Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping

[jgraz]

"What we committed to was to work closely with the administration to come to agreement"
-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping

Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.


...

The Bush administration wants Congress to remove hurdles in the law and make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Some civil liberties groups, however, warned Congress not to move to quickly in changing the law because there could be unforeseen consequences.

"Congress needs to take its time before it implements another piece of antiterrorism legislation it will regret, like the Patriot Act," American Civil Liberties Union executive director Anthony Romero told the Times. "The Bush administration clearly has abused the FISA powers it already has and clearly wants to go back to the good old days of warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying. Congress must stop this bill in its tracks."

In recent days, the Times reports, Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to expand FISA powers, and McConnell met with Congressional leaders of both parties Tuesday to try to reach a compromise.

...

Democrats have proposed secret FISA courts review the records to ensure Americans aren't being spied upon, but the White House wants to give sole oversight authority to the attorney general. That option is not sitting well with Congress's majority party because of the scandals Alberto Gonzales is involved in regarding what some say is his misleading testimony about firing of US Attorneys and the wiretapping program.

Tuesday's discussions among Congressional leaders came the same day McConnell sent a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) that acknowledged for the first time that the president's authorization of the wiretapping program encompassed "a number of" intelligence activities that have not yet been made public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1185971637-vItGtV1UKZanyYUFRI6wgw&oref=slogin
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Bush_pressing_Democrats_for_expanded_eavesdropping_0801_af.html

WTF? This asshole's at 24% and we're looking to compromise? To give * more power to spy? And political cover for the laws he's already broken? What. The. Fuck???


Reid's quote is especially telling: “We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security." In other words, "Please don't call us unpatriotic! Please! We'll do whatever you want, just don't call us unpatriotic!!!"

[EVDebs]

1. What ? Are they trying to save *'s spying program to use on R's ?

We're supposed to be better than that.

[Ezlivin]

6. "Hey, this is evil." ..... "Yeah, but we could really use it ourselves!"

After feigning abhorrence over its discovery, our representatives have taken a deep breath and now realize how perfectly useful domestic spying could be for themselves.

[niceypoo]

2. The democrats are proving to be more and more irrelevent every day

[depakid]

26. I don't think that there are any issues that they won't sell us out on

[no_hypocrisy]

3. My first reaction to the heading was "Wow, "The Onion's" done it again.

And shit! It was "The Times".

[jgraz]

13. Yep, satire's redundant at this point

:puke:

[johnaries]

4. I think you better read that again. I get a totally different

interpretation. for instance Democrats have proposed secret FISA courts review the records to ensure Americans aren't being spied upon
It also sounds to me like reid is saying that Republicans are the ones who need to compromise. The title is very misleading, IMHO.

[jgraz]

8. Except we already have secret FISA courts review the records

So why the new legislation?

Here's my prediction: after this passes, any allegations about *'s illegal wiretapping will be met with claims that the Dems themselves acknowledge that the old FISA law was a problem. Get ready for it.

[bigtree]

11. it looks that way to me as well

I'm not sure Bush will agree to what the Democrats are proposing, thus tanking this thing.

Reid, especially, looks like he's got enough backing to resist the bullshit in the Senate.

[papau]

38. I agree - replacing AG only review with Court review is a good first step to getting back the rule

of law

[MessiahRp]

5. Fuck this.

And this is after we now know there's WAY more to Bush's illegal spying program than what he's told us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=washington&adxnnlx=1185971637-vItGtV1UKZanyYUFRI6wgw&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Seriously this group of Democrats are becoming the biggest idiots in the history of Washington.

Rp

[BobRossi]

7. Clue.

The Democratic party base has been sold a bill of goods. We have been punked.

[davidwparker]

9. Absolutely.

[Megahurtz]

25. Let's Face It. They've Been Bought Off.

Or bribed. Or blackmailed. Or threatened. Or something. :shrug:

Whatever it is there's no turning back. :(

[babylonsister]

10. Rec'd with disgust. nt

[ProSense]

12. Remember the torture debate! Ugh!

No torture!

No frigging illegal spying on Americans! Period!

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. What I don't understand is, how can Nancy Pelosi claim she was against

Cheney's wire-tapping plan during that secretive meeting, then say she wants to expand on those plans now?

[bowens43]

15. Tell me agin, how are democrats different then republicans? nt

[chill_wind]

16. re: Compromise and Political Cover

Please- where are we going with this, yet AGAIN? Who can forget Specter marking up the bill the last time with proposals for amnesty for every Bush official and Republican criminal who ever broke any intelligence gathering law going back to the turn of the century...just to be safe.

Well ok I exaggerate a little, but only a little. If I recall, his proposed retroactive amnesty went back decades! Does anybody seriously think he won't attenpt to buddy up and muddy up this whole opportune mess again as much as possible, while saying something else?

Whatever happened to Draining the Swamp g@ddamit?

[bellasgrams]

17. I've been watching C-Span alot

I think the Dems are working hard. The Repubs sometimes vote with them but mostly do not. All this bashing of the dems is uncalled for. People disagree all the time. No one agrees on everything all the time.
The other side monitors this site and probably gets good talking points to throw back at our congress critters. We have some very good Reps and Sens. Some could do better but I really admire most of them. I know we don't need to lose our advantage.

[MzNov]

18. Every freakin time Pelosi meets with Bush, she gives in more and more

It never fails. You have to watch this woman like a hawk. But then there's nothing, NOTHING we can do about her. She's under some evil spell of his and we're all continuing to watch her want to "join hands and work together" with the biggest bunch of evil slimeballs this country has ever seen. For some reason she really loves Bush. I just CAN'T STAND IT ANYMORE..... :rant:

She's absolutely pathetic and should be removed!!!


:banghead: :banghead:

[JacquesMolay]

19. this is looking like the straw to me ...

... the one that breaks the camel's back. It's getting to the point where I will not identify myself as a Democrat anymore.

[brentspeak]

65. Thanks for the "concern"

[mzmolly]

78. Yes many "concerns" over "talks" today.

Straws and camels abound! :P

[mzmolly]

20. "Democrats Scrambling to Limit Bush's eavesdropping program"

Is a more accurate depiction. Amazing what a little title change will do huh?

Mr. McConnell sent Congressional leaders a new legislative plan last Friday, one that was more limited than an earlier administration plan.

...

One obstacle to a deal this week is a disagreement between Democrats and the White House over how to audit the wiretapping of the foreign-to-foreign calls going through switches in the United States.

The Democrats have proposed that the eavesdropping be reviewed by the secret FISA court to make sure that it has not ensnared any Americans.

The administration has proposed that the attorney general perform the review, but Democrats are unwilling to give that kind of authority to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is under fire for what some lawmakers describe as his misleading testimony about the dismissals of federal prosecutors and the wiretapping program.

[jgraz]

21. Once again, the framing is everything

They don't need to do A THING to limit *'s evesdropping program. It's illegal. The argument that the law needs to be updated is a bullshit, ass-covering Karl Rovian TERRA TERRA TERRA fiction.

The fact that the Dems are once again buying into this regime's twisted view of reality means that this fight has already been lost.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. Hear hear!!!!

[mzmolly]

24. It was illegal because it eliminated the courts from the process.

The "compromise" will not do that.

[jgraz]

28. Wha???

It was illegal because it didn't follow the law. How will passing another law make them follow the law?

[Dunedain]

33. because

this time they really mean it....sigh.

[mzmolly]

40. It didn't follow the law because they usurped the process of getting a warrant.

The new law will require court approval and it will allow for the monitoring of foreign activity alone.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

96. And that is what the law does require now. Court approval is necessary except in emergency

and they have several days worth of grace before going to court and show just cause. This in regsrd to within the US.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

35. Do you understand what you've just said? The law, a perfectly wonderful law is in place.

It was illegal because they Chose not to follow the law. There is No Need for another law. I bet that there will be more wiretapping and surveillance abilities without court approval stuffed into it. Do you want all your emails, phone calls, etc being monitored by these criminals. When is enough, enough?

[jgraz]

36. But see, we have to pass another law because we don't have a veto-proof majority

Plus, the Senate could filibuster us ..uh.. not passing the law. :crazy:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

37. jgraz......

:rofl:

[mzmolly]

41. We have to limit Bush's request to monitor at the whim of Alberto Gonzo.

That's what we have to do.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. And that is what FISA does. eom

[mzmolly]

48. Not quite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978

Scope and limits

For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)).

The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US.

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.<5>

Also note the authority that is currently held by Gonzo:

Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

Without a court order

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information <5>; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) <6> or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.<7>

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court<8>, and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. <9>

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. <10> Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties <11> and civil liabilities. <12>

With a court order

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.<13> Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons<14>.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

54. Ummmmmm. You've posted about Foreign Surveillance.

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information <5>; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) <6> or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.<7>

[mzmolly]

70. Yep, that's what the article is about.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail.

[jgraz]

49. Here's an idea: How's about we keep the current law and hold them accountable

How does changing the law in response to a criminal's demand make lawbreaking less likely?

I really oughtta try that myself: I know I killed the guy, your honor, but if you'll just allow me to rewrite the murder laws, you'll see that I really didn't commit a crime here.

[mzmolly]

50. The current law allows for surveillance without a court order in some instances.

Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

Without a court order

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information <5>; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) <6> or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.<7>

The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court<8>, and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. <9>

Since 50 U.S.C § 1802 (a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments. <10> Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties <11> and civil liabilities. <12>

With a court order

Alternatively, the government may seek a court order permitting the surveillance using the FISA court.<13> Approval of a FISA application requires the court find probable cause that the target of the surveillance be a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power", and that the places at which surveillance is requested is used or will be used by that foreign power or its agent. In addition, the court must find that the proposed surveillance meet certain "minimization requirements" for information pertaining to US persons<14>.

Sorry, I'm not comfortable giving Gonzo that authority, you?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

55. And do you think Shrub would make a deal to limit himself? eom

[mzmolly]

69. He'll have no choice

with Dems in the majority.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

73. He has a little thing called Veto Power. Are there 2/3 that will vote to override a veto? eom

[mzmolly]

75. But then it is HE that is rejecting our compromise, and it is HE that becomes

responsible for "leaving the u.s. vulnerable to terra."

[MessiahRp]

86. Your faith in the Congressional Democrats is funny...

Since they haven't fully stood up to Bush at any point yet without caving or backing down.

This group of fools have taken the concept of "baby steps" to new extremes.

Rp

[mzmolly]

88. Your pre-emptive panic is what's funny.

I'm hear because I'm a Democrat, you?

[MessiahRp]

94. Oh I'm a Democrat...

I just wish for our elected officials to have the same collective spine as we who elect them do. And they only have 537 days left... at our current pace they'll get to impeachment right around day number 538.

Sorry if my patience is thin after 7 years of having my countrymen murdered, our treasury looted, our constitutional rights erased and our ability to fight back nullified.

We have no choice but to stand up and this slow motion act of doing nothing is not working. The endgame is here. We played by the rules and as most of us expected ever since they denied Clinton documents from day one and 9/11 investigation information requests the first year in, they do not care. We started hearings, called witnesses, were stonewalled on testimony, stonewalled on subpoenas, stonewalled on document requests and will be stonewalled on contempt of congress charges when the Bush DOJ lackey comes back with his easy to read in advance decision.

Impeachment is the only option and Democrats won't take it. In fact on every turn they bend over to give Bush what he wants. He does not need nor does he who has been illegally wiretapping us, keeping lists of us dissenters/protesters, keeping phone records on us, getting our search engine requests deserve any further help in his illegal attempt to round up those who disagree with him.

Let's be clear this isn't about terrorists. This is about US.

Democrats that don't see that have their head in the sand the same way they did when all of US knew the Iraq intelligence was phony and yet they voted for war. We have been right about everything and this past November we voted for the will of the people... the people that have been RIGHT. And now these people are kowtowing to the very people who lost miserably in that election and who have been wrong on everything.

The time for patience has passed.

As a very strong Democrat, I want my party to be the OPPOSITION party. Not the party willing to do everything the Republicans would do just with slightly more protest.

Rp

[The Stranger]

81. You really didn't address the prior post. The question is why are they changing anything at all

given the fact that there now appear to be other illegal eavesdropping programs going on that were never disclosed until Mueller stammered in his testimony and McConnell wrote the letter today, and that no one in the Executive Branch will even respond to a fucking subpoena.

[mzmolly]

85. Because Gonzo is in charge of warrantless wiretapping?

Electronic surveillance

Generally, the statute permits electronic surveillance in two scenarios.

Without a court order

The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information <5>; targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3) <6> or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act_of_1978

Democrats are not comfortable with that, are you? Additionally, Democrats want periodic court review to make certain American citizens are not swept under the foreign intelligence gathering blanket "accidentally."

Personally, I'll await the legislation before I "panic."

[The Stranger]

113. Democrats should not be comfortable with a program operating completely irrespective of the statute

and the statutory framework, and that appears to be what is happening. So, instead of running to give the President new legislation, we need to know what he and his friends have been doing illegally and completely in disregard of the statute.

[mzmolly]

116. And Democrats have addressed that and continue to do so.

However we need to examine what he's asking for as well.

[Zhade]

125. Uh, no, we need to REFUSE what CRIMINALS demand of us.

How can you not grasp that?

[mzmolly]

129. Unbelievable. We still have a country to run.

Sorry you don't grasp that.

[The Stranger]

79. You have it right. No one, but no one, should fuck with the laws until we figure out what was done.

They can't even comply with the laws as written -- forget re-writing them right now. And even if we re-write the laws, are they even constitutional? Mzmolly seems to only cite to the laws themselves, but the real question is one of constitutional search and seizure law.

This needs to be stopped first and foremost and not a fucking piece of legislation passed until we investigate and ascertain what other programs exist that have not yet been disclosed.

[mzmolly]

82. Broken laws do not pertain.

We still have to legislate. It took two years for the criminal investigation surrounding Watergate led to impeachment charges against Nixon. We've only just begun...

[The Stranger]

114. Actually, we don't have to legislate at all, until we are ready and get to the bottom of this.

Rushing to pass additional legislation is going to be exactly what their lawyers look to defend their crimes.

[mzmolly]

117. "Rushing" is the subjective word here.

I don't know that anyone is rushing, all I know is that the fool who wrote the article above has insinuated such.

[The Stranger]

134. Given what happened yesterday and last night in the Senate, the word "rushing" was very appropriate.

[mzmolly]

135. No it wasn't.

14 Democrats passed a temporary measure, the VAST MAJORITY voted against.

[The Stranger]

137. You really can't be serious.

14 Democrats abandoned the American people, the fucking Constitution, and committed political treason to the party base and the party loyalists by supporting a fucking Totalitarian measure -- and "rushing" to do so on the last day of the session.

You really can't be serious.

[mzmolly]

138. I'm dead serious.

A totalitarian measure would have involved a permanent, unchecked measure that would have allowed intercept on all Americans. This is not the case.

I'm not defending the 16, nor am I vilifying them.

[mzmolly]

39. Yes I heard what I said. This is a foreign surviellance program subject to court approval.

Bush circumvented the court system which made the previous "law" questionable. Bush started without proper approval and they tried to sweep their illegal activities under the FISA rug and claim that they had legal authority which was bull.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

46. But the law isn't questionable. Bush broke the law. eom

[mzmolly]

52. The law is questionable AND Bush broke the law.

eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

56. The law wasn't questionable. That's the point. It is Very Clear and has served us well.

It just hasn't served the Criminal In Chief well....

[mzmolly]

68. Yes it was and it is currently.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-08-fisa-congress_x.htm

Changes have been called for, for some time. Democrats will make sure we have some oversight, and that oversight will not fall to Alberto.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

98. What aren't you understanding? Changes have been called for by BUSH, and why should

he call the shots? The law is fine. He broke it and should be held accountable for that, and by giving him these changes, he is being justified in his law breaking. I'm out of here.

[mzmolly]

99. WE have been calling for changes for years.

eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

100. WE have been calling changes for years? Being a lifelong, from the womb Democrat, I have

never heard that. Do you have links to past proposed bills?

[mzmolly]

104. You haven't heard the issues over Bush's wiretapping?

Here is a bit of perspective: http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/07/27/concessions-to-democrats-on-ns/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011701256.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/washington/08nsa.html?ex=1338955200&en=65455e336acedb76&ei=5088

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Top_Democrat_Intel_czars_wiretap_plans_0412.html

Im in the Minneapolis area and am checking on friends via email - am not really in the mood to piss and moan with people here tonight.

If you were not aware of the controversy/history, I can't help.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

109. These are all links about the Democrats being pissed over the Illegal NSA program! Not

articles about how they wanted to change FISA for years.

[mzmolly]

115. You need to read the articles, not the headlines.

At the same time, the Bush administration is seeking new legislation to expand its wiretapping powers under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate have argued that they do not want to vote on the issue without first seeing the administration’s legal opinions on the wiretapping program.

“How can we begin to consider FISA legislation when we don’t know what they are doing?” asked Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York, who heads the subcommittee.

One snip from the NYT article above. Read the actual articles before commenting please.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

120. I read the articles and there is nothing in there that they wanted this for Years. Keep trying... nt

[mzmolly]

121. We've wanted changes for years. I needn't try, that's a fact.

eom

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

122. Ok, I will blindly accept your "facts".....

[mzmolly]

123. Or simply open your eyes and read what was posted.

Considering you didn't initially realize we were discussing FISA, I understand.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

124. I certainly did realize we were discussing FISA and as I said I read what you presented. You could

have saved your time. It was useless to make your point. I"m sorry that you practice blind faith. Most every single response you have on this thread is wrapped in that faith. I am sure you had the same faith when not only Repukes but many Democrats voted for the Patriot Act and the IWR.

[mzmolly]

128. No my position is wrapped in reading the article and looking for evidence to back up the assertions

made, there isn't any.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

127. Fools Rush In.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1499355&mesg_id=1499355

[mzmolly]

130. And fools rush to judgement.

"Negotiations continue" - first two words from the article.

[chill_wind]

29. No. "Amend, expand and make it easier" is not what I call scrambling to "limit".

Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

[mzmolly]

42. Yes, the inflammatory spin was bit on quite nicely by many here.

However if you dig deeper into the article it speaks about limiting Bush's original requests.

[jgraz]

45. "limiting Bush's original requests" still amounts to an expansion of the program

You seem incapable of thinking outside the beltway spin on this.

[mzmolly]

51. It expands on the whos and limits the hows.

You feel free to bite the "Democrats suck" bait once again, if you wish.

[Exiled in America]

61. Bullshit. You need to read the ACLU's letter to Congress

The Honorable Harry Reid The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader Majority Leader
United States Senate United States Senate
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker Minority Leader
House of Representatives House of Representatives
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McConnell,
and Minority Leader Boehner,

We understand that you have received a new proposal from the
Administration to expand its ability to collect phone calls and emails on
American soil, and that the Administration is calling for immediate passage,
lest the United States be subject to immediate attack.

Fundamentally, the Administration’s proposal allows the government to
scoop up all international communications of Americans without a warrant,
retain those communications forever, and data mine them without review or
limitation. The government could then use any information gleaned from
this warrantless wiretapping to support future court orders. This is
backwards. It turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. And, it does great
damage to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enacted and repeatedly
modified to protect Americans’ privacy from an overreaching intelligence
community. Any proposals for programs of warrantless wiretapping that
will undoubtedly pick up American conversations should be rejected.

We ask that if you choose to legislate on this subject this week, without the
benefit of thorough vetting, you narrowly limit any new authorities provided
to address only those specific areas that the Administration has demonstrated
an urgent need to resolve. The two areas meeting this criteria are discussed
below:

• Foreign Calls. The Administration has publicly stated that it must
apply for court orders before tapping foreigners overseas. (THIS IS WHAT THE NYT ARTICLE WAS REFERRING TO WHEN IT SAY THEY ALREADY HAD TO GO THROUGH THE COURTS - THE ARTICLE WAS NOT SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS WERE SEEKING TO MAKE THAT A NEW PROVISION!) This is
demonstrably false and contradicted by the National Security
Agency’s (“NSA”) recent testimony. Just last year Lt. Gen. Keith B.
Alexander, Director, NSA, testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee: “Indeed, by far the bulk of NSA’s surveillance activities
take place overseas, and these activities are directed entirely at
foreign countries and foreign persons within those countries. All
concerned agree, and to my knowledge have always agreed, that the
FISA does not and should not apply to such activities.” (July 26,
2006)

That the Administration is now claiming otherwise is misleading. To
clarify this point, however, pending bipartisan legislation exists in
both houses that resolves this issue.

• Burdensome Court Requirements. The Administration has also
claimed that going before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
is too burdensome and has proposed going around the court all
together. As a letter from the House Intelligence Committee
minority put it, court orders are just “exercises taking valuable time.”
This is not the solution. There is no paperwork exception to the
Fourth Amendment. If the process is too burdensome it can be
streamlined and more resources can be provided. Again, there is
bipartisan legislation in both Houses to this effect.

We urge you to reject legislating in a fear mode. Recent history should be proof
enough that civil liberties suffer when terror related legislation is jammed
through without careful consideration of the consequences. The Administration
has repeatedly refused to give this Congress the information it needs to
effectively oversee the NSA’s intelligence activities in the United States, and
Congress cannot legislate in the dark.

Should you, nevertheless, agree to consider legislative changes to FISA this
week, we urge you to work to ensure the only changes made are narrowly
targeted to resolve particular, demonstrated and pressing intelligence gaps. We
will be watching the vote closely, and scoring any vote that has an impact on
civil liberties.
Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
Timothy Sparapani
Senior Legislative Counsel
Michelle Richardson
Legislative Consultant

[mzmolly]

74. And you need to read the article. NOTHING has been passed and the proposal IS limited to foreign

surveillance. Democrats want to monitor the process via the "courts" DUE TO the concerns outlined in the ACLU letter. Chill...........

[jgraz]

107. Yeah, chill. Wait until the law is passed before you voice your opinion

After all, how will we know how bad it is until they actually sign it into law? Once it's the law of the land, then you can ask your congresscritter not to vote for it.

[mzmolly]

118. No wait until something tangible is presented before shitting your collective

pants.

Or, we'll do it your way - wait for a "juicy" yet BULLSHIT headline that doesn't match the content of the article, then we'll all hyperventilate and proclaim "I'm leaving the Democratic party."

[OzarkDem]

58. Do Dems know how to "whip"?

I can't believe they don't have the skills or party unity to set the agenda on this and say no to funding illegal spying.

[dkofos]

22. Nancy, you cannot negotiate with terrorists (*ush admin).

[mmonk]

27. Why don't we change our name from the democratic party to

the Compromising Party? Want the hell is left to compromise of our constitution?

[Rude Horner]

30. This is the new political strategy

It's like a kid who wants $10, so he steals $50 out of his mom's purse. Then when his mom catches him, she doesn't want to be too hard on him and says "Ok, you can have $25". The mom pats herself on the back because she thinks she's being kinda tough on the kid, while the kid laughs all the way to the bank.

[Exiled in America]

60. Except that....

...it was the kids money that he earned for himself in the first place, and the mom - when not busy kicking the fucking shit out of the kid, steals his money from him.

Instead of demanding every penny that was ALREADY his back from the authoritarian abusive fucktard, he sheepishly agrees when she mockingly agrees to give him $5 bucks of it back. The kid cries "please don't hurt me" and accepts LOSING 90% of what belonged to him in the first place takes 5$ back instead......


THAT is the correct analogy for what is happening.

[chill_wind]

31. "Democrats Scramble to Enforce Existing Congressional and Constitutional Laws

and seek to fully Prosecute Criminal Eavesdropping Law-breakers."

Oh. Sorry-- wrong decade, wrong era, wrong party???

[Disturbed]

34. FISA: Tell Congress not to give Bush more power

FISA: Tell Congress not to give Bush more power

From the ACLU via email:


As the tide turns against his Attorney General and his NSA wiretapping
program, the president has launched a "fear offensive"
-- a desperate push to change the laws that govern spying. On
Saturday, President Bush told Congress that if it doesn't gut
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) this week, the
Democrats will be putting our nation at risk in a "heightened
threat environment."

The president's proposal to "modernize" FISA is
audacious, manipulative, and a direct assault on the checks and
balances that Congress has tried and so far failed to restore.
Shockingly, it looks like Congress and its Democratic
leadership are about to cave in and give the President what he
wants.


Take Action. Tell Congress NOT to cave in to fear:
http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=oLCIlRZS-3Yay1W5rIv4iw

[mzmolly]

44. Yes the questioning of Alberto Gonzo is actually being done under the supervision of

Tip O'Neill.

[RedCappedBandit]

32. And what makes these two parties different, again?

[L. Coyote]

47. SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?

Background and numerous links here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1481897&mesg_id=1481897

[chill_wind]

53. What Bush wants-(and he wants it NOW!)- cuz terrists use cell phones and the internets

and stuff and we're in a heightened alert to prevent terrist attacks right here on US of A soil like we suddenly started drummin' and warning ya again about a few weeks ago already( no coincidence ), so you Dems better pass my bill before you leave town this week, cuz it would shure look bad for you if anything happened and you didn't.

(strongly paraphrasing): http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/news/2007/07/sec-070728-voa01.htm

Among other things.......

("...it includes proposals that would allow U.S. telecommunications companies to cooperate more fully with the government in gathering information.

'Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country," added Mr. Bush. "Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.'

The proposed legislation also includes changes to allow the government to collect intelligence about foreign targets in foreign locations without obtaining court orders. (...)


In other words, expanded powers and legal cover from Congress for the shit we suspect they've already been doing, and if Specter is involved.. perhaps another shot at amnesty for the criminal authorities and cronies who were doing it.

Kum ba ya.

[G_j]

57. "limiting Bush's original requests" ...Fuck them! n/t

[me b zola]

59. Argh!

Makes me wish that I had responded to the Impeach Nancy thread.

[Exiled in America]

62. FUCK SERCRET FISA COURTS! You want to spy on Americans, GET A FUCKING WARRANT!!!!

[Exiled in America]

63. Democrats: Kinder, gentler warrantless spying programs and rape of the bill of rights.

I'm having trouble remembering the last time I woke up in the morning and didn't feel ashamed of my party, and I can not wait for the opportunity to clean house with my vote.

[mzmolly]

80. And who do you wish to place in that perfect house?

:eyes:

What Democrats do YOU support? Any?

[Exiled in America]

97. Give me a fucking break. Expecting Democrats to UPHOLD THE FUCKING BILL OF RIGHTS

is not asking for a fucking perfect house.

Two decades ago - no you know what? JUST SEVEN FUCKING YEARS AGO - if ANYONE on any side had suggested HALF of the shit that both sides have rolled over and accepted today they would have been run out of washington! Yet day after day after day after day year after year after year after FUCKING YEAR Democrats and Republicans have totally acted like its business as usual while Civil and *HUMAN* right after right has been fucking shit on and burned and its ashes pissed on and smeared on the highway.

I'm tired of watching my country be RUINED by the abusive father republicans and the enabling mother democrats!

What democrats do I support? I would support ANY that steadfastly and unwaveringly DEFEND the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AGAINST ALL ENEMIES - foriegn AND DOMESTIC. I would support any democrats that refuse to make even the slightest compromise when it comes to the one thing in this country that we were taught we were NEVER - EVER - to compromise on: THE BILL OF RIGHTS!

What about you mzmolly? Political Parties are not like religion - you're not supposed to blindly follow and do nothing but apologize and try to ratioanlize away every inconsistency or contradiction in the sacred texts or amounst the clergy in order to keep your romanticized view of the institutional organization in tact. But that's what you seem to do - when was the last time you had any, even the slightest, criticsm of the actions of any democrat? That kind of blind loyalty is much more scary than someone who is accused of being overly critical.

I'm mad as fucking hell, and I'm not taking it anymore. Oh and by the way, while you've been apologizing away, this Congress has accomplished a grand total of *DICK* to rescue this country from its continuing F_R_E_E_F_A_L_L into tyranny. Meanwhile I've had to listen to almost year of apologize after apology and justification after justification and till I could just VOMIT.

I'm through with that.

[Zhade]

126. At least we don't support expanding power for criminals who broke the law, as you do.

NT!

[Exiled in America]

64. ACLUs Letter to Congressional Leaders

The Honorable Harry Reid The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader Majority Leader
United States Senate United States Senate
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable John A. Boehner
Speaker Minority Leader
House of Representatives House of Representatives
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi, Minority Leader McConnell,
and Minority Leader Boehner,

We understand that you have received a new proposal from the
Administration to expand its ability to collect phone calls and emails on
American soil, and that the Administration is calling for immediate passage,
lest the United States be subject to immediate attack.

Fundamentally, the Administration’s proposal allows the government to
scoop up all international communications of Americans without a warrant,
retain those communications forever, and data mine them without review or
limitation. The government could then use any information gleaned from
this warrantless wiretapping to support future court orders. This is
backwards. It turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. And, it does great
damage to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, enacted and repeatedly
modified to protect Americans’ privacy from an overreaching intelligence
community. Any proposals for programs of warrantless wiretapping that
will undoubtedly pick up American conversations should be rejected.

We ask that if you choose to legislate on this subject this week, without the
benefit of thorough vetting, you narrowly limit any new authorities provided
to address only those specific areas that the Administration has demonstrated
an urgent need to resolve. The two areas meeting this criteria are discussed
below:

• Foreign Calls. The Administration has publicly stated that it must
apply for court orders before tapping foreigners overseas. This is
demonstrably false and contradicted by the National Security
Agency’s (“NSA”) recent testimony. Just last year Lt. Gen. Keith B.
Alexander, Director, NSA, testified before the Senate Judiciary
Committee: “Indeed, by far the bulk of NSA’s surveillance activities
take place overseas, and these activities are directed entirely at
foreign countries and foreign persons within those countries. All
concerned agree, and to my knowledge have always agreed, that the
FISA does not and should not apply to such activities.” (July 26,
2006)

That the Administration is now claiming otherwise is misleading. To
clarify this point, however, pending bipartisan legislation exists in
both houses that resolves this issue.

• Burdensome Court Requirements. The Administration has also
claimed that going before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
is too burdensome and has proposed going around the court all
together. As a letter from the House Intelligence Committee
minority put it, court orders are just “exercises taking valuable time.”
This is not the solution. There is no paperwork exception to the
Fourth Amendment. If the process is too burdensome it can be
streamlined and more resources can be provided. Again, there is
bipartisan legislation in both Houses to this effect.

We urge you to reject legislating in a fear mode. Recent history should be proof
enough that civil liberties suffer when terror related legislation is jammed
through without careful consideration of the consequences. The Administration
has repeatedly refused to give this Congress the information it needs to
effectively oversee the NSA’s intelligence activities in the United States, and
Congress cannot legislate in the dark.

Should you, nevertheless, agree to consider legislative changes to FISA this
week, we urge you to work to ensure the only changes made are narrowly
targeted to resolve particular, demonstrated and pressing intelligence gaps. We
will be watching the vote closely, and scoring any vote that has an impact on
civil liberties.
Sincerely,

Caroline Fredrickson
Director, Washington Legislative Office
Timothy Sparapani
Senior Legislative Counsel
Michelle Richardson
Legislative Consultant

[Exiled in America]

66. ACLU Press Release in Response to today's action:

ACLU Warns Congress Against Rushing Spy Law Changes (7/31/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: [e-mail]

Washington, DC - The American Civil Liberties Union today warned Congress to resist the Bush administration’s attempts to rush problematic spying changes through the House and Senate before the congressional recess begins next week. The administration has reinvigorated its attempts to "modernize" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and is leaning on Congress to pass legislation before lawmakers finish investigating the illegal warrantless wiretapping program.

"This isn't a quick fix, it's a complete overhaul of FISA," said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. "Congress needs to take its time before it implements another piece of anti-terrorism legislation it will regret, like the Patriot Act. The Bush administration clearly has abused the FISA powers it already has and clearly wants to go back to the good old days of warrantless wiretapping and domestic spying. After being caught trying to steal an inch, the administration now has the gall to ask for the whole mile. Congress must stop this bill in its tracks."

The administration’s proposed FISA changes would allow the government to vacuum up all international communications without a warrant and only later go back for a court order if it can sift through the mass of communications to cobble together some probable cause. This is backwards. It would also eliminate crucial oversight as the administration claims that seeking approval from FISA judges can be "burdensome." The ACLU noted that there is no paperwork exception to the Fourth Amendment and all searches must be conducted with judicial review.

"National security is at the forefront of everybody’s mind, but legislating in the dark will not make us safer," said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "FISA has been updated no less than 50 times since it was passed in 1978 - 20 of those changes occurring after September 11th, 2001. Allowing the administration to bulldoze this law through follows in the pattern of the disastrous Patriot Act and will signal that Congress is at the mercy of the executive branch. The FISA court is not an impediment to the administration in its current capacity. If the administration needs warrants while Congress is in recess, it knows where it can get them."

To read the ACLU’s letter to Congressional leadership on FISA changes, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31154leg20070731.html

To read the ACLU’s Myths and Facts about FISA, go to:
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31144res20070731.html

[jgraz]

67. Thanks, EiA!!

:toast:

[mzmolly]

71. That is a release from yesterday, and there was no "action."

We've said we'll work with Bush in a limited fashion, he's not pleased about it. Nothing has been passed at this time. We're in "talks."

[Exiled in America]

72. Yes there WAS action... jesus fucking christ people.

Has the whole world gone fucking mad?

[mzmolly]

76. WHAT ACTION?!

There were "talks."

[mzmolly]

77. deleted

dup

[BeHereNow]

84. Short answer, yes. n/t

bhn

[Exiled in America]

90. Ok.... I was just checkin.

I'm going to go off and bang my head against a wall for a while now....

[BeHereNow]

93. Take a glass of wine with you- it softens the blow.

And I don't blame you at all for checking.
"Astounding" is the word has been on my mind
for years now.
Also, the phrase "People get the government they deserve"
appears more true everyday, no?
BHN

[sarcasmo]

83. Is it official yet, the fact that we have a one party system

Corporate WHORES who screw what was once America.

[BeHereNow]

87. I'm afraid that's been true longer than most are willing to admit.

Sad, but true.
We have been the United States of Corporate Multi National Bankers for a very long time.
All else has been but a charade, a grand deception played upon the people of the
country. Two parties my ass.

BHN

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

91. WHAT law!? NOTHING was passed, or even presented. We "talked" today.

sheesh, chill the heck out people.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeHereNow]

95. Trilateral Commission writing on the wall today.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1490167&mesg_id=1490167
I find it incredible that this post got only a few responses.
I'm beginning to really wonder how many people understand
what is going on.

BHN

[mzmolly]

106. I read and recommended that thread.

I understand what's going on, thanks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. And there you have it

why I am registered independent and have started to say... perhaps there is truly no difference between the corporatists in both parties

Flame away by the way

[mzmolly]

131. History has proven us reactionaries once again it would appear?

:shrug:

[mhatrw]

102. Swift Kick! n/t

[and-justice-for-all]

103. Looks to me we no longer live in a Democracy. nt

[Phredicles]

105. Posting to ease re-finding later.

Having a hard time deciphering WTF this is about and my time is short. But I have to think this is a subject where there should be NO negotiating with Caligula Boy - he can obey the law as it exists or he can face consequences. At least, that's how it would be if there were more than one viable political party.

[Senator]

108. K&R

[WinkyDink]

110. Betrayal is far worse than up-front enmity. I simply don't understand.

Except I do know that the 2006 election results can turn on a dime---and will, if we are still in Iraq in 2008.

Hatred will be towards those who broke their promise.

[B Calm]

111. If they scrambled to allow democrats to eavesdrop on this administration,

I wouldn't have a problem with it..

[jgraz]

112. At the very least, the Dems should be turning the rhetoric around on them

e.g. If you've done nothing wrong, what do you have to hide?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

132. .

:kick:

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

133. Last night, my heart was broken yet again. Very soon we'll be able to say

Welcome to Amerika. We were played.

The House Democrats made it a 2/3 vote, which was certain to fail
and spineless and/or complicit Senate Democrats voted for the Republican bill. Thank goodness 16 stood up for our rights.

[spanone]

136. the headline proved truer than I wanted to admit.

i now believe there is not an ounce of difference between either party. not an ounce.