Senate GOP torpedoes proposed limits on Bush wiretaps

[Aisengard]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/13/congress.terrorism.ap/

Huzzah, hooray for Republicans controlling all three branches of the government!

This is why people, even honest-to-god republicans should be rooting for Democratic victory this fall. The best of times are when one party doesn't control all branches of government. The worst of times, as we've seen, is when they do.

Anyway, I don't see what was so wrong with the Democrats' proposal. All they wanted was to put a one-year expiration date on the bill, and review it when it comes up next year. But of course, Bush wouldn't sign that into law, because he knows he would have to be a good boy in order for it to pass. But nevermind, because the braindead GOP are giving him free reign anyway.

 

[ayabe]

So I guess I shouldn't talk about weed on the phone anymore, I'm sure that's a flagged word in their data-puter. 😎

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Republicans fail to realize over and over again that the loss of our personal freedoms is much larger than any threat to the U.S. By refusing to implement an expiration date on these wire-tapping policies, we are opening the door to more and more government in our homes for the longterm. We are giving away personal rights one after another, and at some point there will be none left, and it will be impossible to get those back other than by a revolution of power in this country.

Dark times, made even darker by an administration looking to cash in on the backs of our military and rein in our rights and priveledges as Americans. At some point we will cross the line between free Americans and the other choice, and then, the terrorists will have no reason to attack our way of life, since we will be just like them.

 

[Todd33]

The terrorist in caves mush be laughing their a$$es off.

Lose translation: "Dude, watch how much we can make them change with simple small scale attacks. They roll back their own civil liberties, talk about us every night on the TV. They live in terror, we win!"

The GOP use terror to win elections and hand the terrorist a victory at the same time. Grats to the US.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: Krakn3Dfx
Republicans fail to realize over and over again that the loss of our personal freedoms is much larger than any threat to the U.S. By refusing to implement an expiration date on these wire-tapping policies, we are opening the door to more and more government in our homes for the longterm. We are giving away personal rights one after another, and at some point there will be none left, and it will be impossible to get those back other than by a revolution of power in this country.

As long as the money keeps rolling in, they don't give a damn about you and me.

 

[johnnobts]

"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

I think you are deluded. Large scale would be carpet bombing American cities. A rag tag group of guys who hijack and fly planes into building who had to slip through every crack in the system to do so is pretty small scale. They can pull this type of thing off once a decade if lucky. 3,000 Americans died in a country of 300 million. We have killed what, 10,000-30,000 Iraqis in a country of 26 million? The right loves to blow terrorism out of proportion, it's how they scare people into voting with them. Do you ever wonder why the inhabitants of NYC don't seem to be living in fear and don't vote for the fear mongers? They live with a real threat, unlike the sheeple in middle America who have never seen an Arabs let alone a terrorist.

If you decide to live in fear, so be it. I'll stand up for real American values with honor. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. I won't let some losers in a cave dictate how I live my life or when I travel. I will not vote for fear and I will not support unnecessary laws that step on the Constitution. Can we save one more life with a roll back of the 4th Amendment? Maybe, but I don't care to make those kinds of trades. We are a country founded on freedoms, I will not give the terrorist the victory they want.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

Yes, we do know who...
GOP

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

Yes, we do know who...
GOP

The Republicans also dropped the additional wire-tap authority the Clinton administration wanted. U.S. Attorney general Janet Reno had asked for "multi-point" tapping of suspected terrorists, who may be using advanced technology to outpace authorities.

Don't point out facts, it just confuses the apologists.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

I think you are deluded. Large scale would be carpet bombing American cities. A rag tag group of guys who hijack and fly planes into building who had to slip through every crack in the system to do so is pretty small scale. They can pull this type of thing off once a decade if lucky. 3,000 Americans died in a country of 300 million. We have killed what, 10,000-30,000 Iraqis in a country of 26 million? The right loves to blow terrorism out of proportion, it's how they scare people into voting with them. Do you ever wonder why the inhabitants of NYC don't seem to be living in fear and don't vote for the fear mongers? They live with a real threat, unlike the sheeple in middle America who have never seen an Arabs let alone a terrorist.

If you decide to live in fear, so be it. I'll stand up for real American values with honor. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. I won't let some losers in a cave dictate how I live my life or when I travel. I will not vote for fear and I will not support unnecessary laws that step on the Constitution. Can we save one more life with a roll back of the 4th Amendment? Maybe, but I don't care to make those kinds of trades. We are a country founded on freedoms, I will not give the terrorist the victory they want.

Well said, the only thing people in "the heartland" have to fear is Walmart raising prices to pay real wages to their employees

 

[johnnobts]

The right loves to blow terrorism out of proportion, it's how they scare people into voting with them. Do you ever wonder why the inhabitants of NYC don't seem to be living in fear and don't vote for the fear mongers? They live with a real threat, unlike the sheeple in middle America who have never seen an Arabs let alone a terrorist.
_______________-

Thousands dead is not blowing terrorism out of proportion. Terrorism is not an idle threat, its not imaginary or illusory. Its not playing on fear to point out reality. As for the inhabitants of NYC not voting for Fear mongers, last time I checked they had a republican mayor and governor, and hillary isn't exactly a dove when it comes to terrorism (though Guiliani would have beaten her for the senate if it hadn't been for his fight with cancer).

BTW: Yes, I've seen an Arab, and speak Arabic and Hebrew, travel to Saudi on a regular basis to visit family.

 

[xenolith]

Again, more irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media. Big surprise.

The program simply gives NSA warrant-less authority to gather signal intelligence of foreign communications with suspected terrorists ties. So that means to you pot heads that are worried about your civil liberties, unless you make/receive overseas calls to/from suspected terrorist phone numbers, emails, etc., you're not being monitored!

You guys complaining here are probably the same people who would scream the loudest, blaming the president for not protecting the American people if another terrorist attack were to occur.

 

[Todd33]

Thousands dead is not blowing terrorism out of proportion.

Do you apply the same standards to every type of aggression? I doubt it.

 

[Aisengard]

It's funny xenolith, because domestic wiretapping is what people are rightfully concerned with, and what was being discussed here. Nice apologist lies though.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
It's funny xenolith, because domestic wiretapping is what people are rightfully concerned with, and what was being discussed here. Nice apologist lies though.

And I blame the president and the republican party for the secrecy surrounding the program too. They need to come out and do a much better job of informing the American people of what exactly is involved, without giving away national security secrets of course.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: xenolith
Again, more irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media. Big surprise.

The program simply gives NSA warrant-less authority to gather signal intelligence of foreign communications with suspected terrorists ties. So that means to you pot heads that are worried about your civil liberties, unless you make/receive overseas calls to/from suspected terrorist phone numbers, emails, etc., you're not being monitored!

You guys complaining here are probably the same people who would scream the loudest, blaming the president for not protecting the American people if a terrorist attack were to occur.

Way to confuse the issue again. Unlike GOP in the 90's which was responsible for 9/11, the Democrats don't want to hamper the president's wiretap authority. They simply want him to come to Congress for that authority, as the Constitution requires, and not make up executive powers out of thin air. I know the Constitution is nothing more than vintage toilet paper to the GOP, but while it is still the law of the land, the power to write laws rests with the Congress and not the executive.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: xenolith
Again, more irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media. Big surprise.

The program simply gives NSA warrant-less authority to gather signal intelligence of foreign communications with suspected terrorists ties. So that means to you pot heads that are worried about your civil liberties, unless you make/receive overseas calls to/from suspected terrorist phone numbers, emails, etc., you're not being monitored!

You guys complaining here are probably the same people who would scream the loudest, blaming the president for not protecting the American people if a terrorist attack were to occur.

Way to confuse the issue again. Unlike GOP in the 90's which was responsible for 9/11, the Democrats don't want to hamper the president's wiretap authority. They simply want him to come to Congress for that authority, as the Constitution requires, and not make up executive powers out of thin air. I know the Constitution is nothing more than vintage toilet paper to the GOP, but while it is still the law of the land, the power to write laws rests with the Congress and not the executive.

I'm commenting on the wording of the report. It's not domestic wiretapping. The NSA is not monitoring your grandma's emails and phone calls. They wouldn't nearly have the resources to do so if they wanted to...

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: xenolith
I'm commenting on the wording of the report. It's not domestic wiretapping.

The NSA is not monitoring your grandma's emails and phone calls.

They wouldn't nearly have the resources to do so if they wanted to...

You're kidding right?

With your info I can tell where you sit and listen to every word you are saying.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: xenolith
Again, more irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media. Big surprise.

The program simply gives NSA warrant-less authority to gather signal intelligence of foreign communications with suspected terrorists ties. So that means to you pot heads that are worried about your civil liberties, unless you make/receive overseas calls to/from suspected terrorist phone numbers, emails, etc., you're not being monitored!

You guys complaining here are probably the same people who would scream the loudest, blaming the president for not protecting the American people if a terrorist attack were to occur.

Way to confuse the issue again. Unlike GOP in the 90's which was responsible for 9/11, the Democrats don't want to hamper the president's wiretap authority. They simply want him to come to Congress for that authority, as the Constitution requires, and not make up executive powers out of thin air. I know the Constitution is nothing more than vintage toilet paper to the GOP, but while it is still the law of the land, the power to write laws rests with the Congress and not the executive.

I'm commenting on the wording of the report. It's not domestic wiretapping. The NSA is not monitoring your grandma's emails and phone calls. They wouldn't nearly have the resources to do so if they wanted to...

So what? GOP has full control of Congress, so there is no reason why Bush cannot just go there and get authority to get what he needs. It has nothing to do what NSA may or may not be doing at that moment, it has to do with what they have the right to do. Just because NSA does not currently have the resources to infringe on some of my rights, doesn't mean I want to give them the right to do it.

 

[5150Joker]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

I bet you're the type of guy who sleeps under his bed at night.

 

[xenolith]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: xenolith
Again, more irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media. Big surprise.

The program simply gives NSA warrant-less authority to gather signal intelligence of foreign communications with suspected terrorists ties. So that means to you pot heads that are worried about your civil liberties, unless you make/receive overseas calls to/from suspected terrorist phone numbers, emails, etc., you're not being monitored!

You guys complaining here are probably the same people who would scream the loudest, blaming the president for not protecting the American people if a terrorist attack were to occur.

Way to confuse the issue again. Unlike GOP in the 90's which was responsible for 9/11, the Democrats don't want to hamper the president's wiretap authority. They simply want him to come to Congress for that authority, as the Constitution requires, and not make up executive powers out of thin air. I know the Constitution is nothing more than vintage toilet paper to the GOP, but while it is still the law of the land, the power to write laws rests with the Congress and not the executive.

I'm commenting on the wording of the report. It's not domestic wiretapping. The NSA is not monitoring your grandma's emails and phone calls. They wouldn't nearly have the resources to do so if they wanted to...

So what? GOP has full control of Congress, so there is no reason why Bush cannot just go there and get authority to get what he needs. It has nothing to do what NSA may or may not be doing at that moment, it has to do with what they have the right to do. Just because NSA does not currently have the resources to infringe on some of my rights, doesn't mean I want to give them the right to do it.

And has the GOP at any time asked to infringe on those rights?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: xenolith

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: xenolith
Again, more irresponsible reporting by the mainstream media. Big surprise.

The program simply gives NSA warrant-less authority to gather signal intelligence of foreign communications with suspected terrorists ties. So that means to you pot heads that are worried about your civil liberties, unless you make/receive overseas calls to/from suspected terrorist phone numbers, emails, etc., you're not being monitored!

You guys complaining here are probably the same people who would scream the loudest, blaming the president for not protecting the American people if a terrorist attack were to occur.

Way to confuse the issue again. Unlike GOP in the 90's which was responsible for 9/11, the Democrats don't want to hamper the president's wiretap authority. They simply want him to come to Congress for that authority, as the Constitution requires, and not make up executive powers out of thin air. I know the Constitution is nothing more than vintage toilet paper to the GOP, but while it is still the law of the land, the power to write laws rests with the Congress and not the executive.

I'm commenting on the wording of the report. It's not domestic wiretapping. The NSA is not monitoring your grandma's emails and phone calls. They wouldn't nearly have the resources to do so if they wanted to...

So what? GOP has full control of Congress, so there is no reason why Bush cannot just go there and get authority to get what he needs. It has nothing to do what NSA may or may not be doing at that moment, it has to do with what they have the right to do. Just because NSA does not currently have the resources to infringe on some of my rights, doesn't mean I want to give them the right to do it.

And has the GOP at any time asked to infringe on those rights?

Their unwillingness to seek oversight (which is all the Democrats are asking for) definitely makes me think they don't really care whether or not our rights are infringed upon. Then again, it's mostly just a bunch of political hacks. These are the same people who didn't want to expand wiretapping a decade ago.

 

[Lemon law]

What is being missed here is the fact that congress can make a law---but its the courts duty to overrule that law when its unconstitutional---we have a constititional right to be secure from this crapola bugging of communications---which is not catching terrorists because they don't communicate that way---but it gives those governmental busybodies new ways to be big brothers to us all.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker

Originally posted by: johnnobts
"with simple small scale attacks"

If you think the Patriot Act was just a knee-jerk reaction to "small scale attacks" you're deluded. Libs think terrorist attacks are just little bumps in the road, no biggie, that's how clinton treated them. Of course, had Flight 93 actually hit congress, maybe the donkey-pundits would have a different outlook as to the importance of FOREIGN survelliance in preventing attacks (instead of wanting to neuter our intel-gathering as was done in the 90s by you-know-who).

I bet you're the type of guy who sleeps under his bed at night.

There's no room since the boogeyman is already there.

 

[straightalker]

The slide into Nazism is progressing at a faster pace at the moment because of the fact that if there is a fall election in the USA, the Bush Hunta will loose it's hlod on all three Branches of our Government when the Demoratz take Congress.

Making the complete overthrow of the USA much more difficult for the Bush Hunta the next two years.