Just Passed - House Amendement (245-178) - PREVENTS ILLEGAL DOMESTIC WIRETAPPING BY GOVERNMENT

[kpete]

May 11, 2007
A Defeat for Bush
I don't usually post press releases from advocacy groups, but last night the House--in a bipartisan jab--defeated Bush on a significant front, and the action happened too late to make the morning papers. Here's the ACLU crowing about it:

WASHINGTON, DC -The American Civil Liberties Union today cheered an amendment to the House Intelligence Reauthorization Bill that would prevent illegal domestic wiretapping by the government. The amendment, by Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ), will reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) as the only legal means of collecting electronic intelligence surveillance. The amendment was passed late last night by a vote of 245-178.

"Congress has signaled that it will not allow the president to continue the National Security Agency's illegal eavesdropping," said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office. "Passage of the Schiff/Flake amendment is Congress drawing a line in the sand. This amendment reaffirms that FISA is the law and it needs to be followed."

Congress originally passed FISA to provide the exclusive authority for the wiretapping of people in the United States in foreign intelligence investigations to protect national security. As the Senate Report noted, FISA "was designed...to curb the practice by which the Executive Branch may conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on its own unilateral determination that national security justifies it."

Passage of this amendment makes clear that the House will not capitulate to separate legislative proposals by the Administration that would give the NSA the freedom to snoop into innocent Americans lives. While the Administration claims that its proposed FISA changes would "modernize" the law, in truth they would gut the judicial oversight mechanisms carefully crafted to prevent abuse, while expanding the scope of communications that can be intercepted under FISA. The ACLU noted that, despite many recent hearings about "modernization" and "technology neutrality," the administration has not publicly provided Congress with a single example of how current FISA standards have either prevented the intelligence community from using new technologies, or proven unworkable for the agents tasked with following them.

more at:
http://www.davidcorn.com/archives/2007/05/a_defeat_for_bu.php

[Roland99]

1. Just a signing statement away from being moot!

But, good news nonetheless.

[MissMillie]

2. anyone else waiting for the signing statement?

or even a veto?

[lonestarnot]

28. Then impeach him son of a bitch. How much more are we going to fucking put up with? !!!!!

[dogday]

29. Good question?

How much more indeed!!!!:crazy:

[NewJeffCT]

3. Not a veto-proof majority, though

178 reps that hate the Constitution.

[peace13]

7. Yes, I can't wait to see if my sorry rep is one of them! n/t

[kiteinthewind]

24. No need for a veto, he will just add the signing statement. That is the way he circumvents the

law and the balance of power and oversight of Congress by avoiding an override of his veto. Great presentation last summer by the American Bar Assoc., by a Bipartisan 'Blue Ribbon' committee. Links below to their official press release and a clip from part of the presentation they did and I watched on CSPAN!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEYyuNr4DAk


BLUE-RIBBON TASK FORCE FINDS PRESIDENT BUSH'S SIGNING STATEMENTS UNDERMINE SEPARATION OF POWERS

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2006 - Presidential signing statements that assert President Bush's authority to disregard or decline to enforce laws adopted by Congress undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers, according to a report released today by a blue-ribbon American Bar Association task force.

To address these concerns, the task force urges Congress to adopt legislation enabling its members to seek court review of signing statements that assert the President's right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress, and urges the President to veto bills he feels are not constitutional.

The Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine was created by ABA President Michael S. Greco with the approval of the ABA Board of Governors in June, to examine the changing role of presidential signing statements after the Boston Globe on April 30 revealed an exclusive reliance on presidential signing statements, in lieu of vetoes, by the Bush Administration.

In appointing the special task force Greco said, "The use of presidential signing statements raises serious issues relating to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. I have appointed the Task Force to take a balanced, scholarly look at the use and implications of signing statements, and to propose appropriate ABA policy consistent with our Association?s commitment to safeguarding the rule of law and the separation of powers in our system of government."
MORE...
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/news072406.html


:scared:

[Richard Steele]

4. It's already illegal, and they already do it anyway. Passing another law accomplishes nothing.

B*sh will just attach another illegal "signing statement" to it
that says he can do whatever he wants anyway.

[AndyA]

5. This is good news.

Isn't it strange that the terrorists who've been caught over here have been caught by traditional methods of law enforcement. No illegal surveillance, wiretapping, etc.

Just good old Joe Friday detective work, following the laws, and using whatever legal methods are available to them.

[Kagemusha]

6. The law already makes illegal wiretapping illegal. Like Bush cares.

And like he'll care about this. His l33t Commander Dude Powerz trump this as far as he's concerned.

[file83]

33. That's what I was thinking. If it was "illegal wiretapping" to begin with, what is it now...?

Double-Illegal Wiretapping?

This is absurd. Why would the NSA or anyone else respect this new law if they didn't respect the old one?

I swear, I feel like I'm in the fucking Twilight Zone.

[Kagemusha]

36. You and the rest of us.

Just where the fools running the country want people in, sadly.

[Consequences]

8. How does this effect some douche who says he's above the law? (N/T)

[ThomCat]

9. It doesn't prevent anything, just makes it illegal.

This administration will ignore any law they don't like. x(

[DrDan]

10. nothing but symbolic

junior will obviously issue a signing statement stating his constitutional role in protecting US citizens . . . and his minions will praise him for his dedication and resolute nature

[maine_raptor]

11. Step 1 of 3.

Still has to get through the Senate and on to Bush's desk so that he can either veto or make up another silly signing statement. That's step 2.

Step 3 will be the override fight and/or the Court challenge.

If Congress develops a spine and Bush keeps on pouting over this;

It's Constitutional Crisis Time, boys and girls.

:bounce: :popcorn:

[havocmom]

15. yep

it sure is.

Gonna make a COSTCO run for more popcorn.

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. It's been "Constitutional Crisis Time" since Dec. 2000....

It's time to frogmarch these criminals out of OUR HOUSE and into their new home in the Netherlands.

[kenny blankenship]

35. The way you reaffirm FISA and the 4th Amendment is to PROSECUTE THE VIOLATIONS

that have already occurred--and they already number in the thousands of counts.

Please remember that FISA itself is ALREADY an infringement upon the Constitution's protections against warrantless and unreasonable search and seizure. It gave some oversight and participation for a second and third branch of government in the Executive branch's many trespasses against the 4th Amendment under Nixon and Johnson. In other words it gave some color of due process to the abrogation of the Constitutional standards restricting government surveillance. Now it turns out we're not enforcing even THAT diminished standard of liberty.

If you don't prosecute the violations of the Constitutional provisions, they may as well not exist. Passing a law that says that the statute created in 1978 is still law although it is violated in a wholesale fashion, reaffirms only the obsolescence or abandonment of that law. In effect you are saying circumventing the FISA statute in the past wasn't breaking the law (although it patently was breaking the law); HENCEFORTH, it will be considered to breaking the law. But there's no reason to think that the law which is not being enforced in the case of numerous past violations will be enforced in future violations. The standing inference is that it won't be enforced. Reiterating the law just draws attention to your inaction in enforcing it.

You want to convince me you mean to end the illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens? PROSECUTE THE ASSHOLE WHO'S BEEN MAKING A MOCKERY OF THE FISA LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION FOR 6 YEARS.

Otherwise all that you're really saying to me is that you don't dare step on the King's shadow.

[LSK]

12. its pretty sad that we need a law ordering NSA to follow another law

[quiet.american]

13. Good news, thanks for posting. n/t

[LizW]

14. Now illegal wiretapping is illegaler. n/t

[Gregorian]

18. Yeah. That Bill 'O Rights is just a piece of paper too.

This must be the way Congress does the moonwalk.

[The Count]

23. Bingo. Summed it up. Still , glad they did it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. No offense, but seeing these laws made and unmade and made again

is a lot like watching the toilet paper and other unmentionables pile on in a port-a-let over a long day at an outdoor sports event.

[LiberalFighter]

17. So we have 178 House members that support illegal wiretapping by the govt

[sinkingfeeling]

19. Excellent!!

[lovuian]

20. woohoo

:woohoo:

[flyarm]

21. just an affirmation of a law * already broke..why not hold him accountable instead of passing

a law to protect the law pissy pants already gave his middle finger to??

this is just more bullsahit..impeach the bastard for breaking the exisiting laws!!

fly

[gratuitous]

22. This is good

But I wonder if the Bush administration will be budged off of its philosophy that "when the President does something, that means it's not illegal." So a law that purports to ban "illegal" domestic wiretapping isn't going to affect these yahoos in the slightest.

But it is good to bring public attention to this ongoing high crime being perpetrated by the administration.

[AikidoSoul]

26. The Bush admin will keep doing it. They don't care about law n/t

[Wiley50]

25. not unless idiotboy signs it

sans signing statement

we are so fucking screwn

[lonestarnot]

27. Wooooofuckingwhooo!

Yeahya b:toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: baby! :toast: :bounce: :bounce: some more :party: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast::toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :party:

[Cha]

30. And that's why I give

the ACLU money!

[lonestarnot]

32. Yesssssssssss!

[Greeby]

34. Actually the fact he hasn't used the signing statements in the 110th says a lot

Tells me the little chickenshit won't dare do it again now that the adults are in charge

[indepat]

37. 'puke alway vote in blind lockstep, jumping through their own assholes. to give their Fuhrer

whatever he wants, damn their oaths of office, damn the Constitution.