Christmas in August for Bush, who signs a bill that creates a new law that allows his SS to spy on anyone he feels like without any mamby-pamby legal eggsperts putting in their two cents.
Anyone feel safer?
Anyone feel watched?
What the eff is up with the Democrats going along?
Instead, it allows executive-branch agencies to conduct oversight-free surveillance of all international calls and e-mails, including those with Americans on the line, with the sole requirement that the intelligence-gathering is “directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.” There is no requirement that either caller be a suspected terrorist, spy, or criminal.
Any resistance is futile…
…the law requires telecommunications companies to make their facilities available for government wiretaps, and it grants them immunity from lawsuits for complying. Under the old program, such companies participated only voluntarily — and some were sued for allegedly violating their customers’ privacy..
Congress passes law, not Presidents.
apparently not, as the post said “Bush, who signs a bill”. try reading the text on the screen before blurting out tripe.
Though the nitpicking did not go to the substance of my post nor add anything to the discussion, it was accurate.
Might I suggest that next time you point out a factual error in a diary, you blockquote the mistake in your own comment so that it is clear you are making a reasonable comment?
The use of the term “SS” might be offensive to our Jewish friends.
<
p>
Other than that, it’s all good.
None whatsoever. We need to stay one step ahead of the terrorists. What is amazing is that when places like the UK foil a terrorist attack the left in this country says see “all you need is good police work, you don’t need to fight them in a war.” What they don’t realize is that countries like the UK have even broader powers than what this new law allows our intelligence agencies to listen in on communications. That’s the “good police work” that’s where it starts.
<
p>
Now I would have a problem if traffic within the US was intercepted but in reading the articles today it seems that we will only be placing listening devices on international switches. So that won’t be happening.
after all, the more ears on the line, the better for all of our safety, right? and i PROMISE i won’t misuse the information i hear. scouts honor! if you have nothing to hide, you won’t hesitate to let me satisfy myself that you are not a terrorist.
<
p>
what is it you disliked about the established system of judicial oversight that still allowed this eavesdropping, but made the listeners accountable to us? what kind of government doesn’t believe in accountability to it’s people’s guardian, the fisa court?
I’d like to see the link to where the UK allows domestic wiretapping without warrants. Thanks.
Foreign-to-foreign is fine by me, as is foreign-to-domestic (oversight by FISA.) I believe this bill updates existing FISA regs to meet 21st century technology, i.e., tracking multiple cell phones and internet channels, not just a phone number.
<
p>
I would furthermore support “roving wiretaps” on domestic-to-domestic communications if reviewed ONCE by FISA-like secret court which would write warrants on suspected terrorists.
what suspected terrorists? the new law in no way requires that the people being spied on are suspected terrorists. here is a snippet from the link above
I think you need to bone up on what the new law really says. If you still support it, that’s your business. But don’t be surprised to be called out on your highly deceptive verbiage which wholly misrepresents the new law.
the only positive thing i can anticipate coming from this program is that in 20 years or so, when a foia request brings to light transcripts of communications between the local RC operatives and their home office. Maybe then we’ll finally see the architecture of the Priestly Pedophilia Syndicate in all it’s glory.
<
p>
I made the statement above of course to needle the dishonesty of the RCC. But to also make a larger point. Anyone who thinks “I’m honest so have nothing to worry about” is setting themselves up for a potentially big surprise somewhere down the line. We just learned about how 2/3 of people erroneously placed on death row ended up there as a result of deliberate malicious actions by the justice system. Imagine what will happen now when the government can gather and manipulate information with absolute impunity.
I am almost starting to hope they lose the House, maybe it will teach them a lesson about political courage since evidently the pro-Bush agenda gets passed regardless of which party controls the House. Rather live with the enemy I know than with a friend that stabs me in the back at the first opportunity.
i don’t want the dems to lose their edge in congress. what i want are the asshats who voted for this legislation to lose their seats. don’t forget that many people voted against the bill. why exactly do you want to trash them for doing the right thing?
There were about 50 DEMOCRATIC Representatives and Senators that voted for this proposal and I am trashing them. And actually if those asshats lose their seats we lose the House.
they lose those seats to other Dems, such as Donna Edwards…
Thank you for mentioning Donna Edwards — though I think Wynn voted correctly on this one.
You guys are dreamers, first off 50 Lamonts would be impossible to recruit and fundraise for, second the DNCC would help the incumbents and divert money away from crucial anti-GOP races. Granted Im angry at the Dems and frankly if they lose Congress they deserve it, but if you guys think you can Lamont 50 vulnerable incumbents and keep the house than I want what your smoking.
and there’s also the case for replacing retired Dem Congresscritters with more progressive Dems [see: MA-05]. Put the two together, and you could easily add 5 real progressive Congresscritters a cycle. Think of all the close votes… and push them all over the edge. Add to that the appreciation that leadership won’t twist arms on a runaway vote [50 vote margin], but will twist arms over close votes — so you wouldn’t need to swing 50 to get a 50 vote swing; you’d need far less than that and leadership would take care of the rest.
The timing seemed to show that Lamont’s primary victory had a huge effect not just on the national discourse but also on the Democratic Party. By publicly disavowing a war apologist, the Democratic leadership actually started to carve out clear positions on Iraq for the first time. It was very helpful.
<
p>
The Republicans have the Club for Growth that tries to maintain the Republican Party’s conservative purity by running primary challenges. They challenged Arlen Spector in 2004, Chafee in 2006, and I believe they are planning to go after Hagel in 2008.
<
p>
If DFA and MoveOn were really, really big and scary, there might be fewer blue dog Democrats and those that remained might think twice before voting away our civil rights.
Hey, some of those Democrats we can’t replace because there’s no bench there. Jim Matheson in Utah, Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota, and Gene Taylor in Mississippi. These three (and others) are good for a vote vor Speaker Pelosi, and that’s about it.
<
p>
But some others do need to reflect on what they’re doing. Tim Walz in Minnesota, for example, or Dan Lipinski in Illinois (this was already attempted with Ciro Rodriguez).
<
p>
Finally, this isn’t a case of either/or. People will get involved in a Congressional race who wouldn’t care about others — not everyone is a broad-spectrum political junkie. Carole Shea and Scott Kleeb ran campaigns peopled by political novices and locals. Besides, if you live in California, Illinois, or New York, how much work can you do for a presidential candidate?
Good points, but that kind of incremental change means a progressive Congress by the end of the next administration. Also some of these guys are dinosaurs you cant get rid of, Lipinski for instance inherited the seat from his father and will likely pass it on to his son thats just how his fief er district is set up on the Southwest side.
If you add up the fact that all the Republicans and Liebercrats voted for this un-American measure without exception, then, possibly, Landrieu, Pryor, and such Democrats might have calculated that voting against it had downsides (Republican attacks) but voting for it caused no further damange (it would pass anyway). This is a calculation that the addition of more Democrats would change.
<
p>
Here’s what you can do with your money.
<
p>
For New Hampshire, you can contribute to the NH Senate Democratic Nominee Fund. This money will go to whoever wins the nomination in New Hampshire. Why wait until they find someone infinitely superior to Sununu (NH-R)?
<
p>
For Maine, you can contribute to Tom Allen’s campaign. Do it so Sen. Salazar (D-Co) is better behaved. Do it to stop Senator Collins (ME-R) from further confusing Americans about what positions are mainstream.
the bill has a six month review built into it. We need to keep up the pressure between now and then.
If ever they were to be truly bold and tell the president to screw himself on Iraq and Fisa, 2008 would be a blood bath. We could have the 60 Senators we need to change this country for the better with all the more haste, instead we’ll only expand our numbers by a few.
<
p>
Caving in on illegal (let’s call it what it is) wire-tapping was a collosal mistake. Luckily, it’ll only last for 6 months, so in those six months we need to give our own Democrats hell.
I would advocate pursuing a strategy along the line of Cindy Sheehan’s philosophy- people who believe in the separation of powers, the sovereignity of the people, and transparency in government should back independent candidates and truly progressive candidates in the next Congressional elections. Any Democrat who has refused to stand up to Bush should be targeted for defeat and removal. This is a 50-state solution that will separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were, and will hopefully begin to chart a course away from despotism and corporatocracy.
I keep asking this.
<
p>
The disappointing thing was not just the vote but that there was a vote. Should have been stopped.
<
p>
But what has caused this timidity? this refusal to fight for what’s right? It’s tempting to chalk it up to personal failing — because that’s what are programmed to do. (Cut off on the highway, we do not exclaim, “you otherwise good person just did something wrong!” We exclaim, “You asshole!” Personal failing, not behavior. Reference: Beck, Prisoners of Hate.)
<
p>
The problem is this has been a systemic problem with our congresscritters for a very, very, very long time. Is it because
What is it? If we don’t find out what it is, we’re going to have to put up with it for an awfully long time.
<
p>
If something is passed into law, by definition it is legal.
<
p>
Unless, of course, it is later found by a court to be unconstitutional. But until then it is technically legal.
… it was illegal. At the time they were doing the caving [the vote], it was in fact illegal. It wasn’t until the vote tally was completed and recognized that it became legal.
<
p>
Enough picking of nits.
<
p>
Well, not really.
<
p>
The court decision that said it was illegal was stayed on appeal and then thrown out as the plaintiffs had no basis to sue.
<
p>
Anyhoo … back to whatever was being discussed.
And called it what it is. Obviously, I’m not a SCOTUS, but I don’t need to be to express my opinion that wiretapping me without a warrant would, in fact, violate my constitutional rights. Hence, I’m calling it what I think it is – illegal.
Changing this country for the better doesn’t need 60 seats. It just needs ONE of the seatholders in the senate to get OUT of their seat, stand, and deliver.
<
p>
Their priorities are in the following order:
<
p> – will this hurt my chance for re-election’ – will this cause fund-raising to suffer – will those who gave me most of the money be upset
<
p>
Somewhere down near the bottom of the list are the ordinary folks who punch out a chad and give away our power.
<
p>
This is a war against Americans and America, from within, and there’s not ONE democrat who has the balls to stand against it.
Not to split any hairs.
<
p>
I posted the vote totals in this previous comment.
I understand polls reveal the public has less trust in the Congress than the President. This is not without reason. Maybe the public is not as stupid as the politicians believe. I sincerely believe the devils of each party have made a pact with each other. Whoever you vote for supports not the people of the United States, but the systematic overthrow of laws designed to protect the people.
<
p>
The President signs an Executive Order that is aimed at financially destroying pacifists and protesters and not one word of opposition is spoken. Does this not seem strange?
<
p>
The end result will be a racket run by those now in power or their children. Does it matter to you whether your children are sent to war by a Bush or a Clinton?
The public is behind the idea that Congress needs more Democrats — at least according to polling.
Q: Does it matter to you whether your children are sent to war by a Bush or a Clinton?
A: Yes.
Regarding the discussion above about who passes what, the Congress passes a bill and the president signs it into law. Unless Congress passes a bill, the president cannot sign it into law. The Democrats, particularly in the House–where they have a working majority–have shown themselves, yet again, to be worthless in stemming the tide of the ever-encroaching Republican police state in the US. The cynic in me suggests that that is because they will want to make use of the provisions of the law after they get back into power–probably in 2009.
<
p>
Regarding Foreign-to-foreign is fine by me, as is foreign-to-domestic (oversight by FISA.) I believe this bill updates existing FISA regs to meet 21st century technology, i.e., tracking multiple cell phones and internet channels, not just a phone number. I’ll just let you know that the US government has long been able to do a Lauschangriff (wiretap) on foreign-to-foreign communications–the FISA law didn’t even address the issue and the 4th amendment Constitution doesn’t cover foreign-to-foreign communications, regardless of their routing.
<
p>
Regarding the second tracking multiple cell phones and internet channels, not just a phone number the FISA law (50 USC 1801 et seq, it’s available on the Cornell law school web site) did not even refer to phone numbers. It referred to persons, one of which was required to be a non-US person (as defined in the FISA law). So the FISA law, before this most recent cave-in by the Democrats, provided the US federal government with the ability to track communications between persons, regardless of what their phone numbers were.
<
p>
Regarding There were about 50 DEMOCRATIC Representatives and Senators that voted for this proposal and I am trashing them. And actually if those asshats lose their seats we lose the House.
<
p>
No, not necessarily. If those 50 lose their nominations in the respective primaries to Democrats who are actually interested in civil liberties, the latter may very well be elected to Congress. It isn’t an either/or issue. The problem is–as I have noted elsewhere here–that the national Democratic party is an incumbent protection society–and, as they did with Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election, they will continue to support the incumbent, regardless of how vile he or she is.
<
p>
Face it. The national Democratic party is not interested in civil liberties. They have made that clear for a long time.
<
p>
The DSCC immediately began funding Lamont after he beat Lieberman. The two leading Senate Democrats of that cycle Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, as well as DNC Chair Dean, all campaign for Lamont after the primary. Many Senators who had campaigned for Lieberman switched over after the primary, including Chris Dodd, Barbara Boxer, and Pat Leahy.
<
p>
From the DSCC:
<
p>
Sure, Pryor, Landrieu, and Obama continued to campaign for Lieberman. But unless you’re blaming the party for not controlling the actions of its members, you don’t have a case.
About a month before the primary, Schumer seemed to hint that the DSCC might support Lieberman even if Lamont won. Progressives blew a gut. The DSCC didn’t do that.
<
p>
Perhaps Raj was on vacation between Schumer’s remarks and the aftermath of Lamont’s victory and so missed what happened.
Not Lieberman. CBSNews article here.
Someone should correct the Wikipedia page. The sources I double checked were all pre-primary.
Since the American Revolution society has changed. All over this country new concerns have invalidated the need for civil liberties. Crisis in energy, population growth, environment, terrorism have made “civil liberties” of small consequence.
<
p>
What this country needs is firm leadership to change the very makeup of society. Think about the betterment in enegy use and environmental needs that could be gained by implementing shared housing quotas. Or assigning housing close to a worker’s place of business. Look what the Chinese have done to successfully slow their rampant population growth. Think how much safer we all will be with a controlled population. I’d go so far as to plant microchips in people to prevent kidnapping or identify criminals.
<
p>
This world is new and I believe our political leaders see the new day ahead when they have to make decisions that old fashioned voters won’t understand, so it is best to annul civil liberties now.
you’re joking, right? i’m just punchy after a long day and don’t see this for the obvious joke it is. say yes. please, please, please call me a fool and tell me that the trace of sincerity i sense is just good cover for the joke.
Pat Progressive forgot to encase his/her name in the hallmark punctuation of the republikaners, quotation marks.
Not at all. American society has changed. Who do you hear talking about individual rights? Maybe some people over 70. Or the Whitehouse occupant with “democracy” inserted in every other sentance. (Yeah, does anyone believe anything that fellow says?) Time for people to change, too.
<
p>
Most everybody else is happy just to watch the ball game and let whoever wants the country have it. Even the professional politicians have a tough time making a campaign look like anything more than a “Miss America Pageant”. Anybody campaigning on human rights? Freedoms? Other than a few appropriate words for a specialty voting group, no candidate cares to push for dead issues. The issues today are communal: energy, population growth, environment, terrorism. Individual rights won’t solve them. Firm action from the top down is needed and government is changing to meet that need whatever party is in power.
<
p>
I tell my students this at the start of classes and they, too, don’t believe what the country has become. After the 4th or 5th week they are showing me evidence. People just have to adjust away from older thinking.
<
p>