the "organized crime wiretap rules" to terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Geez, how hard is it for the PREZ, to get a warrant for gosh sakes. He just makes a call, and they fax it over, like yesterday. Do we need a law for that??
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 PostQuote:
Geez, how hard is it for the PREZ, to get a warrant for gosh sakes. He just makes a call, and they fax it over, like yesterday. Do we need a law for that??
Unconscionable delays have consequences. The Senate Democrats understood that Excon . Yes I am bashing the House Democrats .They deserve it.Quote:
A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.
Starting at 10 a.m. on May 15, according to a timeline provided to Congress by the director of national intelligence, lawyers for the National Security Agency met and determined that special approval from the attorney general would be required first. For an excruciating nine hours and 38 minutes, searchers in Iraq waited as U.S. lawyers discussed legal issues and hammered out the "probable cause" necessary for the attorney general to grant such "emergency" permission.
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 .
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 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
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.Quote:
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
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
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. 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
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 .'”Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
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.
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?
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article
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
Quote:
In USA v. Osama bin Laden, the Second Circuit noted that "no court, prior to FISA, that was faced with the choice, imposed a warrant requirement for foreign intelligence searches undertaken within the United States." Assistant Attorney General William Moschella in his written response to questions from the House Judiciary Committee explained that in the administration's view, this unanimity of pre-FISA Circuit Court decisions vindicates their argument that warrantless foreign-intelligence surveillance authority existed prior to FISA and since, as these ruling indicate, that authority derives from the Executive's inherent Article II powers, they may not be encroached by statute.[69] In 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (Court of Review) met for the first time and issued an opinion (In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001) which seems to echo that view. They too noted all the Federal courts of appeal having looked at the issue had concluded that there was constitutional power for the president to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance. Furthermore, based on these rulings it "took for granted such power exits" and ruled that under this presumption, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."
Thanks for your work on that, Tom; I'm not sure if ordinary, excon, or the others will read or understand it. For our further edification, more from the article I cited above:
America is at war with a dangerous enemy. Since 9/11, the president, our intelligence services and our military forces have done a truly extraordinary job--taking the war to our enemies and keeping them from conducting a single attack within this country (so far). But we are still very much at risk, and those who seek partisan political advantage by portraying efforts to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists and (often unknown) Americans as being akin to Nixon's "enemies lists" are serving neither their party nor their country. The leakers of this sensitive national security activity and their Capitol Hill supporters seem determined to guarantee al Qaeda a secure communications channel into this country so long as they remember to include one sympathetic permanent resident alien not previously identified by NSA or the FBI as a foreign agent on their distribution list.
Ultimately, as the courts have noted, the test is whether the legitimate government interest involved--in this instance, discovering and preventing new terrorist attacks that may endanger tens of thousands of American lives--outweighs the privacy interests of individuals who are communicating with al Qaeda terrorists. And just as those of us who fly on airplanes have accepted intrusive government searches of our luggage and person without the slightest showing of probable cause, those of us who communicate (knowingly or otherwise) with foreign terrorists will have to accept the fact that Uncle Sam may be listening.
Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country.
The Wall Street Journal Online - Featured Article
As well as I can understand this, the president has the authority to conduct these searches without a warrant, without FISa, and without the approval of Congress, as authorized by the Constitution of the United States; got that, excon?
No answers yet, so let me try: "It is worth pausing to recall why we have FISA. Very simply, its point was to provide a modicum of due process before Americans inside the United States could be subjected to national-security monitoring. It was a reaction (in truth, an overreaction) to Watergate era domestic-spying on the Nixon administration's political opponents. But even the reckless Congress of the 1970s did not seek to protect foreign spies and terrorists operating beyond our borders. FISA was never intended to bring tens of thousands of foreign communications under judicial supervision. Such a process would compel the Justice Department to file applications for all such surveillance, a burden that could not be met. The consequence would be a breakdown of our capacity to acquire the information most essential to safeguarding Americans against attack -- to say nothing of the 200,000 American men and women putting their lives on the line in Iraq and Afghanistan."Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Profiles in No Courage - HUMAN EVENTS
Tomder writes: "Day by day they have proven to be completely incompetent in running Congress in a responsible manner."
Check this: President Bush Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve32.8%Disapprove62.6%Spread -29.8%
Congressional Job Approval
RCP Average
Approve24.0%Disapprove68.3%Spread -44.3%
Congressional job approval headed south.
Its like Tom and george have stated
The Dems are interested in protecting foreigners [ aka potential terrorists ] in foreign lands, giving them 4th amendment rights though they are not citizens.?
They are also beholden to their ACLU, trial lawyer, special intrests, and not the safety of the American citizen.
textually.org: Taliban tapping into British cell phones I wonder if the Dems will tell the Taliban what not to do?
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Then something is quite wrong here, isn't it? If the dufus has the power to spy on us no matter what congress does, then congress might as well have been chopping bait as to have tried to stop him, and the Republicans wouldn't be so pissed off that they did.
Nope. The president can't spy on us no matter how you spin it. I know, cause I can read the Constitution.
excon
excon: You got to quit your cherry picking; as the articles says, "Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant." It's a public relations game, unfortunately. Remember, it is FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act), not DISA (Domestic Intelligence Surveillance Act), which you would like to spin this to be.
" It's a public relations game". Did I say that? Yes, and here is evidence of that:
"The Republican-drafted report counters Democrats and other critics of the Bush administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program who argued during a Senate filibuster last month that the program is illegal.
"The report also said that warrantless surveillance "has been an integral part of our nation's foreign intelligence gathering," and that during World War II, U.S. warrantless surveillance of the German and Japanese militaries helped to break of their codes."
Report: Warrantless surveillance legal - UPI.com
Funny thing is, I didn't realize ol' W was around during the FDR years helping that war-time president rip up the constitution during WWII.
Obama has too. And hopefully if he becomes president we will see a man who will see his relationship with congress in a different light to Bush. He appears to have a view that legislators should legislate and he should work with them and not stand over them.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
One would have to be afraid of something. What are you afraid of tomder? From your picture you look like a pretty healthy boy, haven't missed many meals. I'll bet you could whoop a skinny little Arabs butt in short order. So why should we be scared tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Do you think the NeoCons can protect you from the "Evil Dooers?" Do you really think they want to tom? Why I'll bet Cheney is just worried sick over your personal safety tom. Have you seen any "Evil Dooers" lately tom? What would an "Evil Dooer" do with you once it got hold of you tom? Would it fly you into the Empire State building? I feel perfectly safe tom. Are you telling me I should be afraid tom? Of what tom? The only thing we really have to be afraid of is fear tom. People do some pretty dumb things when they are scared. Rash, unwise things like letting that little monkey in the white house cover his own crimes and guilt by laying the fear trip down on the American people. I ain't scared tom. There ain't nothing to be scared of. They don't need anymore liberties with our liberties. Screw them.;)
I for one am happy there are people like DK (kindj)watching my back .Intercepting plots to do me or my country harm .Going to places I don't know about and doing things I'd rather not think about to keep me safe.
Quote:
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
The operative word here is foreign.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
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.
Hello again, ordinary:Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Clarity is a beautiful thing.
excon
You have completely mis-stated and mis-characterized 'the issue'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
"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=
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.
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.
Hello again:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
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
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."
After 12 years of consevative republican rule, you still blame the democrats? Unbelievable!
"conservative republican" has become an oxymoron, which is why the GOP is in such difficulties. However, fortunate for the GOP, there is Obamary.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I agree, with your poetry, McCain won't cave, Hillary/Obama will save.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:24 AM. |