Bush pushes FISA reform
Update: Press conference transcript is here.
***
President Bush has scheduled a press conference for 10:05am Eastern this morning to prod the Dems to pass permanent FISA reform.
David Reinhard watches while Pelosi’s House sleeps.
The blabbermouth Dems want wider access to classifed info. Via The Hill:
Liberal House Democrats are pushing for a closed session to discuss the legal underpinnings of President Bush’s intelligence surveillance program.
They believe that the more members know about it, the less likely they will be to support Bush’s wish to make it permanent.
“I haven’t heard anything in closed session that makes me think we need the Protect America Act,” said Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.), an Intelligence Committee member, referring to a White House-backed interim wiretapping bill that lapsed this month. “Or that FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], with modest modifications, isn’t the way to go into the future.”
The request for the closed session came in a letter coauthored by Holt and Reps. John Tierney (D-Mass.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Holt refused to confirm the letter, but other Democrats say it was brought up at Tuesday’s Democratic Caucus meeting.
The three want all members allowed to see documents that outline the administration’s legal opinions on the program. So far, only Intelligence and Judiciary Committee members have been allowed to see them.
The three believe it is impractical to have all members go to the secure offices of the Intelligence Committee to review the documents. Instead, they want a presentation before the whole House, but in a closed session because the information is classified.
It’s another stall tactic.
Boehner’s spokesman, Kevin Smith, derided the secret session proposal as a stalling tactic.
“There are clear rules and procedures for how Congress handles classified information,” Smith said. “This nonsense is nothing more than another stalling tactic from a bunch of liberals who don’t want to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe.”
Welcome to the backsliding.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Dems still Playing Politics with Our Safety, no remorse..
- Neocon News » Afternoon round up.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: FISA
But still want to sell (give?) the classified and sensitive information about our National Security to the NYT without being discovered.
What’s the over/under on the information’s transit time from Keith Ellison’s (D-IslaMN) hands to Al Qaeda’s hands?
Slip slidin’ away……
Going, going,……..
The “reform” Bush wants is to remove all checks and balances on his authority. Good for the House Democrats for finally standing up to him.
I sure would like to hear from our resident liberals on this site.
not.holding.my.breath
Of course they don’t want FISA reform. That way, the next time there’s an attack on the United States, they can conveniently point to a “failure in intelligence” and blame POTUS. For them, it’s a win-win situation. They get to “Blame Booosh!” and still have their way, like the bunch of spoiled little creeps they are.
No? How about the endless terrorist attacks that are ongoing around the world? How about the fact that the American people want, nay, expect their government to protect them? No, still not enough to convince you? Well, I don’t know what will. Crapweasel.
Be careful waht you ask for.
The Dems will be screaming it is Bush’s fault if we are attacked again.
Dems before another attack: “We don’t want you listening in.”
Dems after an attack: “Bush should have done more.”
lgm, don’t you ever get tired of being the MM.com idiot?
Hmmmmm? Care to back that up with “all checks and balances on his authority” you are insinuating, lgm?
Or, is this just an instance of drop in, make wild ambiguous allegations and run moments for you today?
Now, Soap, you asked to hear from the likes of lgm. And, you didn’t put any qualifiers like it had to be intelligent or specific on the request.
It’s my understand that a bill would have been passed with the President’s plans in place if he would have signed it without the retroactive immunity for telecom companies.
It’s hard to me to understand why, if this act is so integral for our safety, the President would refuse to sign it to protect the interests of private businesses who, if have nothing to hide(a borrowed phrase) wouldn’t need nor care about immunity.
Hope your city isn’t attacked even this day as this delay goes on LGM. That would be irony now wouldn’t it? Being attacked right after the demos blocked this type of intelligence. Enjoy your Sharia life LGM. I won’t be around to answer any questions till later LGM
Barry F.
I deserved that. Sorry.
lgm jumps in and says that congress is finally standing up to Bush. They are not standing up they are playing games with your (lgm) safety.
You may not care if you go up i a fire storm or your family keels over from some noxious gases. However I for one DO CARE about my family.
If Bush had any cajones he would call the Sgt at Arms, lock these political oppertunist in session. Brake out the cots and not let them leave untill they get their heads out of the dark hole they have sunk into.
Once again , much like the boarder its politica as usual. The public be damned as liong as we remain in our comfy jobs of power above the lowly American peasents.
OT-
Dont blame soap, bear and I have him so worked up over chicken fried steak and the Man breakfast his brain isnt working. all he has at his disposal is a vending machine with M&M’s and Pretzels in it….ha!
*Soap.turning.blue.from.holding.breath.* Especially if it had to be an intelligent comment.
I work in the switching office of a phone company. We’re not exactly a large office, but we handle almost a million calls a day. If you figure that there are literally billions of telephone conversations per day in the US alone, there simply aren’t enough people to monitor all those calls. So much for intrusion on your individual rights.
The calls are “Key-word” screened, which still leaves millions of calls to be processed. These calls are then matched against the calling party number and the called party number. If either of these numbers are on a watch list, THEN and ONLY then is the call sent to an analyst for human evaluation. Even then, there are probably several thousand calls to be checked. Additionally, the numbers on the screening list are NOT, I repeat NOT ordinary domestic phone numbers. They are very specifically numbers from (a) overseas, known to be used by terrorists, or (b) domestic numbers of groups known to have very close and specific terrorist ties.
If you have no overseas contacts who are on the watch list, or don’t belong to a group sponsoring terrorism, you will never have your calls monitored.
This “loss of individual freedoms” is a straw man.
Intelligence is only good if it is received in time to be acted on. Otherwise, it is called “hindsight,” which is always 20/20.
Honest people have nothing to fear from the FISA.
Because the likes of the ACLU, CAIR and other anti-American institutions would sue them in order to prevent our government from performing one of the VERY FEW jobs it has a legal right and responsibility to do.
History shows again and again!?
But FISA isn’t the issue. Even Rep. Holt states that “FISA [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act], with modest modifications, [is] the way to go into the future.”
Can I dog pile on Soap too? Oh, wait…
cpodug cuts soap some slack
Wartip,
Telecom companies have a legal obligation to accept and comply to requests that could be deemed by a reasonable person to be legal, no questions asked. Even more so, the immunity being requested is not for future actions but for past actions.
Therefore, the immunity being requested is to protect these companies from being responsible for actions that a reasonable person would deem to be illegal. Basically, it’s to protect them from handshake, back-office deals that they made with the government officials. Regardless of who sues them, I don’t think they should have the freedom to break the law.
A fundemental issue arises though.
At what point are private companies liable for ignoring the rights of private citizens in order to assist the federal government?
mpChops,
I am a billionaire and I am going to sue you for being stupid! You may not be but you will still have to spend a lot of money to defend yourself!
Nah. I get the urge to call them out from time to time myself, Soap.
But, we don’t have to go looking for drive-by trolling. They will eventually show up to make some senseless, ambiguous statement and then leave in the blink of an eye, most of the time.
See? I haven’t seen a response, yet. But, beware, we could get hit by another drive-by any minute now.
The bottom line is the democrap party has put our country at risk, again. I question their patriotism, and always have. Acquisition of power means more to them than our nation.
Part of the problem as usual is the disinformation (LIES) from the left. No surprise but people are actually falling for the insanity that this is an invasion of privacy and helping big telecoms avoid lawsuits.
I recently had a friendly argument with a woman who believed the government was listening to her conversations with her grandaughter. I was beyond words to think that brain dead people think the government has the resources let alone the interest to do that. Unbelievable!!
The left is so desperate to lose this war and blame it on Bush and no lie is out of bounds. Any come back from our side and it is instant fear-mongering.
I understand Obama just fired back at McCain claiming AlQaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we invaded. Zarquai ring a bell Barry? How about the terrorist training camps we destroyed.
Even with telecoms in the right, Chops, when they get sued, they are still going to be out huge sums of money defending frivolous suits, just for doing the right thing and trying to help the Feds intercept terrorist communications and prevent attacks on Americans that can be prevented.
And, I will say what others have said here and I have said on similar threads many times here before:
“I call neither known or suspected terrorists nor terrorist supporting organizations and have nothing to hide.“
So we grant them immunity from criminal cases so they won’t have to spend money defending themselves against civil suits?
mpChops
YES!!!
Sorry about the caps and exclamation points but I am exasperated!
At the same point anyone does. You assume of course that these anti-American organizations are reasonable as you define a “reasonable” person. I seriously doubt that any of them fall into the category as most people here would understand it. Furthermore, I am one of the few American citizens directly affected by this and honestly I would be more concerned if my communications were NOT monitored.
If at such a time this power is abused by either the telecoms or the government to actively impede the rights of American citizens for any cause other than the security of our nation, it should be prosecuted. Will it?
Tax audits? Whitewater? 90K of FBI marked bills in the freezer? Acts of sedition? And this list could continue ad infinitum ad nauseum … Which of these would be “reasonably” construed to be legal? Which of these abuses are overlooked on a regular basis?
How about instances where the government does actively infringe on the rights of We the People? Whether we are talking about the abuse of imminent domain to take property from one private citizen and give it to another or the government controlling how we raise our children or what legal activities we allow in our own homes or businesses? Those are still and will remain the primary concern for me. Not some computer looking for a select few keywords in overseas communications.
The key word in this conversation is reasonable and that is based on “reason” which seems to have been lost to a vast majority of the people in this nation.
Just my opinion but it seems to be based on some pretty substantive facts if you ask me.
I’d like to rise in unanimus support and consent for what Vince said in 28.
I’ll add the qualifier that we wish them protected from what would be nuisance lawsuits filed by the likes of the ACLU.
The phone companies would not be exempt from answering for any bad behavior, just from the nuisance lawsuits that result from Terrorist Survelence activity.
I see mpChops still isn’t getting it right - I think he doesn’t want to get it right because that would interfere with his ideology.
The telecoms are in NO danger of being criminally prosecuted. The immunity is from civil lawsuits designed to drive them out of business for having done nothing wrong in the first place.
Why are the democrats and lgm and mpChops so concerned that the terrorists have secure communications in the first place? Do they know something that we don’t?
We’re taking that for granted by allowing them to be immune to investigations that determine whether they were in the right or not.
That’s one way to interpret that. A more disturbing way to interpret that(in my opinion) is that they are right regardless of if their actions were legal or illegal due to the goverment’s assertion that they were “trying to help the Feds intercept terrorist communications and prevent attacks on Americans”. I think you’re arguing the former than the latter though.
Ultimately, that’s a relatively irellevant point. Personally, I don’t do drugs. Never have and don’t see a reason why I would. However, I would fight a program that would allow police to randomly drug test me in the streets because they beleive that a person I know might do drugs.
Even more so, your statement cannot be accurate. You cannot possibly know if you call suspected terrorists. The Fort Dix 6 worked at a pizza place. Any person who has ever ordered a pizza from that place called a suspected terrorist, or at the very least, called a terrorist supporting organization. According to some public discourse, the ACLU is a terrorist supporting organization. Organizations that support the ACLU are terrorist supporting organization. The web quickly expands if the critera is that simple.
Ultimately, the statement is reduced to “I have nothing to hide”. Are you comfortable with that?
Vince,
To change gears slightly, I’m sure you’re aware of the Tuskegee experiment. In that situation, should anyone have been held criminally liable? Financially liable? Keep in mind that they were doing these experiements to combat a very deadly disease of the day.
But that’s the whole point, Wartip. You agree that abuse should be prosecuted, but how can it ever possibly be prosecuted if those that are abusing the power are granted immunity?
But that’s not true. The phone companies would be exempt from answering for any criminal charges/bad behavoir. I would support a bill that had such qualifiers; ones that protected them from civil suits if they prevailed in criminal cases. However, the immunity that the President wants to grant them is immunity accross the board.
That’s not true. The telecoms are in danger of being criminally prosecuted if they agreed to backroom deals with goverment officials, as it seems that some initial agreements were passed. Basically, it comes down to this: If they had gotten something on paper, they probably wouldn’t have a problem. The fact that they didn’t is what is leaving the open to litigation.
mpChops
To change gears slightly? What the heck does the Tuskegee experiment have to do with this thread?
I’ll have a pizza with a little anthrax on the side. If the feds were listening in and heard that “key word” I would expect to get a visit! You are sooooo silly!
mpCHops,
I’d like to point out an error in your arguement from post 33.
The Fort Dix 6 were acting as terrorists, but the pizza joint they worked at was not overseas. One very key point to this bill is that at least one of the callers must be out-of-country, otherwise, the wiretap would require a judge and warrant.
If I am wrong in this point, please let me know.
Additionally, if I were criminally harmed by a telecom’s actions and I was not at the time talking to a terrorist, they may very well not have their immunity. Not all immunity is absolute. If they step out of bounds, and behave criminally against us, they probably can be sued in civil court successfully.
I bet after the next terrorist attack mpChops will be screaming “Why didn’t the evil Bushie connect the dots!?!”
those being the same dots he doesn’t even want Bush to have.
So, if we do not grant immunity, who benefits? One group - lawyers. Yep, I am up for that. Then, the cost of fighting lawyers frivolous cases gets passed down to the consumer (you don’t think they are going to lose profits do you?). Think tort law and the insurance industry if you think this will not happen. Each frivolous case has to be dealt with and costs money.
All that being said, not one case of ANYBODY’S rights being violated has been brought forth.
Feed the lawyers if you like. I thank GOD there are some who see the big picture.
For some strange reason, I highly doubt that the Feds have the local pizzerias on their watch list of known or suspected terrorists’ numbers. But, if they do and it is the one in my neighborhood, I want a large pizza with the works. Oh! Hold the anchioves, please.
Even if it were reduced to that, with just your opinion, I am “comfortable” with the knowledge that I have nothing to hide.
What the heck?
Would you like some apples to go with your apples or oranges to go with your oranges, so you might actually be able to provide an adequate example next time, Chops?
I think you’re right. Bad example. Damn, and I thought that was a good one.
Not all immunity is absolute, but the lanugage is the bill is vauge enough to be so. Basically, it absolves them off all wiretaps between 9/11 and Jan, 2007. I have been convinced that even offering them immunity in the few months after 9/11 could be justified. But well into 2004, 2005 and 2006?
If I call someone on a “watch list” by accident, I will be weeded out as I am an upstanding citizen. I am good with that. If you call someone on a “watch list” on purpose because you are planning something, I hope they bust down your door and drag you off!
I hope that is simple enough!
BTW, if the latter happened to my neighbor, I would be in the street clapping!
Two points:
1. House Democrats were prepared to give Bush all the authorities he was asking for. What they refused to give him was retroactive immunity for possible criminal acts. If Bush were such a great patriot, he would take the deal. But he didn’t, which tells me he has some criminality to hide.
2. There is a tradeoff between freedom and safety. Americans long have sacrificed safety for freedom. That’s why Chicago police didn’t just go shoot Al Capone. If you guys are so chicken, you should stop driving. Drunk drivers kill more Americans than terrorists.
Trust me, I hate lawyers as much as the next man. I hape the litigious nature of our culture just as much. A person slips on a curb and the ready to sue everybody. I hate it.
Yes, the lawyers might benefit, but the benefit isn’t for the lawyers. Either way, lawyers aren’t going to be hurting. This isn’t going to end predatory practices one way or the other.
If we really wanted to screw the lawyers, we’d end the practice of civil cases completely. But I doubt that’d be a good way to go.
Again, it’s reduced to “I have nothing to hide”. The other part just adds…flavor.
Just when I thought he couldn’t say something more stoopid, he proves me wrong again.
On February 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am, lgm said:
lgm…. Now you see him. Now you don’t.
Eternal optomist that I am, I am heartened by the thought that should we lose a city or two (pick one, place your bets) they’ll be full of these sorts of Democrats. Quid pro quo.
Scant comfort but maybe Schumer will be at home playing host to Barney and Hilary and Mikey. One can only hope
Help I need legal advice from the drive bys.
Can I sue a liberal for bruiseing my knuckles on their face. After all if their face had not impeded the flight of my fist I never would have hurt my knuckles.
I am still waiting for a definition of “reasonable”?
Maybe. Maybe not. I guess given the Fort Dix suspects, they should have.
Listen, I understand that wiretaps are useful and needed. My issue comes when people do illegal things because they feel it’s for a greater good. Fine. But those who act that way must be willing to face the consequences for their actions.
LOL
Surely you didn’t expect better did you, Soap.
Simply because you fail to see the equivlence doesn’t make the example inadequate. In both situations, we had organizations, in the most positive view, trying to protect the general public from harm. In one situation, their actions were illegal and grossly unethical. Barry, should they have been held responsible for their illegal and unethical actions, given their goals?
lgm
A trade off between freedom and safety? If I want to be safe I can’t be free? If I want to be free I can’t be safe?
If Al Capone came up my walk and tried to get in my house, I’d have the freedom to shoot him so I would be safe.
Isn’t this fun making up stupid examples?
Like I stated yesterday after the next mass casualty attack charge the sociopaths in Congress with treason and sedition, give them a fair trail, followed by a timely execution by firing squad on the capital building steps (provided DC is not the target unless they survived). I will even spring for the ammunition for the firing parties. We can’t prevent the next attack unless we can connect the dots and right now we can’t legally collect the dots to connect.
Al Capone had to empty a vault first so some other idiot could make a big deal out of an empty vault.
Okay, that has nothing to do with anything. It was my attempt a being a drive-by troll. How did I do?
Reasonable generally follows the rule of the majority. It is what they think it is. If the ACLU is as fringe as some would make it believe, their actions would be considered unreasonable the majority of the public and thus, ignored.
Look, Chops. The number (of a known or suspected terrorist or terrorist supporting organization) to which the call has to be placed or from which it originates has to come from outside the U.S. to even throw up the red flag for anything to happen.
So, what do you foresee as being illegal in regards to the telecoms submitting to the Feds for a request of information in those situations? Domestic to domestic calls will still require a court order to get the information.
Like destroying private property so that supplies cannot be sent to our troops in the field?
Like allowing foreign invaders to cross our borders at will?
Like committing crimes while in public office?
That would be a good start wouldn’t it?
I am not saying that abuse does not occur but we need to prosecute abuse and dismiss frivolous lawsuits by institutions that have a vehement anti-American agenda (Or others like somebody getting a cup of coffee that was actually hot)
Definition of reasonable in 4, 3, 2, … one and three quarters …
Darn Barry and SHoward #39, you guys just have to be the voice of reason here huh?!
I was trying to think of something funny for drunk drivers but you’ve taken all the fun out of it.
Chops, it isn’t a matter of failing to see an equivalence. If you are going to provide an equivalence, it needs to be direct, instead of some far-fetched attempt. In your example, there were actual victims. In the topic of this thread, there are none…nada…nunca…zilch.
What happened in the example you try to give was wrong but it is not an acceptable example of wrong-doing to which to try and draw a comparison with the topic of this thread. Actual individuals were harmed in your example, thus, victims are present. With the topic of this thread, no one has come forward and shown that their privacy infringed upon, thus, no victims.
Hmmmm? Needs some work, Soap. Look at some more of lgm’s posts and try to imitate his style a little more.
Ok, my apologies on the definition timeline. You beat me to it while I was on another thread.
That being said … we live in a Constitutional Republic and a Nation of Laws. We do NOT live in a democracy of mob rule. The majority does NOT have a majority voice simply for that very reason.
Is it reasonable to prosecute politicians who have ninety-thousand dollars or marked money in their freezer and on down the line?
My point is that reason is not always construed equally. If I take something from you to give it to somebody else who has less, is that “reasonable” to you?
According to our government, it is not only reasonable but expected.
What if I shoot someone who is attacking you or your family? Would that be a reasonable action on my part? According to the victim or their family, it probably would not be in today’s society. In your eyes, if it protected you or the ones you loved, it may very well have been a very reasonable and well-defined action since I prevented the loss of life and injury to you and yours.
We seem to have lost our perspective as a nation and that saddens me. I am outside of the country and I am affected and it does not bother me. Were I still in the country, there are far too many other (very real) abuses for me to concern myself with ones that only deal with individuals still in other countries.
Just use the voice of Geritol Rivers … they are only guilty of enjoying a few beers? Isn’t that what he said?
Granted, it is only funny until you get to the very real and very tragic results.
Well, Vince, re #63, I can’t quite think of anything funny about drunk driving, having lost friends to it and all.
But I can say this: Trolls come from Fornicating While Intoxicated, FWI. It’s a condition where precautions aren’t taken, so you wind up with idiots.
Since we are playing the semantics game I shall set up my own scenario:
Soap is in the mall with his family. He is packing his P3AT (or maybe his P-11 or both) as he has his CCP. A gunman open fires and starts killing people but Soap just stands there doing nothing even when he has a clear shot and can stop the perp. Another 30 people go down while he does nothing. Later in an interview when asked why he did nothing even when he had the chance to drop the perp and save lives he says, “Some people might have thought I was using the wrong tool for the job. The gun manufacturer might have been held liable. I didn’t know the people so, who cares. I carry to protect myself and I was not in danger, the government can protect the rest of you.”
In reality, I drop the perp and people around are thankful.
Yep, let them listen in and let it be “I have nothing to hide”. Search my bags before I get on a plane because, “I have nothing to hide”. I have given up nothing.
Just for the record, Soap, if I am in that mall and you can drop the perp’, please do. I know I will be thankful.
According to the skewed world view espoused here, soap, you would immediately be sued for violating the perp’s rights. UNLESS you were given immunity - and we can’t give you immunity because you must be liable for illegal acts you may have committed in stopping the perp.
BF,
Sadly, there was a time you could go into a mall or a church and not worry. Today I pack because our world has changed. People refuse to think that for even one second there are others out there who want to kill them just to kill them - and without remorse. These same people do not want the proper tools use to protect them. Idiots. I have to pack now because our Reps rested on there asses and are working overtime to keep from using those tools.
When the next attack comes what will they say (beside the obvious – it is Bush’s fault)? Sorry, we were wrong? A lot of good that will do.
Yep, Soap, the bad guy might be killing people, but you dare not discharge a firearm in a public place.
I know, it doesn’t seem to make sense, but i’m sure some Legal Troll will come along and tell us it does.
cpodug,
Great summary.
It’ll take longer to respond to the others, but this caught my eye.
How about if they search your home?
All are welcome. I have let people in I have a dislike for. I would let them in if I thought it would help clear me and my family - no problem. I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE!
Why is having nothing to hide, being an upstanding citizen, and letting the people who want to protect us by using the proper tools so hard for some to wrap their heads around?
And here we find ourselves back in the world of semantics. I’m sure you would have no problem letting them in. But they’re not asking for your permission to do anything. No, what they’re going to do is enter your home without your knowledge because they made an agreement with your realtor, whereas your realtor agreed to open the door. You still have no problem with that because you have nothing to hide?
Hey, Soap. I didn’t know you were selling you house.
This thread is a riot. Lol
To say phone tapping a very select, tiny perecentage of phone lines of known terrorists/organizations is equal to the federal government invading your home is ludicrous.
Oh, and lgm, your drive-by trolling tactics are really lame.
This thread is a riot. Lol
To say phone tapping a very select, tiny percentage of phone lines of known terrorists/organizations is equal to the federal government invading your home is ludicrous.
Oh, and lgm, your drive-by trolling tactics are really lame.
Okay chops. So we are going to play the “what if” game all day. What if I am your neighbor and I am planning on blowing up the school your children go to. You DON’T want to know. You don’t want my plan to fail? You don’t want my rights violated? If there were people who suspected I were to do such a thing you would WANT them to remain silent.
If I had something to hide, do you think a realtor would be involved? SHEESH. Here, put a lock box on my door so someone can have access to the explosives I have around.
You can do better.
I think that is as ridiculous as saying that not granting immunity to the telcom industry will generally stop man from helping fellow man and lead to mass murders.
Regardless, your reasoning doesn’t hold. You argue that its insignificant as it may only effect a small number of people. That doesn’t make it any more right or wrong to the people that if does effect. Remember, the Tuskegee experiments were only do on 400 people, a miniscule fraction of the population.
BF,
As a matter of fact, I am so I can get back to my work in Haiti.
SEE
I have nothing to hide. Come on by and make me an offer.
Soap,
I’m questioning the logic of “I have nothing to hide”. You use that as a cornerstone in your argument, and I’m questioning if that’s a legitimate defense for allowing goverment action.
At the very least, I found a situation in which you feel as though “I have nothing to hide” is not enough. Therefore, we can agree that “I have nothing to hide” is not universal; it does not address every transgression that may occur. Our only difference is determining the line at which it doesn’t matter if you have something to hide. At the airport, if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn’t mind. At home, we agree that regardless of if you have something to hide or not, they(the government, big brother..whatever) shouldn’t be able to take certain actions. Our differences are in the middle of those extremes.
Chops,
You say that and still pay your taxes?
P.S. Yes, I pay mine and I have NO controll over that as well.
New sod, even. Nice.
Uh yeah, I pay my taxes. Didn’t know I had a choice.
What’s the relation?
Hey, Soap. I just noticed that link at the bottom right side where I can “hear about this property in English or Spanish.” That might come in handy given the failings of Washington on controlling illegal immigration.
Sorry, I just had to mention, when I finally saw it.
One (taxes) you have no control over. That is Big Brother doing what he wants when he wants to in your back pocket, home, vehicle, and soon the air you breathe (taxing carbon use). Sure, you have representatives who protect you (tongue in cheek – big time) from taxation without representation. Have you ever run a corporation? Talk about taxes. My biggest thing is the personal tangible property tax. You buy something with after tax dollars, you pay sales tax on it, and you are taxed for using said property in your business.
The other (listening in) you want control over even though you have representatives who are trying to protect you from people who want to see you dead. Will there be mistakes made? Sure. Better to make a few mistakes while trying than the alternative.
In the big scheme of things, listening in for the protection of our nation seems a bit of a no-brainer unless you have something to hide. If you do not, what is the problem?
There is always more to fear from dictators like Bush than from outside enemies. The Founding Fathers understood this, which is why we have a Bill of Rights.
If we lose these rights, then the kinds of things you have to hide will be criticism of Big Busher or Big Obama.
You are an idiot. If I get banned for saying it, so be it. Be glad I am not a moderator or you would be gone for such a statement.
Personally, I understand and support the wiretaps. I support the FISA law, and I even support some of the additions to the law. I also understand that mistakes will be made, as will happen in any circumstance. However, the line I am putting is that when mistakes are made, we investigate these mistakes and determine if they malicious actions or innocuous mistakes. Granting immunity to those involved prohibits us from scrutinizing those mistakes.
With anything, there has to be limits. The problem with the government’s actions is that the limits are secret, and we are literally, literally taking them at their word.
Soap,
Bush isn’t a dictator. But is Alphonse statement really worse that secondsight wishing death on American Senators?
Some rhetoric on both sides is ridiculous.
Why is FISA so important and building a fence so unimportant. Our security is a joke to Bush.
Chops,
Then let him go where he will be appreciated. If I were to defend Bush or call someone out for that statement on some of those other sites, I would be banned in a second.
Soap, mp - calm down, guys. This has gone on far enough. You both seem to agree that surveillance is necessary. mp, as I understand it, your real problem is the blanket immunity.
Think about it for a minute. Considering the admitted intelligence failures before 9/11, do you honestly believe that the government had a handy-dandy list of the phone numbers of AQ and other terrorists? And they just popped over to the phone companies, gave them the list, and then told them to monitor those numbers? Get real.
It took much time and effort to develop those lists. During the process, innocent people might have been listened to, but the list was developed - and is probably being constantly updated and revised, based on intelligence.
Would you like the NYT to publish that list, mp? There are some things that the government absolutely HAS to keep secret in the interests of national security, whether you like it or not.
Why, then, should the phone companies be put in a position of liability for helping the government develop a list of known and/or suspected terrorists and the people they contact? ESPECIALLY when they are outside the country, not here, even though they may be calling here?
Relax - my only concern is that they are getting the intel in enough time to make it useful. Finding out tomorrow about a planned attack today might not work out too well. I would hope they found out about it yesterday, in enough time to stop it.
I thought it might be fun to drive by again, . . . so here I am. Here’s a progress report:
Soap says he doesn’t need the fourth amendment. He wants only the second amendment, and the warm gun.
Nobody got the point that we put up with Al Capone and his crime organization because of our basic respect for rights and the constitution. Maybe a little coffee would help.
I called wingers CHICKEN for being so concerned with safety that they would disregard the constitution.
cpodug,
I think I’ve answered this, or a variation of this, question before, but to be short:
No one should be above accountability. As uneven as it can be at times, that whole idea of checks and balances that were placed in our Constitution exists so no entity could be above acountablility regardless of their actions. You are basically arguing that the ends justify the means. I reject that. While the ends may mitigate the means, we, as the American public, should be able to look at both and come to that conclusion. At times, given the circumstance, secrets must be maintained and it’s up to our elected officials to come to that determination as our representatives, and the Supreme Court to maintain that Constitutionality of those decisions.
But that cannot occur if we hand out blanket immunity because the segment of f the government that asked to do it supports the immunity. Of course they support it, but where’s the oversight in that? Exactly where, in this process, are the laws of the country and the rights of its citizens being represented?
It’s not simply a question of “innocent people being listened it”. It’s a question of how much authority does the executive branch have to break the laws of the country, and how much culability do private companies have to assist the goverment in doing so.
I’m not assuming that they’re automatically guilty of horrible things, but immunity will prevent us from even being able to investigate.
There are definitely things that the goverment has to keep secret. The actions of private industry to assist the goverment in possibly illegal actions isn’t one of them.
Isn’t it interesting a liberal troll will stop by and rub the Constitution in our faces and leave? Like that is what the Constitution is about?
Changing world, changing times. I like my Forth Amendment rights just fine. Funny how the Constitution is amended without that being an issue.
Our Founding Fathers did not have the foresight to understand the communications infrastructure that exists today. Nor could they have imagined that passenger aircraft would be used as bombs (unless you are a denier then – Boosh blew up the buildings).
The Constitution was written for the protection of citizens. That means we use all means necessary to protect them. Unfortunately, there are groups who would use to the laws to circumvent the ability to use said tools and THAT is the alleged problem with immunity. The immunity is to protect our abilities not an alleged crime between Bush and the telecommunications companies (which is all there is to go on, alleged – by the Dimocraps who are using fear to perpetuate what they are really doing – a power grab). We do not need to waste resources in the courts where lawyers will make millions placing ads on TV: “If you think you might be a victim of an illegal wire tap call Butthead & As_hat, attorneys at law. We are here to keep you safe.
No thanks.
.
How do we protect the citizens from those who have immunity granted to them?
You mean like terrorists? I should think you would be more worried about them then an alleged illegal activity. Think about it. They could care less about immunity, they want to die killing us and here we are debating immunity over something that is alleged.
Where are the victims? As soon as you open the door to “victimhood”. They will be crawling out from under every rock in America – led by attorneys who want to help.
This whole thing is nothing more than a power grab. If it were not immunity, it would be something else and Dingy Harry so much as admitted it.
That’s a rather false dichotomy. I firmly believe that we can hold people accountable for their actions and fight terrorism at the same time. The immunity is retroactive anyway. It’ll change nothing in the way the President even wants to fight terrorism in the future.
Regarding this being a power grab, I can see nothing more powerful than being able to act and not be responsible for their actions. I agree with you. This is very much a power grab.
I do think its ironic that you say “the Dimocraps are using fear to perpetuate what they are really doing – a power grab” and defend the goverment’s request by saying that “I should think you would be more worried about them then an alleged illegal activity.”
On-my-soap-box said (#100):
I don’t leave. I’m with you always, like Tinkerbell. What do you mean about having the Constitution “rubbed in your face”? Is that the same as being reminded that it’s the law?
Bue earlier you said (#76)
Then:
First, Democrap is sophomoric (look it up). Second, scare tactics are a Bush special. All the CHICKENS of America fall for it. I’m mot at all worried that Osamah Bin Laden and Hugo Chavez will march down the streets of Topeka forcing women to wear Burkas and dance to Latin music.
Well, we are making progress. lgm at least recognizes that he is is drive-by trolling.
lgm,
I will take it slow as you are a liberal.
Nobody needs reminding about the Constitution. You, however, just use it as an attempt to rub the Second and Forth Amendments.
If they are welcome, how does that affect my Fourth Amendment right? If they bust in on accident (and that has happened from time to time even before FISA and 9/11 and dare I say will happen in the future as well), they will make it right and I have the option to bring a complaint if they do not. I think you will find that in almost every case of accidental entry, there was a settlement. You would be hard pressed to find otherwise.
Who blew the whistle – Dimocraps. Who is stalling – Dimocraps. Who does it help? Me? I think not.
Yo, dum-dum. They are not going to march down the streets. They fly planes into buildings. They gas people. They will use any means to kill you.
Get a freakin clue.
Cluck, cluck.
ROFLMAO
Had I had drink in my mouth, my computer would be ruined! Ruined, I tell you! Too funny, Soap.
The temptation is so great to take that and run with it. But, I must exercise some self-restraint, even when it is just handed to me like that.
I feel your pain Barry, I feel you pain. That would be waaaaaayyyy too easy.
On February 28th, 2008 at 3:36 pm,
Nice try chops – I just caught this. I am going to believe you misread. The “them” was referring to terrorists. Please go back and read it (#102).
Through all of this is one constant - lgm and mpChops want the terrorists to have secure communications so that after the next attack they can blame Bush for not connecting the dots that they refused to let him have.
A few facts:
1) There has been no illegal activity by the telecoms in cooperating with the Bush administration in intercepting terrorist communications. If there had been, the justus department - the same ones who threw the book at the two border agents Ramos and Compean - would have beaten a path to the door of the courtroom to get convictions against the said telecoms.
The immunity is to prevent civil lawsuits designed to extort millions in damages for crimes that never occurred.
2) The Bush administration isn’t spying on Americans.
If bin laden calls mullah omar - and the call is routed through the United States - that is the issue in discussion. That is what we are trying to intercept - not if lgm or mpChops calls the local pizza place ordering pizza. Nobody cares if lgm or mpChops orders pizza. We care a lot if bin laden calls mullah omar and orders a hit on a fat, juicy American target.
3) People who are not citizens of the United States do not have the same rights under the US Constitution as people who are citizens. This one should be obvious.
Speaking of Amendments how is LGM on the 2nd Amendment? I would suspect he is against it and would want guns banned. My very liberal sister who is against guns was robbed by gun point 2 weeks ago in her apartment. Now she has a gun, gun permit and has taken shooting lessons. When libs get confronted by reality they get a litte more conservative.
Still waiting LGM I thought you never leave well I know you appreciate your 4th amendment rights. How will your Muslim friends treat that once they are in power? As always I am just wondering.
garyt said:
Personally, I think the second amendment refers to National Guard — “A well regulated militia …”. I think the framers made it ambiguous as a compromise because they couldn’t agree.
The US is in no danger of being taken over by my Muslim friends. Even your friend soap agrees:
If you can’t get your paranoia straight, how can you expect me to?
OK — got to go now.
I have a suggestion on how we might get their attention…
Condom Campaign