Senate Votes To Expand Warrantless Surveillance

[lily]

Now is not the time to strive for legislative perfection??? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080302296.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

Senate Votes To Expand Warrantless Surveillance
White House Applauds; Changes Are Temporary

By Joby Warrick and Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 4, 2007; Page A01

The Senate bowed to White House pressure last night and passed a Republican
plan for overhauling the federal government's terrorist surveillance laws,
approving changes that would temporarily give U.S. spy agencies expanded
power to eavesdrop on foreign suspects without a court order.

The 60 to 28 vote, which was quickly denounced by civil rights and privacy
advocates, came after Democrats in the House failed to win support for more
modest changes that would have required closer court supervision of
government surveillance. Earlier in the day, President Bush threatened to
hold Congress in session into its scheduled summer recess if it did not
approve the changes he wanted.


The legislation, which is expected to go before the House today, would
expand the government's authority to intercept without a court order the
phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States who are communicating
with people overseas.

As currently written, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act already
gives U.S. spies broad leeway to monitor the communications of foreign
terrorism suspects, but the 30-year-old statute requires a warrant to
monitor calls intercepted in the United States, regardless of where the
calls begin or end.

At the White House, where officials had voiced concern about that
requirement, a spokesman praised the Senate vote and called on House leaders
to quickly follow suit. The legislation will "give our intelligence
professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation,"
spokesman Tony Fratto said.

Democratic leaders expressed disappointment about the result, but they
pointed to language that would require lawmakers to reconsider the key
provisions in six months.

"My Republican colleagues chose to rubber-stamp a flawed administration
proposal that fails to provide the accountability needed in the light of the
administration's past mismanagement of key tools in the war on terror," said
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Sixteen Democrats and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) joined all 43
Republicans in supporting the measure, which is nearly identical to a
proposal prepared by the Bush administration. "We're at war. The enemy wants
to attack us," Lieberman said during the Senate debate. "This is not the
time to strive for legislative perfection."

[ViolaLee]

Does anyone know where the list is of those 16 Democrats?

[Lazarus]

Viola:
These are the spineless f*ks that are to be blamed.
Feinstein, Salazar, Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Daniel Inouye, Landrieu, Lieberman, Conrad, Casey, Lincoln, Pryor, Klobuchar, Webb, McCaskill and Carper.

[NortheastCynic]

On top of being grossly immoral, this bill is also grossly unconstitutional, which becoming grossly less shocking.

-NC

[Lazarus]

Well, for the Dems to keep claiming that they want no ownership of Bush'
" war on terra " , their actions as of late clearly indicate otherwise.

The House just passed the same piece of legislation 227 to 183.
41 Dems capitulated.
There was no rollcall vote.
What will be their next excuse?

The Constitution just suffered another injury - one of these is bound to be fatal.

[ViolaLee]

Jesus Christ. Can you give us the names of the 41 Dems? These people are killing me.


Viola:
These are the spineless f*ks that are to be blamed.
Feinstein, Salazar, Mikulski, Bill Nelson, Ben Nelson, Daniel Inouye, Landrieu, Lieberman, Conrad, Casey, Lincoln, Pryor, Klobuchar, Webb, McCaskill and Carper.


Feinstein - my girl will be getting an angry phone call.

Casey - that really gets me, I'll call him too even though he's not my Senator, I made phone calls for moveon.org to get that fucker elected.

Webb - for Christ's sake I made phone calls for him too.

Lieberman, I'm not surprised. He's a turncoat.

The rest I'm not familiar with, but those first three will feel the wrath of Vi.

:anger:

[Lazarus]

I found the list of Yeas & Nays.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
______________
Senators from above-
Salazar is Colorado
The Nelson twins hail from Nebraska and Forida
Inouye is Hawaii
Landrieu is Louisiana

The rest I am drawing a blank on

[ViolaLee]

Thanks Lazarus. Did I mention lately that you rock?

Thank God my Rep is a nay. My head doesn't have to explode tonight.

Miller, George <--- one of the good guys.

[micfranklin]

All 16 of those Democrats should be impeached and sent to Gitmo immediately.

[ViolaLee]

The 41 too.[hr]Here's my email I just sent to Feinstein.

I am so disappointed that you voted for warrantless wiretapping. What's come over you? Thank God my other representatives, Boxer and Miller voted against it. I will be voting against you next time you run for re-election. I expect my representatives to protect the constitution as you swore under oath to do. You've lost my vote.

I'm pretty much fed up with these clowns.

[preservanation]

How does the left feel to have the elected dems lie to them for a change?

This sort of prevarication has become an apparent pattern of behavior ever since prior to their campaign to win congress last year.

How can anybody trust these people?

[Buck Laser]

How does the left feel to have the elected dems lie to them for a change?

This sort of prevarication has become an apparent pattern of behavior ever since prior to their campaign to win congress last year.

How can anybody trust these people?

I guess you are right--after all, we've been accustomed to it from republicans for so long we shouldn't have expected much different.

[preservanation]

Time to drain the swamp!

[ViolaLee]

run newt run???

How's that draining the swamp?

Newt's one of the amphibians in the swamp!!!!!!![hr]No Republican Senators voted against the bill. The following Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh (Indiana); Tom Carper (Delaware); Bob Casey (Pennsylvania); Kent Conrad (North Dakota); Dianne Feinstein (California); Daniel Inouye (Hawai‘i); Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota); Nancy Mary Landrieu (Louisiana); Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas); Claire McCaskill (Missouri); Barbara Mikulski (Maryland); Bill Nelson (Florida); Ben Nelson (Nebraska); Mark Pryor (Arkansas); Ken Salazar (Colorado); Jim Webb (Virginia).

Senators Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd and Barack Obama all opposed the bill, as did 23 other Democrats and Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont. Joe Lieberman voted for it.

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy -- not the executive branch."

link (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/4/04858/29657)

[lily]

Ok, so am I understanding this correctly? For some reason, this could not wait a month. So congress had to stay and make sure this bill not only got passed, but would suit Bush just right, so he wouldn't veto it.......because for some odd reason, one of his famous signing statements wouldn't work........now here's the part I'm not sure if my eyes are playing tricks on me.......they are disbanning the FISA court.....couldn't be because a judge on the FISA court told Bush what he was doing was illegal.........and then this administration is replacing the FISA court with GONZALES??!!! I guess I can die, because now I've seen everything........oh and this idiotic Senate thinks in 6 months, they are going to wrench the power out of his hands? SUCKERS!!!!l (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/05/bush.surveillance/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)


But Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union objected to provisions
in the GOP-backed bill that grant the attorney general and the director of
national intelligence the authority to approve all wiretaps -- even if one
party is in the United States -- with minimal court oversight.

Bush said Congress will need to pass a more comprehensive reform bill when
it reconvenes in September after its August recess. Congress will be called
to address what Bush called "meaningful liability protection" for those who
took part in the eavesdropping program.

The ACLU says the administration's proposals would effectively "gut" FISA.
And Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the third most powerful Democrat in the House, said
lawmakers "are not going to leave Alberto Gonzales as the gatekeeper on
American civil liberties."


"That's the fundamental problem, and we're going to fix it when we come
back," Emanuel told reporters Sunday.

"We had to do it. We did what we needed to do. The Democrats are united in
fixing this flawed law."

[Stoner]

Wow, the Senate finally gets something right. Now the Democratic Senate isn't compeltely worthless...only mostly.

[ViolaLee]

We need to make phone calls, write emails and send letters to all that voted for this bill.

http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/3125/upsidedownflaglongvb7.jpg

[Drocket]

It's definitely very sad and pathetic that this passed. Any Democrat who voted for this is most definitely a sucker, pure and simple. Putting Gonzales in charge of this thing was the Bush administration's way of telling everyone that they have no intention of taking any of this seriously.

[Stoner]

We need to make phone calls, write emails and send letters to all that voted for this bill.



I agree. For everyone that voted for this I say we take Viola's advice and call them up to congratulate them, send them a "good job" email, mail them a "way to go" letter and send them a case of lobster tails to let them know what a fine job they did.

Good job, men.

[Lazarus]

Wow, the Senate finally gets something right. Now the Democratic Senate isn't compeltely worthless...only mostly.

Are you serious?
If so, might I suggest that you forego the Indica in favor of some Sativa.

Couchlock is also Brainlock.

[ViolaLee]

We need to make phone calls, write emails and send letters to all that voted for this bill.



I agree. For everyone that voted for this I say we take Viola's advice and call them up to congratulate them, send them a "good job" email, mail them a "way to go" letter and send them a case of lobster tails to let them know what a fine job they did.

Good job, men.


http://questionitnow.com/blog/uploaded_images/Bush%20Is%20Listening-738678.jpg

[Lazarus]

Ok, so am I understanding this correctly? For some reason, this could not wait a month. So congress had to stay and make sure this bill not only got passed, but would suit Bush just right, so he wouldn't veto it.......because for some odd reason, one of his famous signing statements wouldn't work........now here's the part I'm not sure if my eyes are playing tricks on me.......they are disbanning the FISA court.....couldn't be because a judge on the FISA court told Bush what he was doing was illegal.........and then this administration is replacing the FISA court with GONZALES??!!! I guess I can die, because now I've seen everything........oh and this idiotic Senate thinks in 6 months, they are going to wrench the power out of his hands? SUCKERS!!!!l (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/05/bush.surveillance/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)


But Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union objected to provisions
in the GOP-backed bill that grant the attorney general and the director of
national intelligence the authority to approve all wiretaps -- even if one
party is in the United States -- with minimal court oversight.

Bush said Congress will need to pass a more comprehensive reform bill when
it reconvenes in September after its August recess. Congress will be called
to address what Bush called "meaningful liability protection" for those who
took part in the eavesdropping program.

The ACLU says the administration's proposals would effectively "gut" FISA.
And Rep. Rahm Emanuel, the third most powerful Democrat in the House, said
lawmakers "are not going to leave Alberto Gonzales as the gatekeeper on
American civil liberties."


"That's the fundamental problem, and we're going to fix it when we come
back," Emanuel told reporters Sunday.

"We had to do it. We did what we needed to do. The Democrats are united in
fixing this flawed law."

You understand correctly - for the most part.
This law ( Bush signed it today ) does not disband FISC. It did, however, narrow its' jurisdiction to a similar state.

As with all other areas where Bu$hCo was found to be violating the law; instead of ceasing to do so, he merely had the laws changed to accommodate his illegalities.
This language is so vague that it will allow interception of domestic communications. And w/o a trip to FISC.

What's more is that it allows any surveillance to continue for 12 months unabated.
So even if the Dems locate their spines 6 months hence, this mistake will live on. And since all on-going surveils will be grandfathered, I can only imagine how many wiretaps will be approved by AGAG and DNI 5 months and 29 days from now.

Rahm Emanuel needs to shut his mealy mouth.
Crying now about how bad this bill was - when Dems had the ability to defeat it.
" Fix it when we come back "???
They shouldn't have made the mistake in the first place.
This can't be fixed.

The only trick that Dems know is how to roll over and play dead.
They will perform this trick again and again - on the war funding resolution scheduled after recess will be their next oppotunity.

[Stoner]

It's sad to see fellow Americans not to want us to have the ability to hunt terrorists more effectively.

[ViolaLee]

It's sad to see fellow Americans not to want us to have the ability to hunt terrorists more effectively.


It's sad to see fellow Americans rejoice in the violation of our constitution out of fear.

Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Benjamin Franklin

[Stoner]

It's sad to see fellow Americans rejoice in the violation of our constitution out of fear.



If it was a violation of the constitution it wouldn't have been passed.

Anything else?

[ViolaLee]

The constitution prevents US persons to be spied on without a warrant.

The bill allows US persons to be spied on without a warrant.

Anything else?

[Lazarus]

It's sad to see fellow Americans not to want us to have the ability to hunt terrorists more effectively.

Now this is a misconstruction of the facts.
Or else, your statement hinges on an alternative definition of
" effectively ".
The only flaw in FISA was the fact that switching stations in the US funnel the vast majority of all global communications.
If this legislation addressed only that issue, there would be no qualms - at least not from me. And I would hazard a guess that most taking offense at this law would view it in the same light.

The points I raised above- and the additional fact that the Telcos have now been compelled to grant access to their switching stations and have been given immunity from prosecution for doing so - leads me to the conclusion that domestic communications will comprise the bulk of the scrutinized traffic. Terrorists will not bring suit, but the Americans caught up in this illegal dragnet would have standing to do so.

Bush could have cared less about the " switching station " provisions.
He just would have bypassed FISC the next time.
But the lawsuits against these Telcos are beyond his control. He needed that language to shield the co-conspirators from the discovery phase of trial.
" State Secrets " and " Executive Priviledge " are being rightfully nullified in the on-going litigation.

[Questerr]

It's sad to see fellow Americans not to want us to have the ability to hunt terrorists more effectively.


I worked with information that required FISA oversight when I was in Iraq and the longest it ever took us was 2 days to get authorization. We weren't in any kind of big need to have an expanded program and its morally wrong to intercept American communications without a warrant.

And it's not like Congress hasn't passed an unconstitutional bill before and had it struck down later.

The question I have to ask is: If the Supreme Court finds the bill and warrantless program unconstitutional and strikes it down, is that "judicial activism"?

...What am I saying? Of course it is! Judicial activism only exists when the courts rule against neocons.

[Marley]

Stoner, with all respect, you're wrong.

Recall the passage of the "line item veto."

Congress passed it, Clinton signed it, and the courts struck it down.

That's how it works.

But it also highlights what suckers liberal democrats are. They're all focused, like a hyponotized chicken, on the Dems that voted for passage, and like a good flimflam victim, none of them notice the remaining Dems NOT petitioning the court for "judicial review."

[Truth_and_Power]

Yes!!! Democratic rebellion! Down with the rubber stamp! Voting against nelson!

[DANG]

It's sad to see fellow Americans not to want us to have the ability to hunt terrorists more effectively.
The “target” need not be a suspected terrorist.

Nor does the communication have to be "International" ... as "your" president (a terrorist) deceitfully portrayed the Bill.

[DANG]

that one got you reported

[exigent]

When did becoming a rat and snitch become acceptable?


Read the title of the thread.

[ViolaLee]

I'd just like to thank the gentlemen who've been gallant in defending my honor. Cheers to you guys. I wonder where the mods are? I'm sure this thread will be split into fools paradise soon, where it belongs. I don't know what's making the righties so mad. This thread is all about the constitutional violations they so adore.

[Jaaaman]

Why are you so "mad" Viola?


Well... could it be your sexually derogratory insults against her in this thread? :rolleyes:

Can we get back to the topic of this thread?

[ViolaLee]

You don't recall the post before that one do you Gonzo?

LOL!

[Marley]

Can we get back to the topic of this thread?

I was discussing the concept of judicial review, you know Madison v. Maulberry, before Viola went on her insult rampage.

I'd be more than glad to pick it up there.

[BoogyMan]

Thread is temporarily closed to clean up.[hr]

The thread has been cleaned up and is re-opened. Lets keep the discussion on topic and civil. :D

[Buck Laser]

I found the list of Yeas & Nays.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
______________
Senators from above-
Salazar is Colorado
The Nelson twins hail from Nebraska and Forida
Inouye is Hawaii
Landrieu is Louisiana

The rest I am drawing a blank on

Lincoln and Pryor are from Arkansas.[hr]

It's sad to see fellow Americans rejoice in the violation of our constitution out of fear.



If it was a violation of the constitution it wouldn't have been passed.

Anything else?

You're not too informed on how legislation gets passed and tested in the courts, are you?

[Stoner]

Regardless of what the neolib propaganda machine tells our neolib posters to think, this is lawful. If it was unconstitutional it wouldn't have been passed.

[Buck Laser]

Regardless of what the neolib propaganda machine tells our neolib posters to think, this is lawful. If it was unconstitutional it wouldn't have been passed.

Oh, this is priceless!! Anything the congress passes is constitutional? :ecstatic:
Or maybe it's if the pResident signs it?
Why bother to challenge the constitutionality of laws in the courts?
I can hardly wait to hear your answer...



Regardless of what the neolib propaganda machine tells our neolib posters to think, this is lawful. If it was unconstitutional it wouldn't have been passed.

Wow!! Who knew? All these years, I thought the legislative branch passed laws, the executive branch enforced them, and the courts ruled on their constitutionality. All this time that was a "neo-lib" lie? Hot Damn, I'm really glad ol Stoner is around to set us straight.

[lily]

Stoner Wrote:
Regardless of what the neolib propaganda machine tells our neolib posters to think, this is lawful. If it was unconstitutional it wouldn't have been passed.

Stoner, give it up. The staunchest Republican even told you that you were wrong on this.[hr]
It's sad to see fellow Americans not to want us to have the ability to hunt terrorists more effectively.



I have to ask you.......do you honestly think that the only thing this is being used for it to find terrorists?

[NortheastCynic]

Stoner, I've gotta say, I'm not sure what you mean by 'if it wasn't Constitutional it wouldn't have passed'. Congress passes unConstituional laws all the time...Hence the necessity for the Supreme Court.

That and you certainly don't have to be a liberal to believe the law is unConstitutional.

-NC

[ViolaLee]

If you want to let our congress know you're against this, sign this petition. (http://pol.moveon.org/capitulation/?r_by=10919-5198018-8k9MYc&rc=comment_paste)

"I'm outraged that Congress capitulated to President Bush and gave him more unchecked power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. I demand Congress act swiftly to reverse this reckless act."[hr]Sign the Petition (http://pol.moveon.org/capitulation/?r_by=10919-5198018-8k9MYc&rc=comment_paste)
Full petition text:

"I'm outraged that Congress capitulated to President Bush and gave him more unchecked power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. I demand Congress act swiftly to reverse this reckless act." [hr]Sign the Petition (http://pol.moveon.org/capitulation/?r_by=10919-5198018-8k9MYc&rc=comment_paste)
Full petition text:

"I'm outraged that Congress capitulated to President Bush and gave him more unchecked power to wiretap Americans without a warrant. I demand Congress act swiftly to reverse this reckless act."

[lily]

Well, I signed the petition, even though my representatives didn't vote for it and I don't know how they are going to do anything when it was already signed into law..........but then I guess they'll know how people feel about this in 6 months........not that it's going to make that much difference.