PDA

View Full Version : There is No Opposition Party to a President with a 28% Approval Rating



Yablonowitz
08-06-2007, 10:00 AM
The strong and tough Democrats

The Washington Post's Fred Hiatt has spent the last several years demanding that Democrats show their Seriousness by capitulating to most Bush "terrorism" policies. He is the type of pundit about which Democratic consultants fret so deeply when they advise their clients not to defy Bush's will. But even Hiatt sees the Democrats' weekend capitulation on FISA for exactly what it is, and expresses it clearly in a remarkably good Editorial this morning -- entitled "Warrantless Surrender":

THE DEMOCRATIC-led Congress, more concerned with protecting its political backside than with safeguarding the privacy of American citizens, left town early yesterday after caving in to administration demands that it allow warrantless surveillance of the phone calls and e-mails of American citizens, with scant judicial supervision and no reporting to Congress about how many communications are being intercepted.
To call this legislation ill-considered is to give it too much credit: It was scarcely considered at all. Instead, it was strong-armed through both chambers by an administration that seized the opportunity to write its warrantless wiretapping program into law -- or, more precisely, to write it out from under any real legal restrictions.
Administration officials, backed up by their Republican enablers in Congress, argued that they were being dangerously hamstrung in their ability to collect foreign-to-foreign communications by suspected terrorists that happen to transit through the United States. The problem is that while no serious person objects to intercepting foreign-to-foreign communications, what the administration sought -- and what it managed to obtain -- allows much more than foreign-to-foreign contacts. The government will now be free to intercept any communications believed to be from outside the United States (including from Americans overseas) that involve "foreign intelligence" -- not just terrorism. It will be able to monitor phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens or residents without warrants -- unless the subject is the "primary target" of the surveillance.
Instead of having the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court ensure that surveillance is being done properly, with monitoring of Americans minimized, that job would be up to the attorney general and the director of national intelligence. The court's role is reduced to that of rubber stamp. . . .
Democrats could have stuck to their guns and insisted on their version. Instead, nervous about being blamed for any terrorist attack and eager to get out of town, they accepted the unacceptable. Most Democrats opposed the measure, but enough (16 in the Senate, 41 in the House) went with Republicans to allow it to pass, and the leadership enabled that result.
In the NYT, James Risen, the reporter who first revealed the existence of the NSA program, described the legislation as one which "broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants." As Hiatt also pointed out, Risen explained that "its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists," and instead, "the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside." Risen quoted the excellent Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, saying: "This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program."

Prior to the November, 2006 elections, the Bush administration tried desperately to force the Congress to enact new FISA legislation to legalize warrantless eavesdropping. The Democrats resisted just enough to prevent its enactment. Karl Rove and Republicans generally then ran around the country exploiting that obstructionism in order to accuse Democrats of being "soft on terror" and "wanting to prevent the President from listening in when Osama calls," the Republicans were crushed in that election, and Democrats obtained an historic victory. In the not-blue state of Montana, Jon Tester defeated an incumbant GOP Senator by running on a platform of repealing the Patriot Act in its entirety. Wouldn't the most basic rationality compel Democrats to draw the conclusion that this rank Terrorism fear-mongering does not actually work?

Yet here they are, after refusing to legalize warrantless eavesdropping prior to their midterm victory, allowing this legislation to pass now that they are in the majority. It is as politically self-destructive as it is unconscionable on the merits.
While the premise of this behavior is that Democrats must avoid appearing "soft" and "weak," one article after the next describes their behavior as "surrendering," "capitulating," "bowing to pressure," "caving in" and "suffering defeat" -- all at the hands of a weakened, isolated and pervasively despised lame duck President whose political party is in shambles. The worst thing one can be in American politics and American culture generally is a loser, and Democrats perpetually turn themselves into losers and convince themselves when doing so that they are appearing "strong" and "tough."

What makes this all the more appalling is that it was so easily avoidable. All Democrats had to do was offer legislation to fix the only real gap in FISA and then demand that the President sign it or risk a Terrorist attack. They could have gone on the offensive ahead of time by crafting the legislation and then made it their own cause to demand that the President sign it immediately in order to fix this problem and protect us from the Terrorists.

But they did none of that. They waited around, as always, with no aim and no strategy and no principle and no belief and allowed the President to dictate their behavior and control the debate. It is exactly what they have done on every virtually major issue over the last six years -- from Iraq to the Military Commissions Act to the Alito nomination to the whole slew of still-secret surveillance programs that they meekly allow to remain undisclosed, even to them.

In the process, they gutted the few existing restrictions on the government's power to spy on us. They revitalized the GOP base which is revelling in their Victory and dispirited and infuriated their own base. They revealed themselves, yet again, as weak and principle-free as they are politically inept. And even Fred Hiatt sees all of that.
* * * * * *
-- Glenn Greenwald

Tylerdurden31
08-06-2007, 10:01 AM
I'd like the entire government to be replaced. Everyone's pissing me off now.

psychic friend
08-06-2007, 10:04 AM
nice formatting

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 10:04 AM
I'd like the entire government to be replaced. Everyone's pissing me off now.

Seriously, I thought the Democrats would get their acts together but they got as much special interest as the Republicans do. It is funny that the bill to get a higher MPG on cars didn't pass when you have a Senator from Michigan on the head of the energy committee and the Big 3 auto makers in his pocket.

marooko
08-06-2007, 10:19 AM
Congress recesses amid Democratic achievements
Sun Aug 5, 2007 9:01 AM EDT

That would be welcome news for a Congress that this year has seen its public approval ratings dip even below Bush's chronically low polling. A Pew Research Center survey released on Thursday said Bush scored a 29 percent approval rating, while Democratic leaders were at a similarly lethargic 33 percent.

this is only part of the story but the headline is awesome considering the approval rating. not too far off from bush's rating. i love the news today.

these are fun.

if you dont want to work, become a reporter. that awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse.
-mark twain, 1881

If you're not careful the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. -- Malcolm X

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 10:22 AM
Congress recesses amid Democratic achievements
Sun Aug 5, 2007 9:01 AM EDT

That would be welcome news for a Congress that this year has seen its public approval ratings dip even below Bush's chronically low polling. A Pew Research Center survey released on Thursday said Bush scored a 29 percent approval rating, while Democratic leaders were at a similarly lethargic 33 percent.

this is only part of the story but the headline is awesome considering the approval rating. not too far off from bush's rating. i love the news today.

these are fun.

if you dont want to work, become a reporter. that awful power, the public opinion of the nation, was created by a horde of self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditch digging and shoemaking and fetched up journalism on their way to the poorhouse.
-mark twain, 1881

If you're not careful the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. -- Malcolm X

That is a epic Malcolm X quote..

Yablonowitz
08-06-2007, 10:52 AM
nice formatting

I'll format your face!

canexplain
08-06-2007, 10:54 AM
come to the DNC here in denver next summer, i keep telling eveyone, we are going to have riots ... just like chicago 68 ... this is going to be fun :) cr****

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 10:57 AM
come to the DNC here in denver next summer, i keep telling eveyone, we are going to have riots ... just like chicago 68 ... this is going to be fun :) cr****

the crap part about this is I will be working in the hotels downtown. so it is going to be hell....

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 11:03 AM
what hotel do you work for?

and what kind of discount can you get for me in other cities if possible.......please?

John Peel is My Co-pilot
08-06-2007, 11:03 AM
Whenever party politics starts to be brought up I always think back to the genius that is Bill Hicks.

"I'll show you politics in America right here," Hicks told audiences, miming like a puppet master.

'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'

'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'

Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!

"Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer.'"

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 11:04 AM
what hotel do you work for?

I used to work at The Curtis and now I am switching over to the Adam's Mark. More $$$

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 11:04 AM
Whenever party politics starts to be brought up I always think back to the genius that is Bill Hicks.

"I'll show you politics in America right here," Hicks told audiences, miming like a puppet master.

'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'

'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'

Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!

"Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer.'"

Genius..

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 11:06 AM
what hotel do you work for?

and what kind of discount can you get for me in other cities if possible.......please?

I lived and worked in the Las Vegas hotels..I still have hotel manager friends at the Monte Carlo and Mandalay Bay. And one of my family members is going to be going to the Venetian so there's another one.

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 11:08 AM
hmmmmmm............did I ever tell you that I love you.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 11:09 AM
hmmmmmm............did I ever tell you that I love you.

No, you just use me for all the sex.

disgustipated
08-06-2007, 11:10 AM
XVzFzgHu0T0

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 11:14 AM
No, you just use me for all the sex.

now i will.

Yablonowitz
08-06-2007, 11:18 AM
come to the DNC here in denver next summer, i keep telling eveyone, we are going to have riots ... just like chicago 68 ... this is going to be fun :) cr****

The only difference is they're going to wiretap your ass and throw you in jail before you get there.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 11:18 AM
are you planning on going to vegas anytime soon?

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-06-2007, 11:20 AM
The only difference is they're going to wiretap your ass and throw you in jail before you get there.

Oh christ, who knows who we are going to have in the hotel...i will have to keep my rhetoric at home....

canexplain
08-06-2007, 11:25 AM
The only difference is they're going to wiretap your ass and throw you in jail before you get there.

they did for the 68 convention, throw my ass in jail, well the football stadium anyway .. and here it will be 40 years later .... seems apre pro sp .... cr****

Yablonowitz
08-06-2007, 12:28 PM
they did for the 68 convention, throw my ass in jail, well the football stadium anyway .. and here it will be 40 years later .... seems apre pro sp .... cr****

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/yablonowitz/080407_15301.jpg

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 12:35 PM
I want one.

marooko
08-06-2007, 01:01 PM
Seriously, I thought the Democrats would get their acts together but they got as much special interest as the Republicans do. It is funny that the bill to get a higher MPG on cars didn't pass when you have a Senator from Michigan on the head of the energy committee and the Big 3 auto makers in his pocket.

i posted my comment to shed light on the idea above. i didint read the above post above before i made my post.

i myself wasnt thinking the dems were gonna get it together, i was under the impression that it was just their turn up at bat in a game "we" are losing. was i right?


That is a epic Malcolm X quote..

canexplain
08-06-2007, 01:13 PM
i posted my comment to shed light on the idea above. i didint read the above post above before i made my post.

i myself wasnt thinking the dems were gonna get it together, i was under the impression that it was just their turn up at bat in a game "we" are losing. was i right?




have to think about that one... ya, it is our turn, and will we screw it up as bad as the reps, i think not, but time will telll .. come to denver 08 ... make your voice known.. cr****

canexplain
08-06-2007, 01:15 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v682/yablonowitz/080407_15301.jpg

thats funny, i have no clue what it means, but it works .... come on gang, let make the dnc 08 one to remember ... cr****

roberto73
08-06-2007, 01:16 PM
Whenever party politics starts to be brought up I always think back to the genius that is Bill Hicks.

"I'll show you politics in America right here," Hicks told audiences, miming like a puppet master.

'I believe the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.'

'Well, I believe the puppet on the left is more to my liking.'

Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding up both puppets!

"Go back to bed, America, your government is in control. Here's Love Connection, watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer.'"

The last seven years have made me wish more than ever that Hicks was still alive.

instinct
08-06-2007, 01:20 PM
God, I hate the democrats and the republicans just about equally now.

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 01:23 PM
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g286/lonelylamppost/kucinich_2008.jpg

canexplain
08-06-2007, 01:51 PM
so Justin, we have to have a space to camp maybe 5 peeps in our house .... peeps that are coming to the big show "THE DNC" .. i can hold maybe 5 in my house and 15 in back camping ... what ya think .. cr****

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 01:52 PM
I know of a good hotel down the street.

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 01:54 PM
Im pretty excited to see all the excitement that will follow the DNC in Denver. I live in a small space so I will let you know when I move in a couple months.

canexplain
08-06-2007, 02:17 PM
Im pretty excited to see all the excitement that will follow the DNC in Denver. I live in a small space so I will let you know when I move in a couple months.


dude, this is a music board, but more, so lets do our part, lets invite as many people as we can to stay at each of our homes, and do the DNC, it could prove to be like daft punk times two ... make a statement my friend, you could talk about this like i do, you can talk about Denver 07 like i do about 68 chicago, days that make who we are ... sorry to get so serious ... cr****************

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 02:52 PM
Cr**** Im with you. Denver will never be the same after the DNC hits the town. I will be front row center for most of the events. I just dont want to make any promisses. I welcome everyone and their dog to come here and let your voice be heard. I just dont know where Ill be living in 6 months, so ya, I will let you know how much space is available then. UNTILL THEN........Kuchinich 08!

marooko
08-06-2007, 03:05 PM
have to think about that one... ya, it is our turn, and will we screw it up as bad as the reps, i think not, but time will telll .. come to denver 08 ... make your voice known.. cr****

the post below is really what i was getting at. im not feeling any party right now. i lean towrds the right but in no way would wanna associate myself with todays majority right. i live my life pretty much on the left minus social programs and helping people that dont wanna help themselves. i just think were getting fucked on both ends while we argue about which side is right. not that we here are arguing, just a general statement.





God, I hate the democrats and the republicans just about equally now.

canexplain
08-06-2007, 03:24 PM
Cr**** Im with you. Denver will never be the same after the DNC hits the town. I will be front row center for most of the events. I just dont want to make any promisses. I welcome everyone and their dog to come here and let your voice be heard. I just dont know where Ill be living in 6 months, so ya, I will let you know how much space is available then. UNTILL THEN........Kuchinich 08!


ya for sure, i think i know what my life will be like in a year, but really who knows.. but carp diem, party in denver dnc 08 lol .. cr****

canexplain
08-06-2007, 03:26 PM
the post below is really what i was getting at. im not feeling any party right now. i lean towrds the right but in no way would wanna associate myself with todays majority right. i live my life pretty much on the left minus social programs and helping people that dont wanna help themselves. i just think were getting fucked on both ends while we argue about which side is right. not that we here are arguing, just a general statement.


dude, all in all, your posts i agree or have no major disagreement with, but lean right .... grrrrrrr... cr****

PotVsKtl
08-06-2007, 03:50 PM
The Democrats are unbelievably stupid. They had their chance and they fucked it up every time. Republicans were blocking every single bill they passed or tried to pass by requiring a 60 vote majority (eliminating the possibility of a filibuster) just so they could use the phrase "Do Nothing Congress" on Hannity and Colmes. So what do the Democrats come up with? They pulled an all night stunt session to try to show the American public that they were being blocked, standing in front of LET US VOTE signs like a paste-eating knickers-chewing special ed fuckup. The problem is the stunt session was on withdrawal from Iraq, an initiative that the Republicans can reasonably argue should require a 60 vote majority, rather than ethics reform or education funding or any number of other issues that would have made sense to highlight to the public. I mean the Republicans were filibustering ethics reform bills that had ALREADY FUCKING PASSED and the Democrats choose the war, the most controversial topic available. Clown makeup.

PotVsKtl
08-06-2007, 03:52 PM
I've done more acid than a Deadhead camped out at Sandoz Labs and I could come up with a better political strategy than these douchesacks.

amyzzz
08-06-2007, 04:32 PM
I've done more acid than a Deadhead camped out at Sandoz Labs and I could come up with a better political strategy than these douchesacks.
That's probably why you could come up with a better plan. Everyone in Congress needs to take acid, I say!

marooko
08-06-2007, 05:06 PM
dude, all in all, your posts i agree or have no major disagreement with, but lean right .... grrrrrrr... cr****

the things i lean right on are my personal beliefs, although we all may think we're right in our opinion i try really hard not to push my views on anyone. so to grr me on that i think is strange. i think i can understand why you do but thats why i say i wouldnt associate myself with todays right.

i dont think youre disagreeing with me, i just saw that someone said what i was saying more directly so i just wanted to clarify.

time to go home, its been fun to read all your comments everyone. peace out!!

Yablonowitz
08-06-2007, 09:21 PM
A lot of the problem is the fact that there are Democrats who are Democrats in name only: Ben Nelson (get a clue, figure it out, come back when you've made up your fucking mind what you believein), Kent Conrad, Lieberman (who caucuses with the Dems). I just don't see why even the moderate Republicans voted for this thing. Warrantless wiretaps? Who wants that? Removing the judicial system from the surveillance process is fucking egregious. Land of the free to be spied on.

I haven't heard one person clamoring for this, yet Congress lets Bush tug them by their dicks and force them to do what he wants for FISA?! How does this work, exactly? Times like this make me agree with FOIey that the system is completely broken.

mob roulette
08-06-2007, 09:59 PM
I really want to comment in this thread but don't feel I have much to add. I think Pot pretty much nailed it. And I respect what the Democrats stand for and everything, but I sure as hell don't want them anywhere near MY mutual funds. The current crop couldn't manage a fucking KFC. It's embarrassing.

J~$$$
08-06-2007, 10:19 PM
cCrovnNGdSg

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-07-2007, 04:51 AM
cCrovnNGdSg

video doesn't werk.

RotationSlimWang
08-07-2007, 06:03 AM
If you vote either Democratic or Republican you're perpetuating a corrupt and flawed system that purports to be democracy and has come to embody the ills of what should be a glorious form of government.

Voting for a third party is making a stand, sort of, but I think the more likely (or maybe possible?) series of events that could finally force a kind of anti-trust break up of the gruesome twosome. Something like Canada, perhaps, where votes for losing prime minister candidates get translated into party seats in their parliament (if I'm mistaken about the particulars of that part of Canadian elections, please feel free to correct).

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-07-2007, 06:11 AM
If you vote either Democratic or Republican you're perpetuating a corrupt and flawed system that purports to be democracy and has come to embody the ills of what should be a glorious form of government.

Voting for a third party is making a stand, sort of, but I think the more likely (or maybe possible?) series of events that could finally force a kind of anti-trust break up of the gruesome twosome. Something like Canada, perhaps, where votes for losing prime minister candidates get translated into party seats in their parliament (if I'm mistaken about the particulars of that part of Canadian elections, please feel free to correct).

I have been thinking about this for a while already. A big reason why things don't get done is simply that there is not even competition in politics. It is either one party of the other. What we need is a strong 3rd party to keep the others on their toes. I think it is another reason why the Democrats are so lazy about things since they know that even though their approval rates are low the Republicans are still more despised from what Dub-ya has done. But the US doesn't have a history of a 3rd strong party. Never has. And there lays the problem. Green party anyone?

RotationSlimWang
08-07-2007, 06:35 AM
Oh yeah, adding one more party would really make a difference. Then we'd have three well-funded groups of bullshitters.

marooko
08-07-2007, 07:54 AM
If you vote either Democratic or Republican you're perpetuating a corrupt and flawed system that purports to be democracy and has come to embody the ills of what should be a glorious form of government.

Voting for a third party is making a stand, sort of, but I think the more likely (or maybe possible?) series of events that could finally force a kind of anti-trust break up of the gruesome twosome. Something like Canada, perhaps, where votes for losing prime minister candidates get translated into party seats in their parliament (if I'm mistaken about the particulars of that part of Canadian elections, please feel free to correct).


voting is not this easy. it sounds great but many votes will be essentially lost by voting for a third party. now anyway, but hopefully whats been going on the last several years will start the ball rolling in the direction of the red above.



Oh yeah, adding one more party would really make a difference. Then we'd have three well-funded groups of bullshitters.

there are more parties, we just dont know about them due to funding. and adding one more would definately break things up. for a short time anyway. also with this mindset it could be said that adding any amount of parties would have the same outcome.

Yablonowitz
08-07-2007, 08:15 AM
[QUOTE=TeamCoachellaHellYeah;265487] A big reason why things don't get done is simply that there is not even competition in politics. [QUOTE]

If only that were true that things aren't getting done. Things are getting done alright. Just not good things. I find it beyond amazing that Congressmen of either party are so willingly letting the executive branch run the country. Separation of powers. Who needs that shit?

suprefan
08-07-2007, 06:38 PM
OK, I would agree with this.


IoXgRtDysLY

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
08-08-2007, 07:25 AM
OK, I would agree with this.


IoXgRtDysLY

best youtube post ever!

RotationSlimWang
08-08-2007, 08:01 AM
We need at least five decently variant parties to each possess at least 10 percent of the voting power. No five individuals or groups thereof can agree on anything whatsoever, and thus they'd never be able to get a goddamn thing passed into law unless it overwhelmingly broad in appeal. The framers tried to structure our government so that checks and balances and the natural disagreements of man would insure it'd be hard as fuck for Congress or the President to actually DO anything. Federal government was supposed to stay an impotent entity--it's a crying shame what we have become.

TomAz
08-08-2007, 08:20 AM
I hope we hurry up and invade Iran. that should make the election all the more interesting.

sonofhal
08-08-2007, 08:27 AM
http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y2ZA9JZ2L._SS500_.jpg

Vote Dave 08

Tylerdurden31
08-08-2007, 08:39 AM
http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Y2ZA9JZ2L._SS500_.jpg

Vote Dave 08

best president ever

PotVsKtl
08-08-2007, 01:31 PM
The Bush administration plans to leave oversight of its expanded foreign eavesdropping program to the same government officials who supervise the surveillance activities and to the intelligence personnel who carry them out, senior government officials said yesterday.

The law, which permits intercepting Americans’ calls and e-mails without a warrant if the communications involve overseas transmission, gives Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales responsibility for creating the broad procedures determining whose telephone calls and e-mails are collected. It also gives McConnell and Gonzales the role of assessing compliance with those procedures.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601303.html

Tylerdurden31
08-08-2007, 01:48 PM
http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/Images/ChksBalnces.gif

Yablonowitz
08-08-2007, 02:26 PM
Thank you Democratic Congress. Thank you for fucking us in the ass. Again.

Archie Bunker
08-08-2007, 02:29 PM
While I'm no fan of big brother watching me, everyone is being a bit paranoid regarding the so-called warrantless wiretapping.

Too many people picture black-suited government agents listening to their every phone call.

Truthfully, these measures were proposed to simplify the investigation of suspected terrorists -- not violate the privacy of everyday American citizens.

Unless you think your activities would make you a terror suspect, you have nothing to worry about.

Tylerdurden31
08-08-2007, 02:34 PM
While I'm no fan of big brother watching me, everyone is being a bit paranoid regarding the so-called warrantless wiretapping.

Too many people picture black-suited government agents listening to their every phone call.

Truthfully, these measures were proposed to simplify the investigation of suspected terrorists -- not violate the privacy of everyday American citizens.

Unless you think your activities would make you a terror suspect, you have nothing to worry about.

it's not about that. It's about the fact that the wiretapping will be performed and investigated by the executive branch. Plus the fact that congress rolled over for the president. They should've given the pres a bill to their liking with a post-it on it that says "go fuck yourself"

TomAz
08-08-2007, 03:00 PM
While I'm no fan of big brother watching me, everyone is being a bit paranoid regarding the so-called warrantless wiretapping.

Too many people picture black-suited government agents listening to their every phone call.

Truthfully, these measures were proposed to simplify the investigation of suspected terrorists -- not violate the privacy of everyday American citizens.

Unless you think your activities would make you a terror suspect, you have nothing to worry about.

Yes that's the intent of the law, but the lack of effective oversight seems to be an invitation to abuse. If Richard Nixon's folks would authorize criminal entry to gain political intelligence, who is to say some politico wouldn't do the same with wiretapping? If J. Edgar Hoover would keep dossiers on political enemies and suspected homosexuals, how can you be so sure some future FBI/CIA/NSA/Homeland Security director won't use the free reign on wiretapping to monitor politcal undesirables?

I understand the need for the law, and I'm all for going after terrorists. I just don't understand what purpose is served by having the same people run the program AND oversee that the program is run legally. They have intentionally and purposefully removed the audit function -- but why? to what end?

fatbastard
08-09-2007, 09:53 AM
All politics aside (as best possible), how un-united are we as a country that we can all disagree to not approve of our president's performance and not work together to remove him? It just seems like the line beween the people who we vote in to protect us and those that cause us harm has been stepped on beyond recognition.

jackstraw94086
08-09-2007, 11:18 AM
GwfXsX0308s

Yablonowitz
08-10-2007, 08:48 AM
While I'm no fan of big brother watching me, everyone is being a bit paranoid regarding the so-called warrantless wiretapping.

Too many people picture black-suited government agents listening to their every phone call.

Truthfully, these measures were proposed to simplify the investigation of suspected terrorists -- not violate the privacy of everyday American citizens.

Unless you think your activities would make you a terror suspect, you have nothing to worry about.

You apparently have for more faith and trust in the NSA and Alberto Gonzalez than I do.

The egregiousness here is that they are bypassing the judicial branch and making the program so that it's being overseen by the same people who are running it.

J~$$$
08-10-2007, 08:52 AM
BREAKING: Citing Four-Day Old Surveillance Law, Bush Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Spying
By David Kravets EmailAugust 09, 2007 | 3:11:11 PMCategories: NSA, Surveillance

The NSA's secret room?

Four days after President Bush signed controversial legislation legalizing some warrantless surveillance of Americans, the administration is citing the law in a surprise motion today urging a federal judge to dismisss a lawsuit challenging the NSA spy program.

The lawsuit was brought by lawyers defending Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The lawyers and others alleged the threat of surveillance is chilling their First Amendment rights of speech, and their clients' right to legal representation.

Justice Department lawyers are asking (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to toss the case, citing the new law -- which says warrantless surveillance can continue for up to a year so long as one person in the intercepted communications is reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

The motion is set to be heard in federal court in San Francisco this afternoon. THREAT LEVEL will be there.

The government said the new Protect America Act of 2007 requires the government to notify the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "as soon as practicable" when somebody is being spied upon, but does not require its immediate authorization.

The government has maintained all along that electronic eavesdropping was legal, and said the newest legislation provides "an additional basis for dismissal."

The Center for Constitutional Rights, the plaintif in the lawsuit, is expected to argue today that the new law violates the Fourth Amendment's requirement that judges approve warrants for surveillance.

"Congress has ceded further power to an administration that has done nothing but abuse its power and betray the trust of the American people, center attorney Shayana Kadidal said. "Congress has given the president and attorney general virtually uncheckmed power to spy on international calls of Americans without any oversight or accountability from the courts."

Cindy Cohn, director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the latest legislation does not apply to another eavesdropping case in which her group accuses AT&T of cooperating with the National Security Agency to make all communications on AT&T networks available to the spy agency without warrants. That case will be argued before the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday.

"This new law does not apply to this dragnet style of eavesdropping, and if it did, it's not retroactive," Cohn said.