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."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 AM. |