The new found disdain among Republicans for NSA overreach

[ProSense]

Take Congressman Sensenbrenner's sudden claims that the Patriot Act, which he co-authored, isn't being adhered to.

This is a guy who voted for the Protect America Act, which legalized Bush's illegal eavesdropping.

Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

Senator Mitch McConnell introduced the act on August 1, 2007, during the 110th United States Congress. On August 3, it was passed in the Senate with an amendment, 60–28 (record vote number 309).[12] On August 4, it passed the House of Representatives 227-183 (roll number 836).[12] On August 5, it was signed by President Bush, becoming Public Law No. 110-055. On February 17, 2008, it expired due to sunset provision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#Legislative_history

The amendments to FISA made by the Act expire 180 days after enactment, except that any order in effect on the date of enactment remains in effect until the date of expiration of such order and such orders can be reauthorized by the FISA Court.”[38] The Act expired on February 17, 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act#Protect_America_Act_of_2007

Here's Bush's statement at the time: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080214-4.html

That act expired. Sensenbrenner recently voted to extend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 for five years.

Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll569.xml

He also voted for the Defense Authorization bill yesterday: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll414.xml

Only eight Republicans voted against it.

Sensenbrenner is an opportunist, and so are a lot of the Republicans who voted for the Amash-Conyers amendment.

[ProSense]

3. Republicans

"Were they wrong then and right this time? Wrong both times?"

...support spying. If they can get away with illegally, that's fine by them, especially when the President is a Republican. If caught, and have to make adjustment, they'll support what they can get.

If the opportunity presents itself to use it as a political tool against a Democratic administration, they have no problem being hypocrites.

They were wrong to support illegal activities, and they are wrong to pretend that they care about overreach. There is a reason the bill failed last night, they have no intention of curbing the programs.

Let me ask you a question:

Were they right to legalize the illegal activities?

Here's another question: Do you think there is a difference between supporting illegal activities and supporting attempts to rein them in?

[pscot]

2. Tsk, tsk. That's not very bi-partisan

[Waiting For Everyman]

4. What kind of pretzel logic bullshit is this now?

Are you actually trying to say that Sensenbrenner is only voting to reign in the NSA to make Obama look bad?

Really?

[ProSense]

6. No, Sensenbrenner is a genuine guy. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

5. Hate to boost this turd

but I just have to comment on how failtastic it is.

No amount of cuckoo can obscure this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3337088

[ProSense]

7. No amount of obfuscation is going to change that Sensenbrenner supported Bush's illegal activities.

Thanks for kicking the thread.

[sabrina 1]

8. Or that Obama once opposed them. They're politicians, be 'pragmatic' and if the way to get them

on our side is to pretend to be on the other side, then let's do that because apparently, according to you, if they think Democrats are on one side, they will be on the other.

If we had only known this, instead of opposing Bush's 'Surveillance' state, we should have supported it?

All I know is, if Sensenbrenner is even pretending now to have some sense, and see things our way, that's a good thing, right? Because we don't need his soul to end Bush's abuses of powers, we need what we always needed, his VOTE and his influence on other VOTES.

Liberals, too idealistic to accept victory when it's starting them in the face, has always been the charge.

Well this Liberal doesn't much care why we are finally moving Republicans to vote our way, after all we've been told over and over that 'we can't do anything without them', I am very happy to get the votes even if we have to PRETEND we don't like them.

Is that what Dems are doing now by voting against what we have tried to do for a decade? Fool Republicans? Because nothing else makes any sense to me. Dems should have unanimously voted for that bill, but they didn't, why?

[ProSense]

10. So

"Your claim was baseless."

...Sensenbrenner didn't vote for the Protect America Act: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

Do you support that act?

[ProSense]

15. No rights have been violated By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (2006)

No rights have been violated

By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations.

Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the Patriot Act provisions Congress is renewing.

Building upon this stellar record, congressional negotiators added more than 30 civil liberty safeguards not included in current law to ensure that the Patriot Act's authorities would not be abused in the future. Remarkably, that's still not enough for some.

So what has the Patriot Act done? It has been a tremendous asset in helping thwart other terrorist attacks. The Justice Department and other agencies have properly utilized these new tools to detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist cells in New York, Virginia and Oregon before they strike. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has charged hundreds of defendants, of whom more than half have been convicted or pleaded guilty, as a result of terrorism-related investigations.

- more -

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-01-opposing-view_x.htm

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

[Waiting For Everyman]

14. Sensenbrenner did something you should consider doing too.

He processed new information and changed his mind, and jumped off of one of these...

Train to Nowhere

[ProSense]

16. I'm doing something "you should consider doing too":

not buying into the faux outrage and hypocrisy of a Republican tool.

[Waiting For Everyman]

19. A tool is a tool Repub or Dem, look in the mirror.

There's nothing faux about being on the edge of losing the 1st and 4th Amendments. That's the definition of serious.

[ProSense]

20. I'm not the one defending Sensenbrenner. n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

22. The author of the Patriot Act voting to reign in the NSA

is something that you can't get around, no way, no how. Fact is, if he says it's gone farther than it should have, he is the authority on the subject. You can try to throw confusion all around that, but you can't overcome it. That seals the argument. I think you're going to find that the Congress will eventually have to admit that too.

Even if the Congress doesn't, and no restraining bill is passed, several knowledgeable members including Sensenbrenner, have repeatedly said that Section 215 of the Patriot Act will not be reauthorized in 2015. Am I grateful for that, and for the Republican votes against the NSA -- oh you bet!

Yes, I'll choose the 4th Amendment over Obama looking good. Of course. Not to, would be insane. And that's the problem I have with your position. It's nuts.

[ProSense]

23. He's a disingenuous hypocrite. Unlike Wyden, for example, who voted against the FISA extention. n/t

[Waiting For Everyman]

26. See #24

[ProSense]

24. In case you missed it: No rights have been violated By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (2006)

No rights have been violated

By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations.

Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the Patriot Act provisions Congress is renewing.

Building upon this stellar record, congressional negotiators added more than 30 civil liberty safeguards not included in current law to ensure that the Patriot Act's authorities would not be abused in the future. Remarkably, that's still not enough for some.

So what has the Patriot Act done? It has been a tremendous asset in helping thwart other terrorist attacks. The Justice Department and other agencies have properly utilized these new tools to detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist cells in New York, Virginia and Oregon before they strike. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has charged hundreds of defendants, of whom more than half have been convicted or pleaded guilty, as a result of terrorism-related investigations.

- more -

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-01-opposing-view_x.htm

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. In case you forgot -- new information came to light (remember Snowden?) nt

[ProSense]

28. If

"In case you forgot -- new information came to light (remember Snowden?) "

...Wyden and other members of Congressional Intelligence Committees knew enough to express concern and vote against FISA, why didn't Sensenbrenner?

Also, how do you reconcile his latest outrage with complete denial of any wrongdoing when Bush's illegal spying was exposed?

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. I don't think it's necessary

for me to know every thought Sensenbrenner ever had, in order to approve of his vote.

Sensenbrenner said in the hearing that his committee held last week, that the plain meaning of the Patriot Act is what he meant and what he thought was authorized. Because of the secret proceedings of the FISA court, it did not become clear until Snowden's leaks, that the NSA had persuaded the FISA court to vastly broaden the powers in the Patriot Act way beyond anything that could've ever been imagined. He wants it stopped and corrected, back to what was originally meant. I don't find that hard to understand.

As to why Wyden knew this and he didn't, I don't know because he hasn't said (that I know of). Maybe Widen told him this was going on, and he didn't believe it. I could be wrong, but I don't think Sensenbrenner has the same access to secret material that Wyden does.

[ProSense]

30. The fact is

"I don't think it's necessary for me to know every thought Sensenbrenner ever had, in order to approve of his vote. "

...you cannot reconcile the claim about "new information" with his latest outrage after his complete denial of any wrongdoing when Bush's illegal spying was exposed.

[Waiting For Everyman]

31. Sure I can.

He's outraged at finding out that his legislation was turned into something entirely different, and then all the NSA briefers LIED to him about how everything was just as it should be, when in fact it absolutely was not.

Anybody in his position would feel played, and would be outraged. No mystery there.

[ProSense]

32. Then

"He's outraged at finding out that his legislation was turned into something entirely different, and then all the NSA briefers LIED to him about how everything was just as it should be, when in fact it absolutely was not."

...why wasn't he outraged about illegal spying?

[Waiting For Everyman]

33. Maybe he was outraged then too.

Here's all I could find about his reaction. Story April 6, 2006.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-06-gonzales_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee pointedly criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales Thursday for "stonewalling" by refusing to answer questions about the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., said Gonzales was frustrating his panel's oversight of the Justice Department and the controversial surveillance by declining to provide information about how the program is reviewed inside the administration and by whom.

"How can we discharge our oversight if, every time we ask a pointed question, we're told the program is classified?" Sensenbrenner asked Gonzales near the start of a lengthy hearing on the department's activities. "I think that ... is stonewalling."

Gonzales did not budge, defending the eavesdropping as lawful and telling Sensenbrenner and other lawmakers on the panel that he would not discuss classified matters.
...

But the point is, it's still a different ballgame now. Not until Snowden's leaks did Sensenbrenner know that the NSA was conducting mass scale surveillance to the extent that it is now. It wasn't even possible to do so extensively, before. Not until recently. So there were two new things actually: 1) the broadening of the interpretation of the Patriot Act language; and 2) the capacity and capability of the NSA to collect this much data did not exist before. Before it was NSA's dream, now they're doing it.

[ProSense]

34. So

"Maybe he was outraged then too."

...why did he write this even after a whistleblower exposed illegal activity.

No rights have been violated

By F. James Sensenbrenner Jr.

Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations. Extensive congressional oversight found no violations.

Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

Intense public scrutiny has yet to find a single civil liberty abuse. Despite many challenges, no federal court has declared unconstitutional any of the Patriot Act provisions Congress is renewing.

Building upon this stellar record, congressional negotiators added more than 30 civil liberty safeguards not included in current law to ensure that the Patriot Act's authorities would not be abused in the future. Remarkably, that's still not enough for some.

So what has the Patriot Act done? It has been a tremendous asset in helping thwart other terrorist attacks. The Justice Department and other agencies have properly utilized these new tools to detect, disrupt and dismantle terrorist cells in New York, Virginia and Oregon before they strike. Since 9/11, the Justice Department has charged hundreds of defendants, of whom more than half have been convicted or pleaded guilty, as a result of terrorism-related investigations.

- more -

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-01-opposing-view_x.htm

Remember whistleblower Thomas Tamm?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023032225

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. It appears that

His own committee (Judiciary) was stonewalled, and the whitewash was done by DoJ, the agency run by Gonzales, the guy who was stonewalling Judiciary. Neat, huh?

Six reports by the Justice Department's independent inspector general, who is required to solicit and investigate any allegations of abuse, found no violations.

Standard, just like Warren Report -- the perps do the investigating.

[ProSense]

39. You're not

"It appears that His own committee (Judiciary) was stonewalled, and the whitewash was done by DoJ, the agency run by Gonzales, the guy who was stonewalling Judiciary. Neat, huh? "

...explaining why did he wrote, "Zero. That's the number of substantiated USA Patriot Act civil liberties violations," even after a whistleblower exposed illegal activity.

You said he's now reacting to new information from Snowden. Why did he defend illegal spying in the face of a whistleblower's revelations?

[Waiting For Everyman]

43. He said the investigations came up with zero violations.

He did not say that no violations ever happened. His own committee found none. The DoJ found none. Violations found by the court, none. Otherwise, none. That all equals zero violations. That's all he was reporting.

He could not get any information to do any oversight. End of story. That's pretty much how it still is. That's one of the things that is wrong about it.

[Union Scribe]

41. Dunno, how did you reconcile your opposition to Bush's spying

and your fervent defense of Obama's? Where's that chap with the wonderful post of yours from the past; I hope they chime in to illustrate.

[ProSense]

44. Well,

"Dunno, how did you reconcile your opposition to Bush's spying and your fervent defense of Obama's?"

...Bush broke the law. President Obama didn't.

[Union Scribe]

45. So you didn't dislike Bush's policies

just the way he sometimes went about them? If he had changed FISC so that it was the rubber stamp factory it became in 2008, you would have supported it?

[ProSense]

48. Actually,

"So you didn't dislike Bush's policies just the way he sometimes went about them? If he had changed FISC so that it was the rubber stamp factory it became in 2008, you would have supported it?"

...Bush broke the law, which is the difference between his actions and Obama's. That's what I said. You understood that, didn't you?

Bush's lawbreaking activities were no hypotheticals, they were real.

[Union Scribe]

49. But the same behavior, now "legal", is cool with you.

In fact more than cool, you defend it bitterly. So like I said, and you did not even attempt to deny it, you support Bush's policies under Obama's administration though you prefer the latter's subversion of the Constitution over the former's. Because it's "legal," I know. So all this time I figured you're just a rank partisan when in fact you've never disagreed with the practice of spying?

[ProSense]

51. Nonsense.

"But the same behavior, now "legal", is cool with you. In fact more than cool, you defend it bitterly. "

Breaking the law is not the same as not breaking the law. Bush's activities were illegal, and still are illegal. There is no current law that makes Bush's illegal spying legal.

[Union Scribe]

36. No, you're just defending 134 other GOP scuzzballs. nt

[ProSense]

40. No, I'm not. n/t

[Union Scribe]

42. If Waiting For Everyman is defending Sensenbrenner

then you're obviously defending everyone who voted the other way by the same logic. If you're going to play guilt-by-agreement-on-one-issue then you can't be skipping your own turn.

[Savannahmann]

11. For those who don't get it.

This is ProSense technique number 3. Number three is to show who else agrees with your position, thus showing that a Demon is on your side, and thus her side is the one with the angels on it.

Technique number 1) Things aren't as bad as you say.

Technique number 2) It's a plot by the Libertarians/Republicans/shadowy forces to harm the nation. http://metamorphosis.democraticunderground.com/10023242606

Technique number 3) The demon rests on your side of the issue, if you want to be against the demons, come to this side.

All techniques normally have a flurry of links to other posts made by ProSense to demonstrate how right ProSense was in her original ideal.

I'm waiting for technique number 4, I imagine there is some work on the obviously needed option four, but so far no sign of it.

[Union Scribe]

38. And it only works if we don't count the demons on her side

which so vastly outnumber the minor ones on the side of limiting the outrageous surveillance culture. It's really pretty galling to have that technique trotted out when she's on the side of Cheney and against the majority of House Dems.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

12. Yes, I'm glad you brought that up. I am extremely sickened by the double standard about literally

everything Obama tries to do. All we heard during Bush from the Rubber Stamp Party was how important it is to give up all of our freedoms for the sake of a little security.

These people are exposed for the shit bags that they truly are.

[AgingAmerican]

13. And some think it was wrong then

...but right now.

Liberals fought it then and fight it now. When I meet Republicans who express disdain for the NSA program, I ask them, "What took you so long, we have been fighting this sort of nonsense since 2001"

[bemildred]

17. The only place they have to go is left.

The near right is already occupied by the Democrats. To go farther right is to be a regional party.

And the red meat Republican base does not like it either, they agree with us left-wing whackos about the domestic surveillance.

Remember the rise of the Southern Strategy in the 70s? When the Pubbies went from progressive to conservative? I think that is dead. They made the mistake of becoming a racial party in a country that is integrating and becoming pluralistic.

But it is very interesting to watch the change happening.

[Savannahmann]

18. It would be more interesting if our Party was leading the change

Instead of demanding that we resist it.

[bemildred]

21. I really don't know what the Democrats are going to do.

Their position is not as bad as the Republicans though, they are not vigorously alienating half the voting public.

[railsback]

27. The Amash-Conyers amendment was nothing but a charade

like the numerous votes to repeal Obamacare. Its amazing how many here STILL don't understand the political games the GOP play. Snowden was a godsend, as the Republicans are now piling on all the sniveling currently oozing out of the Left. Hell, the Left is even gifting the Right with praises of Russia - who they love to harp on - as a sanctuary of freedom for Snowden, while Putin oppresses gays and detractors with JAIL. My Gawd.

I hope people wise up, but I seriously doubt it. You think stressing about wether the NSA may or may not be spying on you is bad, just wait until the GOP control both chambers of Congress in 2014.

[allin99]

37. Good. Use it to our advantage now while it exists, it won't hurt obama.

[woo me with science]

46. +1 It's a rare opportunity to unite to end an outrageous violation of Constitutional rights.

Interesting to note who is in favor of actually fixing things, versus circling the wagons around corporate tyranny.

[allin99]

50. Exactly.

[nenagh]

52. I think..oops..some CongressCritters are just realizing that they are no longer

a privileged community protected from the snooping of the NSA.

Their emails, phone calls and even encrypted data, can be retrieved back a number of years and will live on for a period of time within the Bluffsdale Data Center.

[Bradical79]

47. No doubt many Republicans are pretty hypocritical on the subject

as are some Democrats who are suddenly ok with NSA overreach after railing against the Patriot Act Bush's domestic spying program.