Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Why don't both parties just advertise that they don't care about the Constitution anymore and that they want a police state?

At least I would have some respect for them....I'd still hate them all, but I would have a smidgeon of respect for their honesty.

House and Senate cave to Bush re:ILLEGAL wiretapping

he House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. He had urged Congress to approve it, saying Saturday, "Protecting America is our most solemn obligation."

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that "foreign intelligence information" is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don't touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Congressional Democrats won a few concessions in negotiations earlier in the week. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general. Congress has battled with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on several issues, and some Democrats have accused him of perjury.

The new law also will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. The administration wanted the changes to be permanent.

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess.

"This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. "I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment," which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Republicans disputed her description. "It does nothing to tear up the Constitution," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

If an American's communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, "we go through a process called minimization" and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat.

The administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the FISA court. That decision barred the government from eavesdropping without warrants on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

I hope that this gets in front of the SCOTUS so that they can make it a trifecta of branches of government wiping their arses with the Constitution and we will know exactly where we stand at that point.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
This really irked me the wrong way too. I think everyone in the government needs to sit down and read 1984 and watch V for Vendetta. Republicans would probably end up getting some new ideas though... ;)
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

That sums up my feelings pretty well. They are unwilling to do *anything* that is even slightly politically risky. They just want to wait it out until 2008 and then (in their mind) automatically take the Presidency.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Right now the congress can't summon enough consensus to get anything remotely disputed done. And any congressional investigation of the facts are many months away from bearing any fruit. And meanwhile you still have to have some sort of program to come up with foreign surveillance as the existing law expires.

And politics is still the art of the possible as congress dropped back and punted---kicking the can six months down the road. But not making the law permanent is hardly a GWB victory. And in six months congress may be able to really fix the law that they can't fix now.
 

Deudalus

Golden Member
Jan 16, 2005
1,090
0
0
Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure President Hillary Clinton will use those powers wisely...

lol

This guy cracks me up everytime.

Kinda like how she was selling pardons when Bill was in office right?

And how she had her cokehead brother working as a "pardon attorney" for the people who gave hundreds of thousands to her senatorial coffers.

Yah, she's clean as can be.
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure President Hillary Clinton will use those powers wisely...

lol

This guy cracks me up everytime.

Kinda like how she was selling pardons when Bill was in office right?

And how she had her cokehead brother working as a "pardon attorney" for the people who gave hundreds of thousands to her senatorial coffers.

Yah, she's clean as can be.

tap tap .. check sarcasm meter :p

Every politician we have is a phony lying thief
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure President Hillary Clinton will use those powers wisely...

lol

This guy cracks me up everytime.

Kinda like how she was selling pardons when Bill was in office right?

And how she had her cokehead brother working as a "pardon attorney" for the people who gave hundreds of thousands to her senatorial coffers.

Yah, she's clean as can be.

tap tap .. check sarcasm meter :p

Every politician we have is a phony lying thief

Yup... But some are phonier and lie more than others. ;)
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Deudalus
Originally posted by: senseamp
I am sure President Hillary Clinton will use those powers wisely...

lol

This guy cracks me up everytime.

Kinda like how she was selling pardons when Bill was in office right?

And how she had her cokehead brother working as a "pardon attorney" for the people who gave hundreds of thousands to her senatorial coffers.

Yah, she's clean as can be.

tap tap .. check sarcasm meter :p

Every politician we have is a phony lying thief

Yup... But some are phonier and lie more than others. ;)

"Its always a choice between a douche and a turd sandwhich"

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,333
6,652
126
The kind of Americans who said give me freedom or give me death are long gone.
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The kind of Americans who said give me freedom or give me death are long gone.

Turns out they were fighting the Brittish.

Today the smart people find the loopholes and quietly work the system. No point in fighting 'the man' when you have a smart lawyer and a good CPA.

 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,784
21
81
give me freedom o give me death the congress gave you GONZALEZ gulag
 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76



"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector"

Plato
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Right now the congress can't summon enough consensus to get anything remotely disputed done. And any congressional investigation of the facts are many months away from bearing any fruit. And meanwhile you still have to have some sort of program to come up with foreign surveillance as the existing law expires.

And politics is still the art of the possible as congress dropped back and punted---kicking the can six months down the road. But not making the law permanent is hardly a GWB victory. And in six months congress may be able to really fix the law that they can't fix now.

I do not think 6 months will accomplish anything other than allow Congress to come back and do the same thing again before heading out to the campaign trail.
Congress will not grow gonads until after the '08 elections.
Right now, they have a political stalemate.

They will need either a stronger Democratic Congress to take on Republican president or get lucky and get a Democratic president that will be middle of the road and not obligated/misguided by the radical base. (As what has happened under Bush).

 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
This is just flucking pathetic. You *know* the only reason why they keep voting for this crap is that they know they'll have those same powers once they get in office. You cannot trust those who have a vested interest in getting power, with power. There is not one party that represents the people anymore. All that is left is a bunch of circle-jerking distributed dictators.

I like your quote GrGr.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.
 

colonel

Golden Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,784
21
81
is about US residents, these guys have rights and benefits like Americans but they CAN'T vote. I do care , i got grandparents from Italy and they can't pass the citizenship test for theirs age, so under this law they can wiretap my house. I sending letter to my senator now.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: colonel
is about US residents, these guys have rights and benefits like Americans but they CAN'T vote. I do care , i got grandparents from Italy and they can't pass the citizenship test for theirs age, so under this law they can wiretap my house. I sending letter to my senator now.

Ummm no. Did you READ it? This is about external communication that happens to get routed through the US and back out. Meaning neither end is in the US.

Sheesh.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.

Did you read it CAREFULLY? See, this is a law, which means it's important to read EVERY word, not just the short ones that are easy for you to understand. In this particular case, what you said is incorrect...it's about calls that the government REASONABLY BELIEVES are from a foreign country to a foreign country being routed through the United States. However, this "belief" is simply determined by the executive branch, they don't have to actually prove anything to a judge. The wording is slightly more clever, but it's the same concept as the illegal wiretapping program...it's the executive branch conducting wiretapping operations inside the United States on their say so alone. Sure, the bullshit they have to come up with to operate under this law is somewhat different, but "reasonable belief" is not a very high legal bar to clear.

That being said, I don't disagree that there was a problem here that needed solving...I just think this particular law is too far reaching. I am fine with the basic concept of warrantless surveillance on calls from one foreign country to another that simply happen to pass through US infrastructure, I just don't like the fact that the executive branch can make that determination on their own. It leaves too much room for abuse, and all they have to say later is "oh, well we BELIEVED no US persons were involved". There has to be a better compromise that gives the executive branch more flexibility in this world of global communications without potentially compromising the rights of US citizens.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Umm, did anyone actually READ it? This is about a call FROM a foreign contry TO a foreign country. There are no American's involved so it doesn't even touch the Constitution. Sheesh - some of you people seem to just love getting yourselves all stirred up over nothing.

Did you read it CAREFULLY? See, this is a law, which means it's important to read EVERY word, not just the short ones that are easy for you to understand. In this particular case, what you said is incorrect...it's about calls that the government REASONABLY BELIEVES are from a foreign country to a foreign country being routed through the United States. However, this "belief" is simply determined by the executive branch, they don't have to actually prove anything to a judge. The wording is slightly more clever, but it's the same concept as the illegal wiretapping program...it's the executive branch conducting wiretapping operations inside the United States on their say so alone. Sure, the bullshit they have to come up with to operate under this law is somewhat different, but "reasonable belief" is not a very high legal bar to clear.

That being said, I don't disagree that there was a problem here that needed solving...I just think this particular law is too far reaching. I am fine with the basic concept of warrantless surveillance on calls from one foreign country to another that simply happen to pass through US infrastructure, I just don't like the fact that the executive branch can make that determination on their own. It leaves too much room for abuse, and all they have to say later is "oh, well we BELIEVED no US persons were involved". There has to be a better compromise that gives the executive branch more flexibility in this world of global communications without potentially compromising the rights of US citizens.

So I was correct - foreign to foreign calls. You can try to spin this and put on all sorts of tinfoil if you wish but there is just no posible way to know who may be on either end of the line(in each foreign country). THAT is why it could be possible for a US citizen to be tapped which then created the need for "REASONABLY BELIEVES". IF a US citizen(in a foreign country) is using a bad number(flagged) or being called by a flagged number in a foreign country then how could anyone attempting to tap it know for sure? Sheesh - I swear some of you let your Bush hate blind you.
 

heartsurgeon

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2001
4,260
0
0
What utter hypocrisy, after excoriating Bush & Co., the Dimocrat controlled Senate and House pass an extension/update on the "warrantless wiretap bill"....except the leftist media now calls it the "foreign wiretap bill". That's rich....

Here's my fav quote from the article "Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress."

Well then why did they pass it????

this is just funny:
Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess.

OHHH>..The President is going to ruin my summer vacation!! That big bad meanie...


come you leftiests....explain why Hairy Reed and Bugeye'd Pelosi got this passed....how did your congressman/senators vote?

Dimocrats approve spying on US citizens without warrants



Combined with original topic.
AnandTech Senior Moderator: oldsmoboat
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
15
81
fobot.com
what is the problem? the program is protecting us from terrorists
both sides recognize that, so they keep it in place

p.s. harry reid is an idiot
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
you dems made your bed, now lie in it. this is just a "smidgen" of what will happen should a dem gain power in the whitehouse
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Why don't you change the thread title to reflect the subject at hand?

That way others don't repost it.