Politics – When it's OK to monitor certain phone calls, e-mails, faxes and text messages between foreigners and U.S. residents. Such surveillance can go on for a year. Left on the books long enough, this is not just an invitation to abuse, history suggests it is a guarantee.
"Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution â;; provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants â;; the new law just short-circuited the process."
I fail to see what is so urgent and essential that the police cannot take the time necessary to show cause as to why a warrant is needed. After all, these secret kangaroo courts will issue the warrant no matter what. At least give the American people the false belief that our liberties are not being stripped away. Bushco has no shame in letting the people know that "we don't need no stinkin' rights."
You still don't get it. There is not enough Liberals to give the President a headache. Most of the Democrats in the House, and Senate votes for what ever the President asks them for to win the war. Right. Even the Democrats are begining to see an end to the Iraq war, and if we win, and they can't share the glory, they lose in 08.
The dems run congress. Why don't they just de-fund the war? Because they want it to end, but they don't want the blame! But now they agree with the president on this FISA issue so we can set up quick wiretaps on those making phone calls to Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as known/potential extremists groups right here at home. BTW Email was NEVER confidential. It was always considered as sending a postcard.
Would the leftist loonies on this board please explain to me how YOU would keep us safe and fight a war on terror?
I don't see any ideas, I just see whining.
You speak of this Wiretapping as a critical tool to catching terrorisits. How many has it caught. None that I can remember. The government has already said they were spying on Americans that had no contact abroad. This is basically Bush spying on people that he doesn't like. Peta, Vegans, Anti war citizens, disstenters.
How would I keep us safe? I'd pull troops out of Iraq and redeploy some of them to Afganistan where the terrorism problem is much worse than the insurgency in Iraq The troops that were not redeployed are to immediately brought back to the US. This country need to be protected, not fighting people that had nothing to do with 9/11.
"The dems run congress. Why don't they just de-fund the war? Because they want it to end, but they don't want the blame!"
Actually, I think that the Dems that actually voted for this law (which, BTW, was a MINORITY of Democrats; 16 in the Senate and 41 in the House) are the ones who are still scared sh!tless about being labelled as "soft on terror". Just goes to show how the hard-right has been able to dominate the discussion on foreign policy- if you label anybody who opposses you as "soft" or "appeasing the terrorists" or as "traitors", you effectively eliminate dissent. Nobody will dare stand up to you, or present alternative viewpoints.
A temporary war,I beg to differ with that assumption!
"It's dangerous to give any administration permanent powers"
This statement is false also. If you grant the powers you can obviously take them away. Nothing permanent about it.
"This statement is false also. If you grant the powers you can obviously take them away. Nothing permanent about it."
Really?
Name one power that has been granted to the President (by whatever means- executive order, an actual law, or by simple "interpretation" of the Constitution) that, once granted, has been taken away. And I'm not talking just about this administration; feel free to use ANY President in American history.
I think that the trend has been throughout history that once the government (any of the 3 federal branches, or even state or local gov't) assumes a new power, it is very hard to then take that power away. They are usually not very willing to give that power up.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and when the war ended so did the suspension. Roosevelt interned citizens w/o trial and that ended at the end of the war. If you even bothered to scratch the surface of history you'd see that powers granted can and are taken away, there may be difficulty but it is true.
More to the point, it seems the Democrats and Republicans were falling over each other to give the President even more than he wanted so no one could say they were soft on terrorism. How do all you leftists like your Democrats now???? Hmmm?
"there may be difficulty but it is true."
Actually, there is a LOT of difficulty. So much so that when, as you pointed out, Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, he himself regretted it to the end of his days, declaring it one of the worst decisions he ever made (as is evidenced if you read his personal letters). It took a Supreme Court case (Ex Parte Milligan, 1886) to reaffirm the illegallity of suspending Habeus Corpus, and that case only barely made it to trial.
"How do all you leftists like your Democrats now"
How do you righties like the increasing numbers of Republicans in favor of troop withdrawl from Iraq?
Seems to me, we have some crooks worried about getting caught...Like a guy named Jefferson, or maybe a woman named Pelosi, or maybe a T. Kennedy, Kennedy is a little like O J Simpson, kills his girlfriend, and gets away with it..
Imagine that. You fail to mention the current administration that is guilty of treason, war crimes, torture, kidnapping, rendition, murder, violation of human rights, violation of the Geneva Convention. I love how you cons rail on the left as being crooks, which they are but conveniently leave out anything your Monsters you put in office has done.
Mighty impressive list of made up crimes there. You forgot jay walking. So the cons rail on the left about crooks, off topic but we alllll know that the Democrats are as white as snow. I can't understand how either side has any room to crow. Crooks and sleaze bags abound in both parties. Why so indignant?
Made up huh? Provide some proof then. But you have none.
Human rights and geneva convention are violated every day in Guantanamo. I know a navy doctor that left there because of the Torture that was going on down there.
Kidnapping of innoncent people, then transporting them to secret prisons, some killed, some wrongly accused but still held form months, being tortured.
Illegal wiretapping ins unconstitutional. The constitution is a Express grant, if it's no in there you can't do it. Bush did it anyway with no authorization. Violation of the constitution is treason.
What's more because all you cons love to bring up Clinton. Why no bring up Prescott Bush who was a partner and on the board of a company that financed the Nazis up until a year after the bombing of pearl harbor. There is no more evil family than the Bush's and their Nazi friends.
Gee. . . wasn't it mostly Republicans involved in the Abramoff scandal?
Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom DeLay, Steven Griles, Tony Rudy, etc. Guess what? All Republicans!
What's that got to do with anything??
Well, it was HMMace who brought up the point that maybe the members of Congress are worried about getting themselves caught doing their own little misdeeds.
I think that's kind of a silly point considering that a) if that WERE the case you would think that they would have voted AGAINST this bill and b) its not, as HMMace implied, that Democrats are the ones doing all of the illegal stuff- in fact MANY more Republicans have been caught doing illegal activity in recent years than Dems.
But you're right, it doesn't have much to do with the topic of the FISA court. I was just a little bit peeved at HMMace's comment, which is not only irrelevant but blatantly partisan (not to mention that he was obfuscating the facts).
Good art...It does show something strange about how our govt works... You pat mine, Ill smack yours. Its not a party thing...its government. I like what the Gov. of AR, or what ever his is. "I have a picture on the wall. It changes every couple days. It has a picture of someone from AR on it. It helps remind me and my staff of who we work for." Even though I dont politicians, it gives me something that I could say, "I voted for him" with pride. Any other canidate can you do that??
I like this letter from a reader to the NYTimes on this issue:
"I have no objection to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.
We could start with records of the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq; continue with the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney's energy conference; include phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys and ascertain who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support.
After all, these are matters of national security."
Also this one, which sums up MY feelings about this subject nicely:
"Our courts decided that the methods used by the White House for tracing calls were illegal. So the Bush administration sets out to change the procedures just enough to avoid the legal restrictions and allow it to do what it wants to do.
Then it has the audacity to put the completely discredited attorney general in the loop to approve its new procedures!
Congress goes limp with reputation paralysis and lets the measure pass. When will this Congress get the political courage to say "Enough!" to this hubris-sodden imperial presidency?"
"The constitution does say that the President may use executive powers to ensure (domestic tranquility)."
Yes, but within the limits of the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Constitution ALSO specifically says that the right to Habeus Corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." It's hard to see how enemy combatants picked up in a foreign country, or on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan, represent either a "rebellion" or an "invasion".
As regards U.S. citizens who, we presume, have signed on to accept the RESPONSIBILITIES of being a citizens as well as the rights - this is 100% correct. As far as a non-citizen who is not even actually IN the Unites States, I'm not so sure. We can't enforce our Constitutional rights and guarantees on EVERYONE. There are a LOT of other governments on the planet who would tend to resent that. China comes to mind right away. And practically ANY middle eastern country. Imagine trying to enforce the 1st Amendment on a Muslim country. Not pretty.
Oh, I agree completely that the Prez's first and primary responsibility is to protect the US, and that we should do all we can to prevent terrorists from attacking us. I just think that we can do that without stripping away our civil liberties or granting the President powers that are considered unconsitutional. Especially when one considers that their are other countries in the world that have been seriously fighting terrorists a lot longer than we have, and that have managed to do so successfully without suspending civil liberties or granting "executive powers".
But one thing we aren't really clear on is: WHY do these terrorists want to attack us. I mean really - not the B.S. about how they hate our freedoms and the like. Is it simply because we aren't Muslim? Is it because we have military bases for no really good reason all over the middle east? Is it because we have a tendency to interfere in the internal politics of other countries? Let's face it honestly, we CANNOT possibly kill them all. Do you agree? Since we CANNOT possibly kill them all - shouldn't we see if just MAYBE there isn't some other, better way to solve this problem? I'm not saying we should all start bowing to Mecca, just thinking that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if we left them alone, they would leave us alone? If they really, really hate us because we (theoretically) support Israel -- that's easy too. Stop supporting Israel. I'm not really sure why Israel is any of our business anyway. It's not like they have a lot of oil or anything.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
gabriel19671968
stwor
followme
markdykeman
webbmster19899
pawfoots
perkonis
uncogito
shehnshah
Bigrocket
zoblcool
bruhaha
RussianThreats
ryan601
mesodude
Armzes
Ionic
david4
Saturan
razorramon876
moe1
Gven
FastMan
Grisson
avpd85
saltyveruca
Forten
som1950
crespi
Dr.Adams
starshinediva
nvekfej
rebner
Helixbuilder
Beeboppin71
1basque1
trday2006
ret25usn
_kam0_
Donnaich
antinancoas
Ratskii
dmawide
0gramstransfat
hermonin
zelma62
Amanda2008
wakaka900
Jools
raeliegh
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
45)
Vote
"In fact, the law itself is evidence of the tendency of those in power to overreach. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress amended, long ago provided means to monitor terrorists. It set up a secret court to grant warrants quickly â;; even retroactively â;; for legitimate surveillance, and that system has been widely viewed as effective. Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution â;; provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants â;; the new law just short-circuited the process."
"It's dangerous to give any administration permanent powers to fight a temporary war, even one that could last as long as the one against Islamic extremism. It's just as dangerous to trust an administration to police itself without court supervision."
"A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure."
This entire thing has me really worried.. Unlike most American's there is not a single day that goes by im not involved in international phone calls, emails, Instant Messages or letters..
Sick and tired of Technological hillbillies dictating what happens with my communications between friends, business associates and co-workers.