wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:16 PM
Original message |
Did I hear right? (FISA law) |
|
I'm not putting this out as truth or even potential truth. I think I just heard on AAR that * wants to eliminate the FISA court and let Gonzo decide what's legal.
Is that true?
|
jgraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He wants certain foreign-to-foreign wiretaps to only require approval by the AG. Believe it or not, the Democrats are negotiating with him on this point. :puke: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1487989&mesg_id=1487989
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
Why would they believe anything those bastards say?
|
BuyingThyme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
5. Is there anything that Dems won't negotiate these days? |
malaise
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
7. Nancy and Harry just said that no AG should have that power |
|
let alone the discredited Gonzo. Nancy added that the Exec branch cannot check itself. Bush and Cheney are fucking mad, delusional or both.
|
dkofos
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
11. You cannot negotiate with terrorists!! |
OmmmSweetOmmm
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. According to what I heard, Foreign to foreign they have no problem with that. There is something |
|
else they agreed to tht was not revealed in open session and that bothers me.
|
partylessinOhio
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:27 PM
Response to Original message |
3. I don't know exactly what the Chimp "wants" but I heard that he has |
|
the power to keep Congress in session until they give him whatever he wants in the FISA change.
I've never heard that the president has that power over Congress. When did that change - signing statement?
Madame Squeaker has really been hoodwinked by this snake.
She should stop protecting Bush and impeach!
:thumbsdown:
|
LiberalFighter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. Bush scumbag doesn't know how Congress operates |
|
Edited on Fri Aug-03-07 02:40 PM by LiberalFighter
He probably read something back in the late 1700's and early 1800's how Congress operated. Back then Congress wasn't in session as long as it is now. Which was why the recess appointments was critical in addition to transportation mode was ancient.
Exactly, how is he going to keep Congress in session?
That part of the Constitution is obsolete.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
|
wryter2000
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
15. Let him keep them in session |
|
No recess appointments. Let them work for the summer. Won't hurt them. It won't hurt their campaigns, either, because the Rs have to stay in DC, too.
|
A wise Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
18. Congress should use executive priviledge |
GOTV
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:28 PM
Response to Original message |
4. Given that you can go to the court after the fact... |
|
... how does the requirement to go to the court hinder him?
|
stillcool
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
9. maybe he has to make legal... |
|
all those times he didn't go to the court before or after?
|
wiggs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. I read that Gonzo does not want to have to list individual cases |
|
when he goes to court...wants a blanket approval for the type of surveillance on the type of target.
Don't let him do it.
I say...when you have an attorney general we can trust, we'll negotiate on FISA....
|
rodeodance
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Bush relented on that-sayng now gonzo does not have approve. |
jgraz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message |
13. Here's the real problem with this bill |
|
By passing a bill "revising" the FISA law -- no matter how it's revised -- the Dems are giving * political cover for all of his illegal spying since he took office. From now on, whenever someone complains about illegal wiretaps, the Rethugs can say that the Democrats approve as well, :grr:
|
partylessinOhio
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
14. You're right. If it ain't broke don't fixit. Why does Nancy & Co. react |
|
every time * says "jump?" There is no need to modify FISA. The terrorists are in the White House. They need smacked down.
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 06:09 PM
Response to Original message |
16. gonzo would immediately declare Pat Leahy an enemy combatant. |
A wise Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Aug-03-07 06:19 PM
Response to Original message |
17. They should tell that bastard |
|
To go straight to hell. You've ignored this congress, snubbed your nose at the laws of this land and ignored subpeona's. Kiss this congress's ass Bush.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:25 PM
Response to Original message |