Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

The issue that was being addressed was that now foreign to foreign calls are sometimes routed through the US - thus forcing a warrant which was not the intent of the original FISA. FISA allows for foreign intelligence gathering but required a warrant for incoming or outgoing calls. These calls do not fit the "or" but rather are "both". Read the transcripts of the meetings about this - you might understand the issue better.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Yeah and they did have their 60 so there is nothing Pelosi could do about it,

well hello?? are there 60 republicans in the senate? Since when is Pelosi in the Senate??

She could have stopped this in the House, no problem...

nothing gets out of committee without the Dems approval..

the FACT remains the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi.

let me spell it out for those of you with learning AADD:
Pelosi was knee deep in this bill.

The Dimocrats don't actually have any core values...once you accept this, and move on, then analyzing their actions become very easy...

their sole goal is to get re-elected..
so, they are trying to thread the needle poliltically..they do not want to upset their base, so they hold a voice vote in the Senate so every Dim can claim they voted against it.

in the house, the minimum number needed to get the bill passed, vote for it (they did the same thing when Clintoon raised taxes retroactively..they made the junior most reps vote for it, while the reps in districts that might vote them out, voted against it).

so basically, the Dems don't want to upset their base, but they also don't want to vote against the bill, and have that used against them politically (weak on terror...)

this is nothing new, this approached is commonly used..

but rest assurred, the Bill only got passed with the approval and consent of Dimocrats

you fathered this baby along with Bushie...

I'd believe that was possible, but I also know that the Democrats, unlike the Republicans, seem to be capable of thinking for themselves and NOT all marching in lockstep wherever their party leadership points. It's actually kind of endearing, and must frustrate the hell out of the Democratic leadership...especially when they look across the aisle at the Republicans who are all behaving so nicely.

Still, that seems more likely to me that your ridiculous scenario,

-snip-

.

Rainsford,

You know damn well that what heartsugeon is saying is correct.

There's no way in hell a few Blue Dog Dems teamed up with Repubs and overthrew Pelosi and all the (now) powerful Dem committee chairs. Your contention is absurd.

Pelosi, or the Committee Chairpersons can *bottle up* anything they want.

The simple, and glaringly obvious fact is they wanted this passed. They wanted to get home, and they are too afraid of some terorists act occurring during recess (and the resulting political blame).

Edit: Another point. How is it the Repubs as a minority party are constantly blamed (rightly so) for *bottleing things up* and preventing legislation, but the Dems as a majority party can't do the same? I mean even if some Blue Dogs defected, it would leave the Dems as a *minority* party albeit with all the power in the Committe Chairs and on the floor. And they still can't do what the Repubs as a minority party accomplish? (stop legislation they don't like) That's not believable.
Fern

 

[heartsurgeon]

Here's an even better analysis of how fetid the Dimocrats are....

do you kids realize that the SAME PEOPLE who were nashing their teeth, calling Gonzales utterly unreliable and a criminal....JUST GAVE HIM EXPANDED POWERS..

gee, i thought they were braying that he was utterly unacceptable...now THEY have given him expanded abilities TO SPY ON YOU!!!

yep, the DIMs don't 'believe' in anything but politcal expediancy....

 

[1EZduzit]

From the article:

The new law updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. Bush wants deeper, permanent changes.

?We must remember that our work is not done,? Bush prodded. ?This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law.?

Yeah, this is all the D's fault. :roll:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
From the article:

The new law updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. Bush wants deeper, permanent changes.

?We must remember that our work is not done,? Bush prodded. ?This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law.?

Yeah, this is all the D's fault. :roll:

If your comment is about what I think it is (HS post), this one of the best demonstrations of *missing the point* I've ever seen.

Fern

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
From the article:

The new law updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. Bush wants deeper, permanent changes.

?We must remember that our work is not done,? Bush prodded. ?This bill is a temporary, narrowly focused statute to deal with the most immediate shortcomings in the law.?

Yeah, this is all the D's fault. :roll:

If your comment is about what I think it is (HS post), this one of the best demonstrations of *missing the point* I've ever seen.

Fern

No. I respondoing to all the posters who are doing their best to lay the passage of this bill at the feet the D's, who if they were for REALLY for it would have made it permanent, now wouldn't they.

Why do you think passing an extension is missing some kind of point? I see it as a chance to better define the battlelines.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

I guess no one wants to answer this, they'd rather makes this into a D bashing circlejerk.

 

[senseamp]

So what's GOP plan for 2008? Hope that voters are dissatisfied with warrentless wiretapping will vote for them instead? Whoever came up with that one must be on DNC's payroll.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

The issue that was being addressed was that now foreign to foreign calls are sometimes routed through the US - thus forcing a warrant which was not the intent of the original FISA. FISA allows for foreign intelligence gathering but required a warrant for incoming or outgoing calls. These calls do not fit the "or" but rather are "both". Read the transcripts of the meetings about this - you might understand the issue better.

Maybe if you thought about the parameters of the previous law, you might have a better understanding about why this bill was unnecessary.

ANY transmission that the feds intercepted was covered under the previous bill. There is no exceptions for foreign to foreign calls routed through the US in the bill. The only stipulation was that they had to get judicial approval either prior to or retroactively up to 90 days later if they "accidentally" stumbled on something.

Now, once again, what does this bill address that the previous bill didn't?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

The issue that was being addressed was that now foreign to foreign calls are sometimes routed through the US - thus forcing a warrant which was not the intent of the original FISA. FISA allows for foreign intelligence gathering but required a warrant for incoming or outgoing calls. These calls do not fit the "or" but rather are "both". Read the transcripts of the meetings about this - you might understand the issue better.

Maybe if you thought about the parameters of the previous law, you might have a better understanding about why this bill was unnecessary.

ANY transmission that the feds intercepted was covered under the previous bill. There is no exceptions for foreign to foreign calls routed through the US in the bill. The only stipulation was that they had to get judicial approval either prior to or retroactively up to 90 days later if they "accidentally" stumbled on something.

Now, once again, what does this bill address that the previous bill didn't?

Uh - hello? You obviously haven't read what the amendment does and what the old version doesn't. This amendment allows for foreign to foreign calls that go through the US to be tapped w/o a warrant. They couldn't do that before. They didn't think of/need it before because calls weren't routed like that when FISA was written. The technology expanded creating an issue for FOREIGN intelligence gathering. Now please go read the testimony and the bills before coming back here with the same (already answered) question.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

I guess no one wants to answer this, they'd rather makes this into a D bashing circlejerk.

I already did answer

 

[heartsurgeon]

let me get this straight...you believe I am wrong because the Bill temporarily expanded and extended the "warrentless wiretapping bill"....

well shucks, i thought the all you lefties wanted it REPEALED, not extended and expanded...

i suppose giving Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales expanded and extended powers to "domestically spy" on you really shows how committed the Dims are to their basic principles of defending your "personal liberties".

This is sort of like the Dims voting to give Bush the authority (and subsequently the money) to invade Iraq.

I suppose the next step is for Dims to claim they really didn't intent to EXPAND and EXTEND the "warrentless wiretap law", and Gonzales and Bush MISLEAD them into voting to EXPAND and EXTEND the program...next Murtha will be calling for our "warrentless wiretapping" to be "redeployed"

where have we heard that approach before?

Feckless...the Dimocrat Party

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I haven't read this whole thread, as this whole topic makes my head explode... but the basic problem I see being discussed here isn't what appears to be particularly relevant. The actual mechanics of being able to evesdrop on international calls that happen to go through the US is something that almost nobody is against.

The problem is again with unchecked power. There is almost zero oversight of this by any outside authority... all the attorney general needs to do is decide that it's good enough and he can evesdrop on any conversation he wants. That's really really bad. Unchecked power... always bad.

If you would have read the thread, you'd know that there is oversight. By the courts AND congress. So no, it isn't an "unchecked power".

That is not correct, there is no meaningful oversight. Most of the judicial and congressional oversight has been shifted to our oh so credible attorney general. The oversight that remains is little more then a rubber stamp.

Please read up on the legislation before spreading misinformation.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let me get this straight...you believe I am wrong because the Bill temporarily expanded and extended the "warrentless wiretapping bill"....

well shucks, i thought the all you lefties wanted it REPEALED, not extended and expanded...

i suppose giving Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales expanded and extended powers to "domestically spy" on you really shows how committed the Dims are to their basic principles of defending your "personal liberties".

This is sort of like the Dims voting to give Bush the authority (and subsequently the money) to invade Iraq.

I suppose the next step is for Dims to claim they really didn't intent to EXPAND and EXTEND the "warrentless wiretap law", and Gonzales and Bush MISLEAD them into voting to EXPAND and EXTEND the program...next Murtha will be calling for our "warrentless wiretapping" to be "redeployed"

where have we heard that approach before?

Feckless...the Dimocrat Party

I know you have to use more then one hand to count to six, but it is a finite number. I'm confident that you can do it if you try harder.

When a group of people don't march in lockstep with whatever their learders want/tell them it takes time and disscussion to come to a general consensus but the end result is usually worth the wait.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I haven't read this whole thread, as this whole topic makes my head explode... but the basic problem I see being discussed here isn't what appears to be particularly relevant. The actual mechanics of being able to evesdrop on international calls that happen to go through the US is something that almost nobody is against.

The problem is again with unchecked power. There is almost zero oversight of this by any outside authority... all the attorney general needs to do is decide that it's good enough and he can evesdrop on any conversation he wants. That's really really bad. Unchecked power... always bad.

If you would have read the thread, you'd know that there is oversight. By the courts AND congress. So no, it isn't an "unchecked power".

That is not correct, there is no meaningful oversight. Most of the judicial and congressional oversight has been shifted to our oh so credible attorney general. The oversight that remains is little more then a rubber stamp.

Please read up on the legislation before spreading misinformation.

Looks like the goal post are moving... "almost zero"..>.."no meaningful" What's next? :laugh:

And yes, there is meaningful oversight. You'd know this if you actually read the legislation. The court must review every instance where this amendment is used to see if it fits. PLUS Congress has oversight so they can into what has gone on if they choose to.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

The issue that was being addressed was that now foreign to foreign calls are sometimes routed through the US - thus forcing a warrant which was not the intent of the original FISA. FISA allows for foreign intelligence gathering but required a warrant for incoming or outgoing calls. These calls do not fit the "or" but rather are "both". Read the transcripts of the meetings about this - you might understand the issue better.

Maybe if you thought about the parameters of the previous law, you might have a better understanding about why this bill was unnecessary.

ANY transmission that the feds intercepted was covered under the previous bill. There is no exceptions for foreign to foreign calls routed through the US in the bill. The only stipulation was that they had to get judicial approval either prior to or retroactively up to 90 days later if they "accidentally" stumbled on something.

Now, once again, what does this bill address that the previous bill didn't?

Wire tapping without records. The new law makes it legal. Hay, is there a retroactive clause in there somewhere? To cover Bush's prior illegal use ?

 

[Fern]

^ What is "wiretapping without records"?

Fern

 

[OrByte]

when a single party almost unanimously votes in favor of such a bill you seriously have to ask the question if they are all sharing one brain.

I mean seriously, how in the hell can anyone condone such strange lockstep behavior?

at least the Dems illustrate how they are as splintered as America when it comes to thinking these very serious issues through. I for one DO see the benefit of these types of laws, but am weary about the possibility of encroachments on individual rights. Shouldn't we all be at least willing to ask these questions? It seems that when House Rs all vote in such a unanimous fashion it doesn't look like a lot of thought is taking place...but i dunoo..

Are the Rs zombies? it is really spooky.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I haven't read this whole thread, as this whole topic makes my head explode... but the basic problem I see being discussed here isn't what appears to be particularly relevant. The actual mechanics of being able to evesdrop on international calls that happen to go through the US is something that almost nobody is against.

The problem is again with unchecked power. There is almost zero oversight of this by any outside authority... all the attorney general needs to do is decide that it's good enough and he can evesdrop on any conversation he wants. That's really really bad. Unchecked power... always bad.

If you would have read the thread, you'd know that there is oversight. By the courts AND congress. So no, it isn't an "unchecked power".

That is not correct, there is no meaningful oversight. Most of the judicial and congressional oversight has been shifted to our oh so credible attorney general. The oversight that remains is little more then a rubber stamp.

Please read up on the legislation before spreading misinformation.

Looks like the goal post are moving... "almost zero"..>.."no meaningful" What's next? :laugh:

And yes, there is meaningful oversight. You'd know this if you actually read the legislation. The court must review every instance where this amendment is used to see if it fits. PLUS Congress has oversight so they can into what has gone on if they choose to.

Look, you can keep saying that as much as you want...it's not true. Just read the damn bill, it clearly says that the court needs to review the PROCEDURES used to determine whether this amendment can be used. Or, for that matter, use some common sense...if the court had to review every instance where this amendment is used, that would be equivalent to a warrant, which is what this bill is allegedly avoiding.

You can't have it both ways...either it's less oversight or it's just as much oversight as before. It can't be whichever suits your argument best right this minute.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
let me get this straight...you believe I am wrong because the Bill temporarily expanded and extended the "warrentless wiretapping bill"....

well shucks, i thought the all you lefties wanted it REPEALED, not extended and expanded...

i suppose giving Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales expanded and extended powers to "domestically spy" on you really shows how committed the Dims are to their basic principles of defending your "personal liberties".

This is sort of like the Dims voting to give Bush the authority (and subsequently the money) to invade Iraq.

I suppose the next step is for Dims to claim they really didn't intent to EXPAND and EXTEND the "warrentless wiretap law", and Gonzales and Bush MISLEAD them into voting to EXPAND and EXTEND the program...next Murtha will be calling for our "warrentless wiretapping" to be "redeployed"

where have we heard that approach before?

Feckless...the Dimocrat Party

Last time I checked, the vast majority of Democrats voted AGAINST this idiot bill, while the VAST, VAST, majority of Republicans voted for it. Of course I would have preferred that this bill be defeated, but if I have to pick one of the two major parties as the better defender of civil liberties, the choice seems obvious.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: OrByte
when a single party almost unanimously votes in favor of such a bill you seriously have to ask the question if they are all sharing one brain.

I mean seriously, how in the hell can anyone condone such strange lockstep behavior?

at least the Dems illustrate how they are as splintered as America when it comes to thinking these very serious issues through. I for one DO see the benefit of these types of laws, but am weary about the possibility of encroachments on individual rights. Shouldn't we all be at least willing to ask these questions? It seems that when House Rs all vote in such a unanimous fashion it doesn't look like a lot of thought is taking place...but i dunoo..

Are the Rs zombies? it is really spooky.

Gee, Republicans not thinking things through and going with the herd...I've got to say I'm pretty shocked by that! :roll:

Come on, like we shouldn't have seen this coming from a mile away. Have the Republicans ever done or said anything to make you think they take the individual, thoughtful approach to ANY issue? While the difference in success between liberal and conservative talk radio probably has a lot of explanations, I think chief among them would be the difficulty of finding millions of liberals who are all thinking exactly the same thing.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but every time I start to think so, I go back to the fact that while I have heard a lot of liberals express the same split viewpoint you just did, I have NEVER heard ANY Republicans express the least bit of concern about the impact expanded government power has on civil liberties. When civil liberties are mentioned in conservative writings and speeches, which is rarely, it is always explained away as a passive aggressive trick liberals use to fight against "being strong on terrorism". People can disagree on the balance between liberty and security, and that's fine, but I'm a little disturbed when one side doesn't seem to believe there IS another issue in play besides security.

 

[Wreckem]

Anandtech REALLY needs to make it a rule, that you MUST READ THE F'ing legislation before commenting on it.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

The issue that was being addressed was that now foreign to foreign calls are sometimes routed through the US - thus forcing a warrant which was not the intent of the original FISA. FISA allows for foreign intelligence gathering but required a warrant for incoming or outgoing calls. These calls do not fit the "or" but rather are "both". Read the transcripts of the meetings about this - you might understand the issue better.

Maybe if you thought about the parameters of the previous law, you might have a better understanding about why this bill was unnecessary.

ANY transmission that the feds intercepted was covered under the previous bill. There is no exceptions for foreign to foreign calls routed through the US in the bill. The only stipulation was that they had to get judicial approval either prior to or retroactively up to 90 days later if they "accidentally" stumbled on something.

Now, once again, what does this bill address that the previous bill didn't?

Uh - hello? You obviously haven't read what the amendment does and what the old version doesn't. This amendment allows for foreign to foreign calls that go through the US to be tapped w/o a warrant. They couldn't do that before. They didn't think of/need it before because calls weren't routed like that when FISA was written. The technology expanded creating an issue for FOREIGN intelligence gathering. Now please go read the testimony and the bills before coming back here with the same (already answered) question.

Just a slight correction. Everyone(Congress, and the Executive Branch), thought they had that power, until a Federal Court ruled otherwise, as it doesn't explictly grant that power in the FISA act.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
I just have two simple questions for those that are arguing in favor of this or those that think that this is no big deal....

Why is there even a need for it when the current (former now thanks to this law) allowed the government the ability to intercept wire transmissions and even gave them the ability to get a warrant retroactively if needed?

Was it that it was truly antiquated and needed updating or was it that it required judicial oversight that was the real problem with it?

When answering the first question, please explain what the need was that couldn't be addressed through the previous FISA law and when answering the second question, explain how it was addressed in a manner that doesn't infringe on Constitutional rights.

The issue that was being addressed was that now foreign to foreign calls are sometimes routed through the US - thus forcing a warrant which was not the intent of the original FISA. FISA allows for foreign intelligence gathering but required a warrant for incoming or outgoing calls. These calls do not fit the "or" but rather are "both". Read the transcripts of the meetings about this - you might understand the issue better.

Maybe if you thought about the parameters of the previous law, you might have a better understanding about why this bill was unnecessary.

ANY transmission that the feds intercepted was covered under the previous bill. There is no exceptions for foreign to foreign calls routed through the US in the bill. The only stipulation was that they had to get judicial approval either prior to or retroactively up to 90 days later if they "accidentally" stumbled on something.

Now, once again, what does this bill address that the previous bill didn't?

You have no clue what you are talking about.

This amendment came about because a Federal Court ruling on the issue ruling the FISA act doesnt cover the issue.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I haven't read this whole thread, as this whole topic makes my head explode... but the basic problem I see being discussed here isn't what appears to be particularly relevant. The actual mechanics of being able to evesdrop on international calls that happen to go through the US is something that almost nobody is against.

The problem is again with unchecked power. There is almost zero oversight of this by any outside authority... all the attorney general needs to do is decide that it's good enough and he can evesdrop on any conversation he wants. That's really really bad. Unchecked power... always bad.

If you would have read the thread, you'd know that there is oversight. By the courts AND congress. So no, it isn't an "unchecked power".

That is not correct, there is no meaningful oversight. Most of the judicial and congressional oversight has been shifted to our oh so credible attorney general. The oversight that remains is little more then a rubber stamp.

Please read up on the legislation before spreading misinformation.

WTF are you talking about? This(FISA) HAS ALWAYS has always pretty much been ran with a rubber stamp since it was enacted in 1978(by the Dems)...