Goodbye checks and balances! FISA bill passed by Senate

[bheld]

Props to Hillary for showing her big leadership and experience advantage with her "Present" vote on a huge bill.

Wasn't she trying to hang that tag around Obama's neck?

[thewise1]

WTF, I just saw the news article about it

The senate just handed that one to Bush on a silver platter. Now the phone companies are invulnerable to lawsuit, and the government already won't give any information so people can fight this.

[tbone]

WASHINGTON — President Bush strongly urged the House of Representatives on Wednesday to quickly approve a surveillance bill passed by the Senate Tuesday evening, saying he would not agree to a further extension of the current eavesdropping law.

The bill, allows the government to eavesdrop on large bundles of foreign-based communications on its own authority so long as Americans are not the targets. A secret intelligence court, which traditionally has issued individual warrants before wiretapping began, would review the procedures set up by the executive branch only after the fact to determine whether there were abuses involving Americans.

“This is a dramatic restructuring” of surveillance law, said Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department intelligence lawyer who represents several telecommunication companies. “And the thing that’s so dramatic about this is that you’ve removed the court review. There may be some checks after the fact, but the administration is picking the targets.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-telcom.html?hp

This bill effectively removes the courts from the checks and balances in government. The President (and the NSA) have free reign to eavesdrop on who he pleases with a court reviewing the records after the fact. Could you imagine if our justice system worked this way?

[motivez]

I saw this yesterday and am seriously disgusted.. I hope the House will do something useful with it.

The way FISA was beforehand was acceptable. Some constructive changes could have probably been used to stream line various aspects of it, but overall it worked and protected the privacy of Americans while balancing National Security problems.. Retroactive warrants were acceptable if there's an IMMEDIATE need for surveillance, and if a court found it was abused, any information obtained wouldn't be able to be used against anyone...

And, so long as any American person was a party to a conversation, even with someone overseas, they still had to respect the privacy rights of Americans.. it seems that's thrown out the window now.

I talk to people who are overseas a lot, and have several friends who live in the Middle East.. Israel, Lebanon, etc.. now I don't really feel like my conversations with them are private (I suppose I'll start using PGP or something in emails) because they'll just be able to collect data en-masse..

I can't believe the Democrats capitulated on this, people like Jim Webb and the others who were supposed to be sane on issues like this but a little more conservative than your average Democrat went the wrong way on a VERY important issue.

[motivez]

Obama also missed the vote.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by motivez

I saw this yesterday and am seriously disgusted.. I hope the House will do something useful with it.

The way FISA was beforehand was acceptable. Some constructive changes could have probably been used to stream line various aspects of it, but overall it worked and protected the privacy of Americans while balancing National Security problems.. Retroactive warrants were acceptable if there's an IMMEDIATE need for surveillance, and if a court found it was abused, any information obtained wouldn't be able to be used against anyone...

And, so long as any American person was a party to a conversation, even with someone overseas, they still had to respect the privacy rights of Americans.. it seems that's thrown out the window now.

I talk to people who are overseas a lot, and have several friends who live in the Middle East.. Israel, Lebanon, etc.. now I don't really feel like my conversations with them are private (I suppose I'll start using PGP or something in emails) because they'll just be able to collect data en-masse..

I can't believe the Democrats capitulated on this, people like Jim Webb and the others who were supposed to be sane on issues like this but a little more conservative than your average Democrat went the wrong way on a VERY important issue.

The house has been a little more feisty lately. Hopefully they will stop it. Hopefully.

[Phantom]

Where are the Dems on this?

I really thought this type of thing would end when they took over Congress. Are they still afraid of being cast as weak on terror by the Repubs for a vote like this one?

I would think this would be a killer point for either Hillary or Obama to bring up in the upcoming debates had either of them been present and voted against it. Just think: "I was present in Congress doing my job while [other candidate] was out campaigning/abstaining and handing GWB even more power. When I become president, I won't be "present" and inactive or too busy with other affairs to take care of the business of American people"

[Scrum]

I love how they keep tying this bill to 9/11. They were conducting these wiretaps before the attacks.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by bheld

Props to Hillary for showing her big leadership and experience advantage with her "Present" vote on a huge bill.

Wasn't she trying to hang that tag around Obama's neck?

my thoughts exactly, she beat him up over 4 'present" votes in illinois and this one is HUGE and she votes "present" classic I love it

[6SpeedTA95]

Anyone know the vote count? was it overwhelming? Was it party line?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

Anyone know the vote count? was it overwhelming? Was it party line?

The 68-29 vote was a victory for the White House, which has battled Congress for two years over the legality of an eavesdropping operation — launched by President Bush in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks — that involved intercepting calls in the United States without court warrants.

Despite Senate passage, the fate of the legislation remains uncertain. The Senate bill has to be reconciled with competing legislation that passed in the House. Democrats in that chamber have opposed shielding the phone companies from liability for taking part in what some members have called an illegal spying operation.

Senior congressional aides said there was no clear path to a compromise on the issue. But a series of recent defections by moderate Democrats in the House raises prospects that the White House position — or something close to it — eventually may prevail.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said the measure would “restore civil liberties protections … and allow for targeted surveillance of potential terrorists.”

But critics said the vote sacrificed civil liberties in a capitulation to the White House. Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) said the Senate had let the Bush administration “off the hook for its illegal wiretapping program.”

Among the presidential hopefuls in the Senate, John McCain (R-Ariz.) voted in favor of the bill; Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) did not vote.

Free Press : Senate OKs Bill to Extend Eavesdropping

Vote: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Fed Up

[kombayn]

Our civil rights are going by the waste-side. If that homegrown Terrorism bill passes, I'm going to throw a fit. They might as well call this country "The Federal-Goverend States of America". George W. Bush has really done wonders for the Neo-Con/Socialist Liberal movement.

[Fed Up]

Bush pulling the "fear" card and bitchin at the Dems....

Current status of the bill with the House:

Sharp Exchanges Over Surveillance Law
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
NYTimes

WASHINGTON — President Bush and House Democrats on Friday traded another round of angry words over whether to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s terrorist surveillance program by providing private data without warrants after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Bush accused the House Democrats of putting the nation’s security at risk by refusing to extend the administration’s surveillance authority, including immunity from lawsuits for the telecommunications companies, which the Senate approved Tuesday.

House Democrats, in turn, accused the president of needlessly frightening the American people and insisted that intelligence agencies would still have every ability to monitor terrorism suspects if a temporary surveillance authority lapsed at midnight Saturday. The Democrats noted that the underlying law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, would remain in force.

Then, both sides left town — Mr. Bush for a 12-day trip to Africa and Congressional leaders for a weeklong recess — though officials said negotiations to resolve the dispute would continue.

House Democratic leaders met early on Friday with Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, to discuss the immunity issue, the main difference between the Senate and House.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, on Friday renewed his call for the House to approve the Senate bill, and he accused Democrats of trying to enrich trial lawyers suing the telecommunications companies as a reward for donating to Democratic presidential candidates.

“It leaves you with the impression that they are more interested in seeing companies in court than seeing terrorists in jail,” Mr. McConnell said.
The decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to let the temporary surveillance law expire is the Democrats’ most forceful challenge to Mr. Bush on a major national security issue since they took control of Congress last year.

And with Democrats emboldened by Mr. Bush’s low poll ratings, the fight over the surveillance program could be a preview of battles to come, particularly over spending on Iraq.

At the same time, Mr. Bush is intent on using the surveillance issue and any improvements in Iraq to portray the Democrats as weak on national security issues.

“The American citizens must understand — clearly understand — that there still is a threat on the homeland, there’s still an enemy, which would like to do us harm,” Mr. Bush said Friday in the Oval Office after meeting with Republican Congressional leaders. “By blocking this piece of legislation, our country is more in danger of an attack.”

Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and the majority leader, rejected that argument and said at a news conference that Mr. Bush was sending the wrong message to terrorists.

“The president’s rhetoric is inaccurate,” Mr. Hoyer said. “It’s also divisive — an attempt to stampede the House of Representatives to rubber-stamp legislation by appealing to the fears of the American people.”

Then, looking sternly into the television cameras, Mr. Hoyer declared: “I want to send another message to those who might harm us: We still have in place every capacity to intercept and find out your plans, and we will act swiftly and decisively against them, because there is no division in this country on our commitment to protect America.”



Fed Up

[kombayn]

Bush knows that they can spy on the terrorists without this bill. This is for different reasons and they use "terrorism" as the cover-up. Our government is so retarded, which is why we need smaller government, if you watch C-SPAN half the fools are never there and half of them barely know each other. 50 Congress, 50 Senate, that's it. We don't need anymore 2 reps for each state and let the States govern themselves. I'm visiting North Carolina to see my Dad and it's a refreshing change to see differences in the state like smoking inside a restuarant, which is almost a "felony" in California. I just scratch my head at all these numb-nuts. I know us people on this board could do a better job then these fools.

[Fed Up]

Ha!....

Here's the kicker of this bill highlighted below:

"The issue is not "intelligence gaps." Rather, as McConnell candidly admits, the "real issue" is "liability protection for the private sector." To take them at their word, George Bush and Mike McConnell are putting the nation at risk in order to ensure that AT&T and Verizon do not have to be held accountable in a court of law for having broken the law. Think about how twisted and corrupt that calculus is.

One other vital point: The claim that telecoms will cease to cooperate without retroactive immunity is deeply dishonest on multiple levels, but the dishonesty is most easily understood when one realizes that, under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They don't have the option to "refuse." Without amnesty, telecoms will be reluctant in the future to break the law again, which we should want. But there is no risk that they will refuse requests to cooperate with legal surveillance, particularly since they are legally obligated to cooperate in those circumstances. The claim the telcoms will cease to cooperate with surveillance requests is pure fear-mongering, and is purely dishonest."

From Glenn Greenwald: Glenn Greenwald - Political Blogs and Opinions - Salon

Fed Up

[kombayn]

YouTube - Keith Olbermann Special Comment *MR BUSH YOU ARE A FASCIST!*

I love Keith Olbermann!

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I love how they keep tying this bill to 9/11. They were conducting these wiretaps before the attacks.

.


Clinton was wiretapping people without Court approval for his whole Presidency. Too bad Democrats only blast Bush for it - and then go ahead and still pass this bill.

[6SpeedTA95]

Originally Posted by lew

.


Clinton was wiretapping people without Court approval for his whole Presidency. Too bad Democrats only blast Bush for it - and then go ahead and still pass this bill.

Goodpoint...either way this is pretty disturbing, if you're going to tap lines get a warrant!

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

.

Clinton was wiretapping people without Court approval for his whole Presidency. Too bad Democrats only blast Bush for it - and then go ahead and still pass this bill.