House Approves Wiretap Bill

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States.

The 227-183 vote, which followed the Senate's approval Friday, sends the bill to Bush for his signature. He had urged Congress to approve it, saying Saturday, "Protecting America is our most solemn obligation."



Read more: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/08/04/national/w192241D75.DTL

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. For me, this pretty much does it. I no longer trust the Dems in Congress. :( nt

[rwheeler31]

9. Why

[Sarah Ibarruri]

13. Because they're siding with a criminal president. I'm in shock. nt

[kansasblue]

11. I've got to rethink to.

No there are some good Dems. I'm thinking of switching my time and money to the state level. That the next line of defense.

Like Debra Bowen CA-SoS. Or the voting integrity groups. Or money to the online investigative reporters like BradBlog. EFF.org and ACLU.

[CreekDog]

24. 183 dems voted against it

So you don't trust all Democrats in Congress because some of them voted for it?

[sanskritwarrior]

35. Actually only 181 Democrats voted against it

As did 2 Republicans.......

[Exiled in America]

149. Funny...the republican party doesn't seem to have any trouble getting its majority to vote...

...a certain way.

But when it comes to us democrats, we can't imagine that we should ever be able to expect that our party representatives would be able to come together and, with near unanimous agreement, vote against assaults on the constitution.

You think we should be glad that 183 democrats voted against it. I think we should be angry that only 183 democrats voted against it. I think it should make us feel like something has gone terribly wrong in the party when only 183 of the elected house democrats can vote against it. I think it should make us say enough is enough, and its time to take back this party.

That's what I think.

But you go ahead and celebrate the fact that 183 democrats voted against it. It wasn't enough to protect the country from another decimation of civil liberties and another administration power grab, was it? So what exactly is supposed to be the comfort in the 183 number?

And 183 votes against it doesn't change the congressional democratic leadership that was willing to even bring it to a vote and work with the administration IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Generator]

146. Nt is right

What more CAN we say? It's all been fucking said. There is a thread by KPete in GD-maybe it wasn't cowardice all along-but complicity. I'm done expecting anything ever again from this group.

History books. Dustbin.

[Lifelong Protester]

2. I've Been Watching this on C-SPAN

WTF? Did I see correctly that there were a chunk of Dems who voted for this??

[Purveyor]

4. Over 40 Dems voted for this bill... n/t

[rodeodance]

14. There are 4 DU threads on this. Check in Greatest

[Lifelong Protester]

19. Thanks, will do

anyone have the roll call listed here yet?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. JFC, is all I can say.

:mad: MKJ

P.S. Who would Jesus wiretap?

[L. Coyote]

5. Did Bush's Secrecy Endangered America? YES! Hiding Truth, Spying, FISA, and Trust Gonzo.

Did Bush's Secrecy Endangered America? YES! Hiding Truth, Spying, FISA, and Trust Gonzo.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1514312

A. Many months ago, a FISA court secretly ruled that it was illegal for the NSA to intercept communications routed through the USA.

B. Bush did nothing, except, of course, not reveal the secret ruling about the secret spying, because he had secretly violated the law himself.

C. Many months later, the secret FISA court ruling is revealed.

D. Bush blames Dems for not getting the fix on his desk overnight, want warrantless spying as a solution, and wants Gonzo to be the decider.

Geeee-eez, who needs math? Bush should have had this fixed overnight, many months ago, instead of guarding the secret!

NOW, in a masterful magic show of distraction, Bush and the Rs changed the issue by proposing that Gonzo be the decider on authorizing warrantless surveillance of Americans. Clever as all hell as distractions go, and everyone is falling for their sleight-of-hand magic show. But, didn't the Administration know about this when the FISA court handed down the ruling? ABSOLUTELY. But, they hid their dirty secret for political gain, and, epitomizing cynicism, now, when revealed, use it as a political tool.

CONCLUSION: Bush endangered America, knowing fully well the NSA could not legally intercept Al Queda communications routed through the USA, rather than let his dirty secrets get out! Damn simple. Who needs math? (Or maybe, he was violating the law and doing the spying anyway, so no worries mates.)

Tell me if I got any of this wrong, please.

And, which of the following is the likelier Bush scenario

A. illegally spying anyway, or
B. not fixing the problem to hide past crimes?

READ MORE:

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1481897&mesg_id=1481897

[Gregorian]

6. I suppose they'll tap every presidential candidate's phone.

Just a thought. Anything goes, now.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Perhaps They Already Tapped Congress's Phones

might explain why the Dems always

[Gregorian]

28. I seem to remember that incident at the UN.

I think you are right. And maybe not much has even changed, with this vote. Maybe, except for signatures.

[tularetom]

7. Where can I see the vote?

I want to see if my spineless Democrat (not a typo) congressman voted for it. I'd bet a dollar to a dog turd he did. The worthless piece a shit.


ON EDIT: He voted "No". I take back everything bad I ever said about him. The man's a statesman and a great American.

[Bumblebee]

8. AP will have it shortly

[rodeodance]

15. 187 said NO. I am proud of them whoever they are (Hoyer said NO, Harman was a YES

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Harmon was a no.

[HomerRamone]

10. I suppose that's it for impeachment.

How are they going to impeach Bush for stuff they're now saying should be legal?

[rodeodance]

12. ap sure got this up FAST

[bluestateguy]

16. Someday President Hillary or President Edwards will have these powers

Which may be one reason why congressional Democrats approved this. That and just pure cowardice about anything that has the words "national security" associated with it.

I suspect a good many people on the Right will seriously rethink these kinds of measures once it's President Hillary, or Edwards, or any Democrat.

[originalpckelly]

17. You assume there will be a chance to have a Prez. Hillary or Edwards.

[LeFleur1]

20. Don't Give a Damn

I don't give a damn which party has this power. It Is Wrong.
No Democracy can exist with the government snooping into private business.
The law appears to be unconstitutional. Isn't it the Supreme court's duty to look at this. Of course, Bush has squewed the court, and some Democrats aquisced so that the court is not efficent any more, I suppose.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. And Repos will have the guts to impeach. Just watch. I'm beginning to suspect the Repos are a

lot smarter than the Dems.

Americans love a winner.

And who keeps winning?

[ixion]

75. It doesn't matter who 'has' them... they're not theirs to have. It's unconstitutional rubbish

and every single person who voted for this fascist piece of sh*t should be deported to Albania. :grr:

[Zhade]

134. And that would be just as illegal.

NT!

[Olney Blue]

18. I'm trying to hang on, but can someone tell me why I should keep

supporting these Dems?

[villager]

27. Wish I could think of a reason... don't forget their years of enabling Reagan, too...

n/t

[leftist.]

36. I hold out hope that 2006 was just a start to what 2008 will bring ...

... with even more Democrats joining Congress in 2008 maybe some of these "fence sitters" or enablers or whatever you'd like to call them won't be as sensitive to potential spin - for instance, in the case of this vote, "Senator Webb voted AGAINST listening in on terrorists' phone calls". Webb was a big disappointment for me in the Senate on this one.

Anyway, I don't really have an answer, I'm just trying to find some light at the end of this ridiculous tunnel.

[gulliver]

21. I'm not exactly sure why I should feel bad about this.

Just because Bush was for it? Does anyone know what specifically this supposedly does to endanger civil liberties, or are we just being spastic? This isn't a Bush victory. It's just our leaders voting for something that the executive branch thinks it needs. There are a lot of good, competent people forced to work for Bush because a bunch of dummies voted him into office in 2004. You can't blame the good people in his power for his being what he is. The guy was voted into the office he abuses and so clearly doesn't merit. If the sun shines, he'll expect people to thank him. If the government does one or two things well despite him, he will take a bow. That's the cards.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. So you won't miss the 4th amendment? I will.

[Zhade]

135. You're kidding, right?

Giving a criminal who illegally spied on U.S. citizens (among his many, many other KNOWN crimes) the tools to spy on more people at his discretion is okay?

[Purveyor]

22. List of Dems who voted for the FISA...

Altmire
Barrow
Bean
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Carney
Chandler
Cooper
Costa
Cramer
Cuellar
Davis (AL)
Davis, Lincoln
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellsworth
Etheridge
Gordon
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Lampson
Lipinski
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Mitchell
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Rodriguez
Ross
Salazar
Shuler
Snyder
Space
Tanner
Taylor
Walz (MN)
Wilson (OH)

[badgervan]

23. Depressed

Hard to believe. After six years of fighting for dems, that's it. If they won't do what we voted them in to do, they don't deserve our support. what spineless cowards. Unbelievable.

[JDPriestly]

29. My representative voted against it. I will write to thank him

Who is your representative. Mine is Xavier Becerra. He does a good job.

[Mind_your_head]

26. Why does the word "craven" keep popping in my head tonight?

as in 'craven democrats'. :spit: <---- (I know there is no 'spit' smiley, but there should be one)

[harpboy_ak]

30. there is one

how about

    :^>-------*

[Mind_your_head]

34. Thanks

I'm going to remember/use that! ;-)

[Dj13Francis]

31. All is lost.

R.I.P.
US Constitution
It's been real
It's been fun
But it ain't been real fun.
See ya on the flip side.
Peace.

[djjimz]

39. Ahh, c'mon Dj13Francis

:rofl:
All is not lost!
Did it ever occur to you, that this is all in the cards; that the dem's may be getting ready to play their hand.
Hang in there, never lose hope.
It's like guliver said.
What if they had gone to recess, and there was a terrorist attack. Planned or not, everything we have worked for, would be down the tubes. The people would turn against us in droves.
These democrats know how we feel, yet several of them went against us. They aren't stupid, and if they are, then what's that say about us who elected them?
Let them play their hand, I have a feeling this is gonna get very interesting, very soon...

But I'm still chuckling at your poetic pessimism.
:rofl:

[ixion]

76. play their hand?

they've abrogated just about everything to little lord chimperor. What hand is there left to play?

[Zhade]

136. That hand's about six years late.

If they play it.

Past performance suggests otherwise.

I love your laughable optimism. Open your eyes, man.

[Dj13Francis]

32. Our epitaph

Sure enough, as I predicted, the house today passed the warrantless wiretapping bill as requested by the president. I'm sick. I no longer live in the country I was born into. This is not America anymore. The people running this thing need to come up with a new name for what this is, because it sure as hell ain't America.

[leftist.]

33. I'm amazed that the "National Security" argument *still* works on people!

It's such an antiquated cliche - the butt of jokes now even. It's 2007, no one buys that shit anymore, or so I thought. I think America is in dire need of a good dose of cynicism, especially when quotes like this one are flying around: "Protecting America is our most solemn obligation." I feel like having some apple pie!

[sanskritwarrior]

37. Actually a lot of people buy the national security argument because a lot of

people can see that there are still threats out there........Bush is a fuckstick, no doubts there, but just because we have a fuckstick for a president does not mean that we can ignore real National Security concerns.......I support any Democrat that voted for this Legislation.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Let the Constitution be damned!

How totalitarian!

[sanskritwarrior]

41. Judgemental of disagreement

How progressive.......

:eyes:

[Mind_your_head]

42. Whaaaat?

Are you crazy? You're not in my camp, 'bro' :crazy:

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety(sp?)........desever neither" (look it up)

[sanskritwarrior]

45. And those who would ignore reality

to spite our dickhead president are fools........

I know Franklin's quote, and I still don't care, fortunately the Democratic Party is big enough for many diverse opinions......

[ixion]

78. If you want to live in fear, that's fine. I, for one, will not live on my knees

cowering at the likes of shadows on the wall.

[sanskritwarrior]

80. nor will I

[ixion]

84. then why would you support a bill that does just that?

Do you honestly believe this has anything to do with National Security? Look, if there's a group of people who are planning to do something bad, and some government agency wants to investigate, they can get a warrant. It's as simple as that. Passing a bill that requires no over-sight and allows for warrantless wiretaps is simply asking for abuse, as has been evidenced by the abuses of the Military Commissions Act and the unPATRIOTic Act.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. This rule has been fundamental to the human condition since the inception of government, and yet somehow we continue to believe that tyranny can't happen here.

[sanskritwarrior]

86. I'm in the military

I've seen something like this used and seen it work, so yeah I believe it has everything to do with National Security........Sorry charlie, just my opinion.

[ixion]

89. Don't militarize society

It's never worked in the past, and there's no reason for it to start working now.

[sanskritwarrior]

91. Who wants to do that?

I don't.......

[ixion]

94. by applying what tactics you use in the military to domestic society

you most certainly appear to want just that.

[sanskritwarrior]

99. You are most incorrect

And these tactics we use we learned from the civilian side of the govt, so if anything we are trying to civilianize wiretapping.....

[ixion]

104. the enforcement branch of the government is para-military... yet another straw man...

nice try, though.

[sanskritwarrior]

106. Huh?

what does that mean??

[ixion]

107. it means that it exhibits many of the same traits and works on the same operating principle

Most in law enforcement either served in the military at one time, or wanted to but couldn't. The community is regimented, authoritarian and in some cases covert. It has ranks and the members carry weaponry. It is the very definition of paramilitary. I think a great example would be the SWAT teams and riot squads, which have become paramilitary units over time.

I'm not sure what's unclear about that.

[sanskritwarrior]

108. What does that have to do with anything..........

[ixion]

110. It has to do with the militarization of society, the topic of this sub-thread

and the historically proven fact that the militarization of society is a trend towards which all empires migrate over time. Militarization ultimately creates an authoritarian State body, which ultimately cannot stand. Why? I think Princess Leia said it best, to General Tarq:

"The more you tighten your grasp, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Such is the common rise and fall of the police state. As a species, we've been through this time and time and time again. And, without fail, each time the State has put forth this notion that the populace should be militarized, in each and every case it has lead to the decline of the civilization. It seems to be a hard-wired glitch in our nature that will eventually lead to the downfall of our species.

[sanskritwarrior]

111. Ok now I got it

you think society is more militarized, I think it is less than at any point in my lifetime........we disagree......

[ixion]

112. yep, we defintely disagree there...

I've seen it become more and more militarized over time, and I don't see that trend abating.

[sanskritwarrior]

113. Huh

I've been in the military 14 years and see it becoming less and less every year.......

[ixion]

114. I'm curious... how so?

could you cite some examples?

[sanskritwarrior]

115. Less displays of patriotism in American society

fewer memorials to war dead being built, anti military attitudes reemerging in society......

Someone said last year that "the military is fighting a war, the civilians are fighting rush hour traffic", that seems very true to me.......

[ixion]

116. ah, okay... I think I see where the difference in our opinion hinges

I don't consider what we have here to be a war...yet, although we're doing our damndest to start one.

A 'war' happens between two or more nation-states. You cannot have a 'war' against abstract concepts like 'terror' or 'drugs'. These two 'wars' are nothing more than PR campaigns put forth as justification by a governing body that seeks more control over the citizenry, and less oversight into its actions at home and abroad. Iraq is not a war, but an illegal invasion. You asked earlier if someone could show you the rule that said it was illegal, so I'll oblige:

"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of another State or as a means of solving international disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States."
-- World Court Digest

I think that's pretty clear. If we want to participate in the world political body, we must behave in a civilized manner.

[Zhade]

139. And you apparently want it to be MORE militarized.

Over my dead body, pal.

Pro-totalitarian leanings like yours are why this country's in danger.

[David__77]

145. The military is smaller, sure, but...

...that has nothing at all to do with the power projection by the US military, which is indeed in reality higher than during the 1980's. If Rumsfeld truly implemented his doctrine, the military would even be smaller, but in his warped mind high-tech weapons can subdue the whole world. Iraq is proving that wrong, once again. So, yes, militarism (meaning imperialist aggression) is on the rise. This has nothing to do with respect or lack thereof directed toward service members. It has everything to do with the strategic policy of this country. It simply cannot survive as a republic indefinitely if these policies are not completely rectified.

[treestar]

122. So we're to agree with you merely because you are in the military?

Which is also a claim you can't back up on a message board.

You cite no evidence and give no argument, relying solely on personal authority.

Do you think that because you are in the military you have the right to dictate to the rest of us?

[Zhade]

138. You already are, by supporting this bill.

You just can't admit it.

[sce56]

60. Here is a picture to go with that from a NPS museum at Manzanar

[sanskritwarrior]

62. Cool

thanks for the pictures, not really sure that has any bearing on this though......Thanks I guess.

[Zhade]

140. You can't? Are you even trying?

NT!

[leftist.]

44. Yikes, no one said "ignore national security concerns"

I just don't like to see it over-used, or used as a catch-all excuse, especially in this case with unconstitutional (IMO) wiretapping.

[sanskritwarrior]

48. Apparently 41 Democrats and 186 Republicans

do not see this as a Constitutional issue........

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

61. No thank you

I prefer being a Democrat, someone that loves their country.......

And you have quite a pair of brass balls for a newbie.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

69. LOL

Is donating required to be a member in good standing? Nah.....

And I am far from the only one that supports this important legislation....

AlsoI should remind you accusing someone of being a fake is strictly against DU rules, do it again and I will send this to the Mods. I would expect you to follow the rules.

Finally I don't support Gonzales, I support the Democratic senators that voted their conscience for good legislation that puts tools into the right hands to accomplish the mission. If that steams your jeans, I would say I'm sorry, but you have already been quite snippy for someone so new, so I won't.

I will leave you with this, do not label people you do not know, do not accuse people of things you cannot prove, and always remember to wear sunscreen.

[ixion]

79. that doesn't mean that it isn't, though...

[sanskritwarrior]

87. But it doesn't mean it is either

that's my point......

[ixion]

88. oh, it most certainly is...

U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure

Amendment Text | Annotations

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Nowhere here does it mention anything about "warrantless" searches being okay.

[sanskritwarrior]

90. LMAO

quoting the Constitution does not prove yout point friend.....It proves you know how to use the Internet.

Again show me proof that it is unconstitutional, a Congressional resolution explaining the illeglaity would do quite nicely.

This is just like the group that thinks the Iraq war is illegal, yet when pressed can never find a Congressional act supporting their view......

[ixion]

93. spoken like a true jar head

your commanders must be so proud.

What part of the 4th Amendment didn't you understand?

[sanskritwarrior]

97. I'm in the Army

Marines are jarheads.......

And I understand it quite well, I don't understand your lack of ability to prove that the Constitution has been suspended......If it were true, you could prove it.....

I also appreciate that old chestnut, when a military member disagrees, imply that they are in some way incapable of independent thought.......

It takes class to move a friendly discussion to insult territory........ :eyes:

[ixion]

101. Yes, I will admit that I'm biased in that regard...and I apologize, to some extent, however

I base the thesis on the real life military folk I've known over the years, many from my own family. You're darn tootin' that I'm weary of military solutions being applied to civil society. Historically speaking, it doesn't work.

And, again, I apologize for any insult, and for being flippant.

[Zhade]

141. Every part of it, apparently.

Scary, people like that.

[John Q. Citizen]

55. I condemn anyone who suspends the constitution. You, sir, deserve neither

liberty nor security.

[sanskritwarrior]

63. Can you point out to me

the Executive Order or the congressional resolution that suspends the Constitution......

I'm having a hard time finding it........

Any help you could give me in locating such an important piece of news would be most appreciated.

Perhaps you should put your hyperbole in neutral.......

[Knightly_Knews]

66. Here you go..........

For starters, Here are just a few Executive Orders:

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An "emergency czar" was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic intelligence and surveillance of U.S. citizens and would restrict the freedom of movement within the United States and granted the government the right to isolate large groups of civilians. The National Guard could be federalized to seal all borders and take control of U.S. air space and all ports of entry. Many of the figures in the Iran-Contra scandal were part of this emergency contingent, including Marine Colonel Oliver North.

THE NEW DANGERS

A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is by-passed. Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

* EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

Here are some more to view:
http://www.disastercenter.com/laworder/11490.htm

Howard J. Ruff- "Since the enactment of Executive Order 11490, the only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it."

Someone is sleeping... Wake up!

[sanskritwarrior]

70. Very pretty and rambling to boot, however.......

can you prove to me which of these suspends the Constitution?

I can see nothing in them that suspends anything, I can find no Legislative Resolution from our Congress that suspends the Constitution, I can find no Federal Court ruling that suspends the Constitution. In fact the only thing I can see is your opinion that the Constitution has been suspended.

Saying something over and over again proves nothing. For your assertion to be correct you need verification. Verification from an aspect of the American government carries the weight of the American government and thus proves the veracity of something. So again can you please show me where the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch have suspended the U.S. Constitution? I have seen nothing to PROVE it.........And again your hyperbole is showing.

P.S. Please don't make me explain the correct way to prove something, I'm not gonna do all the work.

[ixion]

83. nice try at a strawman...too bad your premise doesn't hold water

there doesn't need to be an order that specifically "suspends the constitution" for it to be otherwise rendered moot. The nullification of the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments under the guise of "national security" is simply undeniable. You make your own straw man: "show me where the constitution is suspended" and then you can easily knock it down because there has been no broad executive order that specifically states that the constitution is suspended. However, it was never requisite for a blanket suspension. The elimination of a few areas has given the fascists all that the need to destroy our republic, added by folks such as yourself who are afraid of shadows on the wall.

If you want to live under tyranny, that's your business. I was brought up to respect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, all of which have been endangered by your fetish for security. :grr:

[sanskritwarrior]

92. So you can't show me where it is suspended

just say so, don't try to be obtuse..........

I have endangered nothing friend, none of your rights have been taken away, your fear mongering aside, you seem like a decent fellow.....

[ixion]

96. and you seem like a decent fellow, too...

which is why I'm surprised that we see these things in such a different context.

[Zhade]

142. It's the military's brainwashing at work.

I adore those who are strong enough not to buy into it, like Watada and others.

This guy's trained not to question authority, even illegitimate authority. I don't think he's even capable of understanding real freedom.

[treestar]

123. It doesn't have to be stated that way to be true

It takes deduction from reading these unconstitutional orders.

Bush and Cheney want it suspended. We can deduce that.

[Doctor_J]

121. Since 2001,

free speech has been confined to "1st Amendment Zones", and peaceful protestors have been arrested and jailed for protesting the fascism of Bush & Cheney. This is proof positive that the 1st amendment has been suspended. We don't need * to declare, "I hereby suspend the Constitution" for it to happen. In fact he would never do that, since the 2nd amendment nuts make up a large part of his base.

[sanskritwarrior]

71. LMAO

But I safeguard liberty............. :patriot:

[Knightly_Knews]

74. So you frimly believe terrorists want to kill you?

Is this what you are saying? You have a better chance of winning the lottery. Unless of course you live in downtown Manhattan or Dallas or Los Angeles. Do you really buy into the Terra Terra argument? It is the only explanation as to why you would support this piece of shit legislation.

[sanskritwarrior]

77. No that's what you say I am saying

I am saying something completely different.

I buy into the legislation because I have seen something like it work first hand. In Military Intel we do things like wiretaps and data mining all the time. I don't personally have anything to do with said activity but I know people that do and have seen the rsults of said activity. It really helps us do our jobs by increasing the amount of data we can analyze to put together targeting folders we can then act on. It provides actionable intelligence on bad guys and allows us to act with a reasonable certainty. Without getting into OPSEC issues, wiretapping and data collecting over the Internet have allowed us to successfully target a large number of insurgents and AQIZ in Iraq.........How could I be against a program I have seen work?

[Knightly_Knews]

81. Maybe because of who they gave the power to???

If this legislation hadn't given Bush and Gonzo total power over these wire taps, I may feel differently. But, These men cannot be trusted with our National Security. How much more proof do we need? Why just hand them more power when they have already abused so much?
This is the argument I have. These men should be stopped NOW before anymore signing statements occur in the middle of the night. This wire tap deal is nothing more than a political ploy to gain and keep control over all three branches of Government, plain and simple.

And if you do not believe terrorists are coming to get you, why would you even consider supporting a legislation that is written for the spying on supposed Terrorists? You are contradicting yourself.

[sanskritwarrior]

82. Just because the executive branch sucks

doesn't mean they don't need tools to fight our enemies.......

We are on two different sides of the coin, I respectfully disagree with you, but defend your right to say what you believe.........

Namaste friend.......

[Zhade]

144. You have never defended anyone's right to free speech by your service.

Who, exactly, threatens that right?

Our government - not anyone outside our borders.

We don't need you for freedom. You don't grant it, and you can't take it away.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

100. LOL

yes stereotyping is fun.......

[ixion]

103. It's a subgroup... in order to belong to the subgroup, you must adhere to a certain set of rules

that is true with any subgroup. Sure, there are exceptions to the rule, but you're promoting the system your telling me doesn't exist by arguing that military solutions can work in civil society.

[sanskritwarrior]

105. Not really it is a civilian solution we coopted

so we are using a civilian solution used by the military to solve a problem in civil society.......

[Hydra]

117. You know, Sanskritwarrior

There's a HUGE hole in your understanding of the situation.

Several FBI agents already knew that something was up with the people who committed 9/11. In many cases, the agents had already connected the dots and wanted to bring them in. They didn't need all of these expanded powers to get the information they needed, they just needed bosses that weren't obstructing them.

Since then, * has pushed for massive powers to convict people on suspicion, and to hold people without charges if they happen to be feeling particularly lazy.

Ixion was incorrect in one sense- the constitution has already been shredded by the military commissions act, and that act has not been repealed or struck down in court. For all intents and purposes, we are now a nation without a charter, which means that there are no protections in place for us except what * allows us.

Look at how many people in Gitmo are having to be released because they were not involved in anything- I've heard as much as 90%. Do you not have a problem with a 90% failure rate in this application of the judicial system?

I've heard that most people are ok with anything that happens, as long as it doesn't happen to them. Do you feel that you are safe where you are, inside the system? I wouldn't be.

In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy.

Woodward and Bernstein, The Final Days, chapter 14

[Maribelle]

125. But Sanskritwarrior is correct.

The history of the CIA reflects methodologies and processes that have been adopted by the military.

If the FBI agents already knew something was up with the people who committed 9/11 then the FBI knew they were dead, right.

I am concerned with the fact that Floridians were killed by anthrax - - where is the FBI on this, and why have they not resolved these murders? This is terrible.

[Hydra]

128. Look no further than our own Gov't

What terrorist would want to send anthrax to Keith Olbermann? Why did the Gov't laugh at him when he reported it, intimating that he was a coward?

The anthrax was highly refined- weaponized quality, it came form one of our labs.

Look up the FBI whistleblowers- they were outraged when * and Condi stated that they had no warning- the whistleblowers were knocking down doors trying to do something to stop at least 4 of the hijackers weeks before 9/11. No Patriot act or FISA changes required for them.

This is simply more power for the executive and infiltrated DoJ. Sad state of affairs.

oh, and if that isn't enough, check this tidbit out from the other day. Gotta love Amy- my first alternative news contact :D

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1504796

(Edited to add OKC Bombing link)

[treestar]

124. And in America, people in the military should realize what they

are fighting for.

And they need not be in favor of fights that aren't necessary.

The current wars are not necessary to our defense.

Terrorism is a criminal matter and where it has been stopped, it has been by criminal investigation. The rest is illusory right wing dreaming. If anything, it creates more motives for terrorism.

[sanskritwarrior]

131. I know what I am fighting for

We don't have to be in favor, but until our government rules such fights illegal we are oath bound to serve in them.....

[many a good man]

109. You have no idea what you're buying into

My work puts me at the confluence of high-end information systems, telecom, and data mining. I can easily imagine the kinds of surveillance that are possible and the intelligence that can be gleaned from it. There is no doubt in my mind that if used properly it can greatly benefit our national security.

I would LOVE to see an open discussion of how these programs are being operated so that we can have a knowledgeable debate over exactly how much of our personal information and privacy we are willing to turn over to govt and how it is going to safeguarded from potential abuse. Unfortunately we never seem to have that conversation.

The SAFEGUARDING issue should be thing that bothers people the most. This bill gives the AG and DNI the sole authority, with a weak promise to give a vague report once a quarter to the FISA court. This is unconstitutional and unacceptable.

You are buying into the broad idea that we should use advanced communication technology and information technology to gather intelligence. I think most Americans would agree to some extent. What is needed is strong oversight and judicial review of the process that is missing in the current legislation. This completely intolerable given the track record of this administration. It would be dangerous for ANY administration given human nature. Our founding fathers knew this and that is why the Constitution demands it.

[Doctor_J]

120. You said up thread, in response to ixion, that this is not an

example of militarization of the civilian society. This post very clearly contradicts that statement. Your overall argument is hindered by the internal contradiction.

[Zhade]

143. No, you don't. The military hasn't defended our freedoms since WWII.

Iraiqs were never going to hurt "my freedoms".

You are actually unnecessary with regards to preserving liberty. In this case, you're undermining it with your support for this unconstitutional measure.

You don't give us our freedom, and never did. Never will, either.

(This bit of truth was brought to you by a military brat with much love for my serving family members, so don't bother the old "hate the military" idiocy.)

[Exiled in America]

119. And I ignore any person who supported democrats that voted for this legislation.

See ya.

[sanskritwarrior]

132. LOL

ok...... :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

148. I said it before and I'll say it again: You can't alert on ignored posts. -nt

[Zhade]

137. So you don't support the Constitution.

Good to know.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

147. Placing a reply here for future reference.

You, sanskritwarrior, have a batting average of almost one.

[IndianaGreen]

38. Perhaps if Hillary becomes President, we get the GOP to restore Constitutional rule

They ought to be afraid of giving Bush powers they would fear in the hands of a Democrat.

It is a shame we don't have a real opposition party in this country!

[Mind_your_head]

43. That's just 'wishing on a star'., ...... eom

[GreenTea]

57. Corporate candidates certainly wont help!

Your joking of course....ie Karl Marx?

[krispos42]

46. What is the Senate doing about this?

And, as some mental salve...


Often times during the dark, dank days of Republican rule the last six years, what would up being hammered out by the conference committee between the House and the Senate would often bear almost zero resemblence to the bills originally voted on by the two branches.

In short, what winds up on the President's desk may bear little resemblence to what passed today.




Unless, of course, this WAS the compromise bill. At which point, if it is, get on the horn to your Senator and filibuster the damn thing. Or block it in the Senate.

[Az_lefty]

47. I sure glad these spineless motherfuckers gave little george what he wanted

:puke:
:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[knight_of_the_star]

50. Not all

183 voted against it and I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of the bastards who voted for it are either Blue Dogs or DLC, might want to cross-reference to see who is who. At least know if the target you're shooting at is hostile before you open fire with all guns.

[PBS Poll-435]

53. Yeah...Hello Mr Snerdly.

Um... WAY more Democratic representatives voted for our constitutional rights verses what President AssHole wants.

<br>

And Please...Mods....Let's "eject" our guest pundit.

[GreenTea]

51. We are being asked, no, told, to trust this criminal administration to..............

obey the laws while expanding the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects...Right, they would never exploit it for their own domestic means & fascist agenda towards their opponents (Democrats) and more, the people...Oh, but there were loop holes, so...we decided to take advantage...but we never spied on anyone undeserving...Surprise, surprise...And Bush's Attorney General Gonzo will be there agreeing! Fucking Dems just keep handing BushCo everything they need to control and move forward with their sick republican ideology! But we need to get on with our vacations with our families...while offering little if any caring of anything else but themselves...Well, have a great month as BushCo laughs and scores another blow against our liberties!

[Knightly_Knews]

68. And I can almost guarantee the attack

Or federal emergency will come while everyone is on vacation.. Wanna put a wager on it? I can almost taste the injustice.

[PBS Poll-435]

52. I guess I am most upset about....

Stephanie Herseth - (Sandlin)???

She is the only voice of South Dakota in the House. She won in '06 with a huge margin.

Does she really believe this FUCKING crap?

[CJCRANE]

65. No warrants = no oversight

and means Bushco can find out when the next real terror attack is coming and not tell anyone just like they did with 9/11.

[Knightly_Knews]

67. Know when it's coming??

They know when it's coming, they are setting it up. It's the only way these morons can escape this fiasco they've created. So they think anyways.. I don't give a fuck where they run, Osama will be 5th on the list of most wanted after these assholes finish their objectives.

[Knightly_Knews]

72. This bill could only do one thing..

to help spy on potential candidates and dissenters of this government. Any "terrorist" could get a cell phone prepaid under any name with a false address. This alone tells me that this wire tap law is a sham. This law is to spy on Known telecommunication services. Not unknown. It's all a load of bullshit.
And now that it's in Gonzales' hands we are definitely screwed. Just last week they were calling for his resignation, now they hand him over all the power over wire taps? WTF?

[Vinca]

73. The real problem is they took up incredibly important legislation

at the very last moment. With some work - which might take longer than a weekend - they might have come up with a reasonable bill. This one puts the fox in charge of the hen house and it's not looking good for the hens. Hope they enjoy their vacations.:banghead:

[Maribelle]

95. But the hens are no longer in the hen house - so let the fox knock himself out

Back in the old days there were “party lines” and bored operators with nothing else to do but to listen in.

All of my cell phone conversations are available to all and sundry that have the proper equipment and wish to listen in. Wireless lap tops - - the same thing.

Anyone that thinks for even a second that email is private is not thinking clearly.

[Knightly_Knews]

98. This is why encryption is beautiful..

I write many encrypted emails that say absolutely nothing at all... Making them spend the time and money cracking the encryption only to find out that it says something like "Bush is a fucking loser!" :)

[Maribelle]

102. Too funny.

Few however, relatively speaking, have this ability.

But I do like your idea of fooling the fox into thinking those hens are waiting for his rotting teeth.

[Exiled in America]

150. Yes but there is a difference between Joe the geek listening in and the FBI listening in.

Joe the Geek doesn't then have the power to, based on anything he doesn't like in what he reads or hears in my personal exchange, bust the door down to my house and haul my ass to an "undisclosed location."

That's why it IS a big deal to cave in and constantly expand the government's powers of surveillance.

[leftist.]

129. Good post, thanks for the point of view

I hadn't even considered that, but you are right ... this issue was a bit too important to warrant caving in to republicans who were threatening to hold their breath and stamp their feet.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[mvd]

127. VERY disappointing

The thing is, it's always "wait 6 months," and nothing changes. Bush has plenty of time to cause additional unnecessary damage before January 2009. We can't rely on the 2008 elections. Couldn't Pelosi or our leadership have prevented the bill from coming up in the House?

[Birthmark]

130. That about wraps it up for me, folks.

I won't vote for a Democrat at this point. Until "our" guys and gals remember what it is we're supposed to be protecting --namely the ideals and Rights implied and expressly stated by the Constitution-- I won't vote for them. Don't know who the hell I'll vote for, but it won't be either for the pro-fascism parties in Washington.

[Zhade]

133. Why are they giving a criminal what he wants to commit more crimes with?

NT!