Sooo.....The House Passed that Warrantless Wiretapping Law

[Scrum]

WASHINGTON (AP) - The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions. Republicans called it a test before the election of whether Democrats want to fight or coddle terrorists.

"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.

"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.

Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.

"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.

Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:

- Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.

- Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.

- Renews his certification every 90 days.

The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections.

For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration "looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process."

But with Congress giving Bush the other half of his September anti-terrorism agenda - a bill setting conditions on how terrorism suspects are to be detained, interrogated and tried - Republicans shifted from lawmaking to campaign mode.

After the House voted 253-168 to set rules on tough interrogations and military tribunal proceedings, Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., was even more critical than Boehner.

"Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of more rights for terrorists," Hastert said in a statement. "So the same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedom worldwide would be coddled, if we followed the Democrat plan. "

Retorted Pelosi: "I think the speaker is a desperate man for him to say that. Would you think that anyone in our country wants to coddle terrorists?"

She and other Democratic critics of the GOP's September anti-terrorism agenda contend the Republican-written bills make Bush's programs vulnerable to being overturned in court. More broadly, they argue the legislation reflects the White House's willingness to fight the war on terrorism at the expense of civil and human rights.

A Democratic majority in either House would set the balance right, Democrats say. "In 40 days, we can put an end to this nonsense," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass, referring to the election.

A federal judge in Detroit who struck down the warrantless surveillance program turned aside a government request for an indefinite stay Thursday. U.S. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor said the government could have a week to appeal.

---

The House bill is H.R. 5825; the Senate bill is S. 3931.

I hate these stupid lines the republicans are drawing.
You either want to deal with the terrorists the exact same way we do, or you want to bake them a cake and rub their feet.

I still have yet to hear a reason why they can't follow the laws currently in place to obtain a warrant. The only reason I can think of is that they are tapping people who have done nothing. Why else can't they follow the law?

[sj23]

Nice of them to use our freedoms as tools for their propoganda.

[motivez]

They simply don't want to follow the law because they feel they're above it and shouldn't have to worry about that pesky "checks and balances". Congress has given them more time within the law -- and with oversight every time they asked. It's not about that. It's about removing checks and balances and making the Presidency more powerful than it should be.

We're giving up our essential liberties one at a time in small, and not so small doses. How long before they start trying to justify further freedoms we need to give up to make us secure?

Maybe the Press is painting such a negative picture that it's emboldening the terrorists and allowing them to win a propaganda war through violence on the US people.. so it must be stopped?

Maybe anti-war protestors are hurting the country and the President and our troops to the point where they're not able to effectively continue doing their job as suggested in another thread here.. and need to be stopped?

It sounds far fetched now, but then again.. so did spying on American phone calls, legalized torture, suspension of habeus corpus for American citizens, secret evidence, hearsay as evidentiary standards.. etc... a few years ago.

It's really not so far fetched now.. they're seemingly able to justify anything they want by branding opposition as unpatriotic, or supporting terrorists, etc.. and there's still a large portion of the country who buys into it and supports everything they say without doubt or critical analysis.. it's so ridiculous.

I'm seriously incredibly sad over everything that's happening now.

[phreak]

the terrorists have won

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by motivez

They simply don't want to follow the law because they feel they're above it and shouldn't have to worry about that pesky "checks and balances". Congress has given them more time within the law -- and with oversight every time they asked. It's not about that. It's about removing checks and balances and making the Presidency more powerful than it should be.

We're giving up our essential liberties one at a time in small, and not so small doses. How long before they start trying to justify further freedoms we need to give up to make us secure?

Maybe the Press is painting such a negative picture that it's emboldening the terrorists and allowing them to win a propaganda war through violence on the US people.. so it must be stopped?

Maybe anti-war protestors are hurting the country and the President and our troops to the point where they're not able to effectively continue doing their job as suggested in another thread here.. and need to be stopped?

It sounds far fetched now, but then again.. so did spying on American phone calls, legalized torture, suspension of habeus corpus for American citizens, secret evidence, hearsay as evidentiary standards.. etc... a few years ago.

It's really not so far fetched now.. they're seemingly able to justify anything they want by branding opposition as unpatriotic, or supporting terrorists, etc.. and there's still a large portion of the country who buys into it and supports everything they say without doubt or critical analysis.. it's so ridiculous.

I'm seriously incredibly sad over everything that's happening now.

se
These are all things that were covered in the novel 1984, or just touched on. I don't want to live in that kind of society....what do we do?

[WickedLou9]

the house is going to be cleaned out after elections. They are a bunch of right wing crack heads. They have no idea what they are doing. The senate is a little bit better. The warrantless wiretapping is absolutly unconsitutional. The american BAR association has already come out with thier position on it. Even if congress did pass a law it would be struck down as soon as it was challenged.

[SICKGUY]

online gambling is in trouble...
GOP aims to crack down on Web gambling - Yahoo! News

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

online gambling is in trouble...
GOP aims to crack down on Web gambling - Yahoo! News

More on that here -- there were 2 other pushed through as well

$3.4 Billion Port Security Bill Pushing Through With 3 Last-Minute (unrelated) Laws

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

online gambling is in trouble...
GOP aims to crack down on Web gambling - Yahoo! News

The scourge of society Jesus like we don't have more to worry about than "online gambling". Especially adding it to a bill last minute. Assholes.....

[Kytro]

That practice is retarded. Lumping unrelated things together FTL.