Freaking Dems need to grow a pair

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

Uhh - read the text of the bill. There is not only the court oversight -there is Congressional oversight. (Sec.4 and Sec.5)

Are you sure YOU read the text of the bill? Because I did, and while I'm not a lawyer, I see nothing in there that provides for oversight on a case by case basis. "Semi-annual" reports about non-compliance with AG and DNI directives and the number of directives issued are NOT acceptable replacements for requiring a warrant from an impartial 3rd party in each and every situation. Perhaps oversight was the wrong word, I didn't mean it in the half-ass, Republican Congress from 2000-2006 sense, I meant judicial determinations made about each case based on the facts of that specific case...not a one page memo the AG pulls out of his ass every 6 months.

Yes, I read it(here). There is reporting to the court AND Congress. Sorry it is sec.3 and 4 in the house version it seems.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

Uhh - read the text of the bill. There is not only the court oversight -there is Congressional oversight. (Sec.4 and Sec.5)

Are you sure YOU read the text of the bill? Because I did, and while I'm not a lawyer, I see nothing in there that provides for oversight on a case by case basis. "Semi-annual" reports about non-compliance with AG and DNI directives and the number of directives issued are NOT acceptable replacements for requiring a warrant from an impartial 3rd party in each and every situation. Perhaps oversight was the wrong word, I didn't mean it in the half-ass, Republican Congress from 2000-2006 sense, I meant judicial determinations made about each case based on the facts of that specific case...not a one page memo the AG pulls out of his ass every 6 months.

Yes, I read it(here). There is reporting to the court AND Congress. Sorry it is sec.3 and 4 in the house version it seems.

It doesn't matter what sections of the bill you're talking about, none of them require the executive branch to provide proof of anything on a case by case basis. Oversight of the general operation (which is all section 3 and 4 require) is better than nothing, but it is NOT a replacement for the warrant process.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

Uhh - read the text of the bill. There is not only the court oversight -there is Congressional oversight. (Sec.4 and Sec.5)

Are you sure YOU read the text of the bill? Because I did, and while I'm not a lawyer, I see nothing in there that provides for oversight on a case by case basis. "Semi-annual" reports about non-compliance with AG and DNI directives and the number of directives issued are NOT acceptable replacements for requiring a warrant from an impartial 3rd party in each and every situation. Perhaps oversight was the wrong word, I didn't mean it in the half-ass, Republican Congress from 2000-2006 sense, I meant judicial determinations made about each case based on the facts of that specific case...not a one page memo the AG pulls out of his ass every 6 months.

Yes, I read it(here). There is reporting to the court AND Congress. Sorry it is sec.3 and 4 in the house version it seems.

It doesn't matter what sections of the bill you're talking about, none of them require the executive branch to provide proof of anything on a case by case basis. Oversight of the general operation (which is all section 3 and 4 require) is better than nothing, but it is NOT a replacement for the warrant process.

Actually the court does review each case this amendment is applied - it's in the sections I stated. The court will determine if was reasonable to not consider this electronic survalence(which is what this amendment is doing).

 

[bobdelt]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why don't both parties just advertise that they don't care about the Constitution anymore and that they want a police state?

At least I would have some respect for them....I'd still hate them all, but I would have a smidgeon of respect for their honesty.

House and Senate cave to Bush re:ILLEGAL wiretapping

he House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. He had urged Congress to approve it, saying Saturday, "Protecting America is our most solemn obligation."

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that "foreign intelligence information" is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don't touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Congressional Democrats won a few concessions in negotiations earlier in the week. New wiretaps must be approved by the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, not just the attorney general. Congress has battled with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on several issues, and some Democrats have accused him of perjury.

The new law also will expire in six months unless Congress renews it. The administration wanted the changes to be permanent.

Many congressional Democrats wanted tighter restrictions on government surveillance, but yielded in the face of Bush's veto threats and the impending August recess.

"This bill would grant the attorney general the ability to wiretap anybody, any place, any time without court review, without any checks and balances," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., during the debate preceding the vote. "I think this unwarranted, unprecedented measure would simply eviscerate the 4th Amendment," which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Republicans disputed her description. "It does nothing to tear up the Constitution," said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

If an American's communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, "we go through a process called minimization" and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat.

The administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the FISA court. That decision barred the government from eavesdropping without warrants on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites.

I hope that this gets in front of the SCOTUS so that they can make it a trifecta of branches of government wiping their arses with the Constitution and we will know exactly where we stand at that point.

Can someone please point out to me exactly how this is unconstitutional? What part of the constitution does this breach?

 

[DanceMan]

It's not that it's unconstitutional -- as a matter of fact, that's why it should go in front of the Supreme Court -- to get their interpretation of the law.

Generally, most of these types of laws center on the 4th Amendment. The 4th amendment, especially in the last 10 years or so, have been under much wider intepretation than it has previously.

I myself would like to know is it valid that the 4th Amendment, or any other amendment, only applies to citizens, since I see many people making the distinction between 'foreigners' and 'citizens' as if that's some great deal of difference, since the 4th amendment only mentions 'the people'. Also, does where you're at make a difference whether or not you have 4th amendment rights?

It really should go in front of the Supreme Court -- that's the branch reponsible for clearing up, once and for all, the disagreements between the executive and legislative branch -- remember, checks and balances? The Supreme Court, although is is the final arbiter -- it is not absolute. Congress can pass new laws, and make new amendments. The problem is that it's more in vogue to be 'tough on terrorists' than to stand by the constitution, no thanks to a large part of the voting populace, who don't even know their congressional representatives, much less even recite more than two of the Bill of Rights, but live in fear of the terrorist, who they are quite sure is just around the corner from them.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Rainsford said:

It's pretty amazing when our political system rewards groupthink and punishes individuals who think for themselves...especially since it dramatically favors one party over the other right now. Personally I think party line voting should be treated with the contempt it deserves, but few voters seem to be paying enough attention to notice.

I find myself wondering what the best answer is. I sometimes think it would be nice to have a Democratic congress as single-minded in it's action as the Rovian R's, but I'm not sure I want to see a Democratic party as focused as the current Republicans.

I think you lose something when you limit yourself as much as the Republicans have in order to excercise such tight control. I and so many Republicans I know personally are becoming alienated from the extremism of the current media-driven coalition, due not just to their extremism but their demonstrated incompetence when finally given the control they begged for, that they risk fragmenting from within their own party. At least I hope so.

The Framers of our Constitution envisioned that various competing factions would prevent any dangerous minority (or majority) from taking over, and built the system to help encourage them.

The Republicans have had to work against the grain of the Constitution to develop their current Ruling Party.

They've had more success than the Framers would probably have ever hoped to see, but i still think they may end up fracturing from within as the citizenry at large sees how inept they are at governing, as groups always tend to be when they focus on aggragating power over all else.

The power of modern media behind a corrupt governing body may help them hold onto power beyond any reasonable historical expectation. We'll need to learn on the fly to avoid catastrophically missing opportunities. Maybe the best thing would be some billionaires helping fractured, fed up Republicans & Democrats create their own media empire. I don't know. Maybe it really will be information control from here on.

I spend as much time writing to Republicans in congress as I do Dems. Doing my part to help the Constitution function as the designers hoped, I'd like to see discord from within the Republican party help bring back the balance that allowed our system to function this long.

It's important to urge the Dems to work together, but it's also important to remind any Republicans who may not like what they are seeing to remember the highest and best ideals to which they may once have aspired.

The speech Gingrich gave the kids last week gives me hope that on any given day I might catch a Republican feeling a little remorse over the colossal failures of the Bush regime. I like to be an equal opportuntiy citizen.

As irritating as it is to see the Dems bamble ineffectively around the Capitol, the iron-fisted control that Rove has over the R's is truly the aberration. I'd prefer a little more chaos than another gang of powerful control-freaks.

For any democratic form of government to survive, a system of checks and balances must function. Any time an executive branch refuses to be checked by the other branches, democracy is fading and tyrany is riseing. Giving an exectutive branch that's rejecting checks and balances even more power is not a good idea.

All of this discussion lately about FISA, the spinelessness of Democrats, has led me to an unfortunate and saddening conclusion: there is a profound lack of basic critical thinking skills even among (perhaps especially among) our highest echelons of power.

Very, very reasonable, "serious," sensible, and ostensibly intelligent politicians - wholly believed the opposite. These beliefs were based, we now can tell, almost entirely on a sort of rumor-mill reality that developed around assumptions carried on the backs of otherwise credible people, and accepted as plain fact. There was hardly any critical thinking - a skill we are supposed to develop in grade school - at the highest levels of power in our country.

This is quite literally how I see government run on a daily basis. It seems that the daily operations of our government are done on auto-pilot and on a raft of unchallenged assumptions and rationalized improprieties. It is, without exaggeration, a daily source of amazement & disgust.

 

[OutHouse]

WASHINGTON - The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.


:thumbsup: so whats the problem?

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I almost hope the dems lose in 08 just to teach them and everyone else a lesson. They try to be too much like the repubs to gain the repub supporters and yet inveitably are so close that they are not attracting others. Maybe Rudy will win in 08 and in early 10 the US can be sending 200k troops to Iran. Serve everyone right, too.

what would be better is that independent got elected. both parties are corrupt and DO NOT represent the people anymore. all they care about is how to further each others party and how to smear/slander/undermine the others party.

it just makes me sick.

 

[Fern]

I don't see the problem? We're talking about foreigners - outside of the USA - IMO they do NOT have any U.S. constitutional rights.

When one party is in the US (apparently not even a citizen) a warrent is needed.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that "foreign intelligence information" is at stake.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

Most of the Dems voted against it, also it's only effective for 6 months.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Why don't both parties just advertise that they don't care about the Constitution anymore and that they want a police state?

At least I would have some respect for them....I'd still hate them all, but I would have a smidgeon of respect for their honesty.

House and Senate cave to Bush re:ILLEGAL wiretapping.

It never ceases to amaze me that anyone on this board actually thinks one party is even slightly better than another. We have two major political parties and NO CHOICE.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DanceMan
It's not that it's unconstitutional -- as a matter of fact, that's why it should go in front of the Supreme Court -- to get their interpretation of the law.

-snip-

I myself would like to know is it valid that the 4th Amendment, or any other amendment, only applies to citizens, since I see many people making the distinction between 'foreigners' and 'citizens' as if that's some great deal of difference, since the 4th amendment only mentions 'the people'. Also, does where you're at make a difference whether or not you have 4th amendment rights?

It really should go in front of the Supreme Court -- -snip-

It's been in front of the SCOTUS.

Not long ago I posted in a thread about illegals driving in the US without licences etc and having their cars impounded...

The SCOTUS case was one where they over-ruled the 9th circuit regarding the 4th Amendment. Basically, from the language of the 4th SCOTUS ruled no 4th rights unless a person strong nexus to the US - citizenship or legal resident status.

These people (focus of the FISA law) aren't even in the US, they have no 4th amendment rights.

Fern

EDIT: See this SCOTUS case

Held:

The Fourth Amendment does not apply to the search and seizure by United States agents of property owned by a nonresident alien and located in a foreign country. Pp. 264-275.


(a) If there were a constitutional violation in this case, it occurred solely in Mexico, since a Fourth Amendment violation is fully accomplished at the time of an unreasonable governmental intrusion whether or not the evidence seized is sought for use in a criminal trial. Thus, the Fourth Amendment functions differently from the Fifth Amendment, whose privilege against self-incrimination is a fundamental trial right of criminal defendants. P. 264.

(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people"

Page 494 U.S. 259, 260

refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. Pp. 264-266.


(c) The Fourth Amendment's drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own Government and not to restrain the Federal Government's actions against aliens outside United States territory. Nor is there any indication that the Amendment was understood by the Framers' contemporaries to apply to United States activities directed against aliens in foreign territory or in international waters. Pp. 266-268.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Fern
I don't see the problem? We're talking about foreigners - outside of the USA - IMO they do NOT have any U.S. constitutional rights.

When one party is in the US (apparently not even a citizen) a warrent is needed.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that "foreign intelligence information" is at stake.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

Fern

I'm wondering if either end of a call would equal a "chief target". IOW - if someone is under surveillance, and that person makes a call to a person who is a U.S. resident, does a warrant need to be obtained?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm wondering if either end of a call would equal a "chief target". IOW - if someone is under surveillance, and that person makes a call to a person who is a U.S. resident, does a warrant need to be obtained?

OK, the FISA modifications apply to calls originating and terminating in foreign countries. So, the US resident would have to be abroad. If he was abroad, and wasn't the chief target, they may not know he was a US resident until after intercepting the call and investigating.

If that US resident were merely a legal alien, IDK if they have 4th amendment rights or not while abroad.

If they are US citizen, I would think they do.

What would happen if a US citizen was not the "chief target" and was caught up in foreign survielance by good faith accident (Got a call from UBL while abroad at his hotel room)? IDK.

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford
...
Look, I get the problem, and I get the argument, I just don't like this particular solution. It sounds alright until you really think about the power being given to the executive branch here. The "we" in "we reasonably believe" is just officials in the executive branch, and since they don't have to make the argument to a 3rd party, what substantial check is there on that power?

This law gives the executive branch the power to listen to communications inside the United States without a warrant, and the only check on that power is that they must reasonably believe that no US persons (NOT US citizens, it's two different groups) are involved. But who verifies that belief? The only REAL check is that legal action could be brought against them, after the fact, if you could prove that their belief was not reasonable.

My problem is not their authority or capability, it's the complete lack of judicial oversight into activities that could potentially involve infringing on the rights of US persons. Without a requirement that they demonstrate their case to a third party, there is really no guarantee WHAT they are doing. Am I the only person who's worried by that?

Uhh - read the text of the bill. There is not only the court oversight -there is Congressional oversight. (Sec.4 and Sec.5)

Are you sure YOU read the text of the bill? Because I did, and while I'm not a lawyer, I see nothing in there that provides for oversight on a case by case basis. "Semi-annual" reports about non-compliance with AG and DNI directives and the number of directives issued are NOT acceptable replacements for requiring a warrant from an impartial 3rd party in each and every situation. Perhaps oversight was the wrong word, I didn't mean it in the half-ass, Republican Congress from 2000-2006 sense, I meant judicial determinations made about each case based on the facts of that specific case...not a one page memo the AG pulls out of his ass every 6 months.

Yes, I read it(here). There is reporting to the court AND Congress. Sorry it is sec.3 and 4 in the house version it seems.

It doesn't matter what sections of the bill you're talking about, none of them require the executive branch to provide proof of anything on a case by case basis. Oversight of the general operation (which is all section 3 and 4 require) is better than nothing, but it is NOT a replacement for the warrant process.

Actually the court does review each case this amendment is applied - it's in the sections I stated. The court will determine if was reasonable to not consider this electronic survalence(which is what this amendment is doing).

I'm not seeing it, all I see is references to the court reviewing the procedures...not individual cases. Perhaps you could just quote the text you think applies to each case.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Before you wet yourself, I'd like to point out the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi. Unfortunately, a few turncoats joined the Repubs in shitting on the Fourth Amendment. Hopefully their Democratic opponents will use this to bludgeon them in the 2008 primaries.

For those of you kids that don't understand how the Senate and the House work....

the Dimocrat House and Senate leadership, along with the respective Dimocrat chairman of the various committee, have enormous control on what bills get submitted, what bills get voted out of committees, and what bills get brought up for a floor vote.

Furthermore, in the Senate, unless 60 votes are assured, ANY bill can be stopped by a single Senator putting a "hold" on it.

For anyone to suggest that a bill was passed by the current House and Senate, without the assent and guidance of the Dimocrat leadership is laughable. Of course this is P&N, where almost every post is laughable.

Nothing gets through the House and the Senate without the support of the Dimocrat leadership. Pelosi may have voted against it, but i assure you she made sure it passed. If a voice vote was called in the senate, it was to avoid having documentation that any individual senator voted for it. But again, any single senator can "hold" a bill so it never even gets voted on...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Before you wet yourself, I'd like to point out the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi. Unfortunately, a few turncoats joined the Repubs in shitting on the Fourth Amendment. Hopefully their Democratic opponents will use this to bludgeon them in the 2008 primaries.

For those of you kids that don't understand how the Senate and the House work....

the Dimocrat House and Senate leadership, along with the respective Dimocrat chairman of the various committee, have enormous control on what bills get submitted, what bills get voted out of committees, and what bills get brought up for a floor vote.

Furthermore, in the Senate, unless 60 votes are assured, ANY bill can be stopped by a single Senator putting a "hold" on it.

For anyone to suggest that a bill was passed by the current House and Senate, without the assent and guidance of the Dimocrat leadership is laughable. Of course this is P&N, where almost every post is laughable.

Nothing gets through the House and the Senate without the support of the Dimocrat leadership. Pelosi may have voted against it, but i assure you she made sure it passed. If a voice vote was called in the senate, it was to avoid having documentation that any individual senator voted for it. But again, any single senator can "hold" a bill so it never even gets voted on...

That's an interesting duhversion, but the FACT remains the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Fern

I'm wondering if either end of a call would equal a "chief target". IOW - if someone is under surveillance, and that person makes a call to a person who is a U.S. resident, does a warrant need to be obtained?

OK, I heard the answer to your question last night on the news. This bill supposedly has some detailed provisions covering the senario you pose. What happens if a US resident/citizen who is not a chief target (and no warrent exists for him)? Same as under other circumstances - the info is deleted, his/her name purged etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Before you wet yourself, I'd like to point out the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi. Unfortunately, a few turncoats joined the Repubs in shitting on the Fourth Amendment. Hopefully their Democratic opponents will use this to bludgeon them in the 2008 primaries.

For those of you kids that don't understand how the Senate and the House work....

the Dimocrat House and Senate leadership, along with the respective Dimocrat chairman of the various committee, have enormous control on what bills get submitted, what bills get voted out of committees, and what bills get brought up for a floor vote.

Furthermore, in the Senate, unless 60 votes are assured, ANY bill can be stopped by a single Senator putting a "hold" on it.

For anyone to suggest that a bill was passed by the current House and Senate, without the assent and guidance of the Dimocrat leadership is laughable. Of course this is P&N, where almost every post is laughable.

Nothing gets through the House and the Senate without the support of the Dimocrat leadership. Pelosi may have voted against it, but i assure you she made sure it passed. If a voice vote was called in the senate, it was to avoid having documentation that any individual senator voted for it. But again, any single senator can "hold" a bill so it never even gets voted on...

That's an interesting duhversion, but the FACT remains the overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against this bill, including Pelosi.

HS makes a good point. The bill couldn't have passed without Dem's support. So they managed to engineer it through while still being able to officially record a *no* vote, obviously to spin and pander to their electorate at a later time. (Oh, the blatant insincerity of it all)

While it might be politically clever, to somehow give them any real credit for an *official*, but purposefully meaningless, *no* vote is either disingenous or the product of *sheeple-like* thinking.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

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.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
Furthermore, in the Senate, unless 60 votes are assured, ANY bill can be stopped by a single Senator putting a "hold" on it.

Yeah and they did have their 60 so there is nothing Pelosi could do about it, your assertion that she made this happen in a roundabout way is absurd. Just because Republicans are cajoled into voting along party lines almost without exception doesn't mean the Democrats operate the same way.

 

[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...

 

[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, because as much as the talking heads love to spin it, political parties don't run for things...individuals do, and no Democrats are going to take the hit so the party can get "reelected", because if public opinion was really against this bill, the Democrats that DID vote for it would almost certainly NOT get reelected. And if public opinion supports this bill, the fact that it passed doesn't help Democrats seem strong on terror at all, since a majority of them voted against it and the individuals that voted against it can't point to the victory of the bill as a selling point for themselves.

Your truly awe-inspiring "analysis" aside, the simplest explanations tend to be the best...and the simplest explanation here is that some Dems WERE worried about being called "weak on terror", while most Democrats summoned the backbone to actually stand for something. And the Republicans did what Republicans do best, act like a bunch of tools and hope their supporters are too dumb to notice that the Republicans would confirm Osama bin Laden to the supreme court if their party leadership told them to.

 

[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".

 

[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.