Why are we so upset that Bush got the change he asked for?

[gulliver]

Is it just because Bush asked for it? That's kind of silly if so. He has the whole executive branch of our government under his unworthy control. Do we just assume that anything from the executive branch is null and void? You just can't do that. Bush corrupted the executive branch and lowered it and our whole country. But we still need the executive branch. We have to live with it, dirtied by Junior's presence though it is.

Our Dem representatives and Senators were persuaded that it was worthwhile to do go along with the change for six months. I want to know if there is anyone here at DU who has any reason to say they were wrong. I want to know why I should think Jim Webb or Claire McCaskill are sell-outs on civil liberties.

Do I think this is a ploy by Bush? Sure, it is very likely that he exaggerated some minor problem with sensible data collection from foreign sources to foreign destinations through our networks. The courts cast doubt on something anyone would agree we should be doing. Or maybe they didn't even cast doubt on it, and Bush just pretended they did. I do believe his main goal was to establish the idea that the FISA laws (which he broke and probably should be impeached for breaking) are not "perfect." And he did it in an arm-twisting way, by playing on the ignorance of American citizens.

If there were a terrorist attack while the Congress were in recess after denying Bush his perfunctory, politically motivated security law change, the American people would drag us all through another tidal wave of ignorance and craven stampeding. Junior would just rake us all back into his pit. We are going to be on the verge of political-abyss-to-save-Junior gambits like this for the entire remainder of his worthless presidency. What is the surge if not that?

The Dems probably did the right thing. I trust them.

[tularetom]

1. For starters he's abused everything else he asked for and got

like the Iraq War resolution. Do you trust him not to fuck this up?

[gulliver]

13. Nope. In fact, I don't think it will change a thing ...

... he is doing. I think this is a show law for political purposes. But that is just my skepticism about all things Bush. I have seen how he demagogues, and it would be just like him to change the law in some perfunctory way just to game the American public. I don't think he got what he really wanted, retroactive legality for the laws he has already broken. I just think he wanted to get a change to the FISA laws he broke on the books for political ammo.

He will just run out the clock in a cloud of "was the FISA law outmoded" smoke. The Dems aren't going to get him, IMO, unless someone breaks the Bushie Omerta code and speaks up. He'll just cover up for the next 1.5 years and fight in the courts using our tax money. I think Bush's punishment, if there is any justice, will be visited on the GOP in 2008. Don't get me wrong. I hope Bush gets his, but I just don't think we have time. The GOP Congress covered for him long enough for him to scrape by, probably.

[AX10]

2. I understand both sides of the matter.

However, I am very upset because I know that Bush will abuse this too, just as he has abused every other power that he has been granted.

[babylonsister]

3. Nice post, but it's not about Dems doing the right thing, it's about the blivet*

doing the wrong thing and everyone agreeing to it. It's about voting 'yea' for Gonzo to monitor this travesty. But the Dems will be covered for the month of August while they are on vacation.

[zerox]

4. The right thing?

Do you really believe that it's a good idea to give this administration essentially unchecked power in monitoring at all communications going in and out of this country? And further, given the track record of this administration, do you not expect the law as it is written to be stretched and expanded to cover Americans as well? A surveilance program of this scope is without precedent and for good reason. It is a dangerous abuse of power and a clear violation of civil liberties. Welcome to 1984.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Welcome to DU, zerox!

Great post!!! Couldn't agree more!

Welcome!:hi:

[nolabels]

43. I suspect it's almost all about spying on the domestic population

Canada or Mexico isn't going to invade the US. The only country that ever had a navy large enough to invade any part of the US is the former USSR. It's a ridiculous notion that this whole exercise is anything but a green light for domestic spying. It really is just that ridiculous on it's face and an absurd lie. The enemy is within and they want to spy on the rest us because they know we are the only real threat to any power they think they can wield.

In actuality the people are larger and more powerful than they would want contemplate so they try to tenaciously hold that grip they have with the element of fear. We should understand and see who really these people or groups are who chose to use this grip, this crutch they have. Understanding that crutch is a place of weakness they are serving. And before we chose what has already been a conditioned response to be subservient. We should decide our position by our attributes and strengths and not by our culture or condition. To me they use this whole apparatchik of culture is to shake us down and say do like this or do it like that. Before we take that place and surrender our real place just so we can be subservient, we instead we should first ask why we should we be subservient and to who should be subservient to who.

We now know for a fact that those people, those people who want to spy, are looking over their backs before they act otherwise they wouldn't be choosing to spy on ALL the rest of us. Anybody that spies has weakness and vulnerabilities they don't want shown. They especially don't want that weakness shown to the people whom they are spying on. Why they spy on large segments or the entire population seems like a kind of a fascinating question but also shows they are into ill gotten ways and know many or if not most people would oppose what they are up to and they don't want to be held accountable for it. The biggest part is knowing and then by knowing, turning that vulnerability on it's head. The larger truth is that in a democratic government, the government is put in place to serve the people and not the people serve the government. We know they are not serving publics good when they our spying on all of us as a whole, so what are they up to, really?

[ProSense]

5. "The Dems probably did the right thing. I trust them."

What make Bush's illegal activity legal?

So did the rest of the Dems (28 of them in the Senate and 181 of them in the House ) who opposed this do the wrong thing?

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. The WH and GONZO have already broken the law with the FISA court in place! NOW, they have

UNCHECKED POWER! Do you know what that means?

You trust them??? :rofl::rofl:

[gulliver]

16. I don't think the change was that far reaching.

I think Bush would have been told where to put it if he tried for unchecked power. I just think he was looking to put a scratch on the FISA law in a high profile way. Then he'll sell it politically as a "see the law did need changing." He broke the FISA laws in all probability. He won't be able to get the Dems to make what he did retroactively legal, but he can force them to make minor, reasonable changes, perfunctory or not.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Yes it was THAT FAR REACHING. Did you watch the House debate on it? The Democrats

pointed out exactly how far reaching it is! GONZO and the WH now have UNCHECKED power to wiretap you, read your emails, monitor your internet usage and your cell phone company has been given the power to help them!

If you think the Dems aren't going to renew this in 6 months, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. They WILL renew it.

[Amonester]

24. Yep. They WILL renew it. All bu$che will have to mumble to them...

will sound like: "beee uff raid" "beee vehhhwy uff raiiiid" like always...

[gulliver]

32. I didn't watch the debate.

McCaskill's comment was that she was "not thrilled," so I knew it was ugly. But it's not the actual fact of the wiretapping that scares me as much as the possibility that it will get a lot worse if we aren't careful. If you think our fellow American citizens can be trusted to balance civil liberties in the event of another terrorist attack, I have a bridge I want to sell you too. I don't want the next terrorist attack to happen while Bush or the GOP have a high stakes bet on it. They are trying to get their necks out of the political noose, having already half-strangled in 2006. I want them the rest of the way gone, even if we have to give them a little more rope.

Are we going to see some poor innocent hauled to Gitmo with a bag over their head, because of something they type into an e-mail? I doubt it. The outrage is in principle and was done for show.

But I feel bad about it too.

[Kool Kitty]

38. "Are we going to see some poor innocent

hauled to Gitmo with a bag over their head...?" I wouldn't doubt it. To these people, you're a criminal and a traitor if you are a Democrat.

[in_cog_ni_to]

42. It's not the Gitmo prisoner you need to worry about. They had all the means to spy on people

overseas. NOW they have UNCHECKED POWER, NO COURT ORDER NEEDED!!!!, to spy on YOU, on me, on every Dem in Congress (damn fools) and any political enemy they see fit. They just have to "think" a U.S. citizen is talking to a TERRORIST and they can spy on them WITHOUT A COURT ORDER. If that doesn't scare the hell out of you, I don't know what will.

But it's not the actual fact of the wiretapping that scares me as much as the possibility that it will get a lot worse if we aren't careful.

So giving MORE power to the psycho-in-chief and GONZO and things will get better? What do you MEAN by "if we aren't more careful?" Giving the cabal unchecked power is NOT going to make anything better and if you're willing to give up your civil liberties because you think the psycho isn't going to let another terrorist attack happen, I feel sorry for you. So far, EVERYTHING we here at DU have predicted has happened. EVERYTHING. There will be another terrorist attack right before the election, he will declare himself dictator and martial law WILL BE called. That's a done deal.


If you think our fellow American citizens can be trusted to balance civil liberties in the event of another terrorist attack, I have a bridge I want to sell you too.

WHAT???!!!! SO you would rather give a certifiable sociopath and his lackey, GONZO, unfettered power before you would let the u.S. citizens keep the civil liberties mandated in the Constitution???

Holy crap!

[TankLV]

44. Thanks - now I understand better how the "Good German" thought

while they gave away more and more of their rights and tried to justify it all...

[Az]

7. Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin

[KingFlorez]

8. Everything that happens in Washington happens for a reason

The Democrats aren't stupid and they know how to play their hand this. It's not as black and white as it seems.

[ProSense]

11. Tell that to the

more than 3,600 and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. Was that part of the plan? Is it still?

[ChiciB1]

28. Well Maybe Not Stupid... But They Are Really Making Themselves Look

unworthy and spineless! How long are we supposed to hold our breaths?? I know it hasn't been that long, but the ruckus the Repukes made Thursday night seems to have showed that they at least stick together, regardless if they are wrong or not! I realize the Senate is in a bind, but the House really confuses me.

People see that and they like those who say "put up your dukes!' Sorry, it's late and it's been a very long THREE days, and I'm not feeling all the cheerful! I feel left out and lonely!

[Individualist]

10. Jesus H. God on a pogo stick! What the hell are you drinking?

[Lifelong Protester]

14. It was the pogo stick part that got me...

:rofl:

[TankLV]

45. I thought his last name was "Murphy"...

[quiet.american]

12. This additional power is unnecessary, that's why it's wrong.

Did any single one of them ever read former Sen. Bob Graham's book, Intelligence Matters, in which he outlined 12 different situations where the Bush administration had all the information they needed to prevent 9/11 but dropped the ball? He should know, he was on the Intelligence Committee. Didn't Dick Durbin recently tell us he knew the Bush administration was lying about matters of national security, but they virtually bound and gag him so that he could tell no one?

These Republican cockroaches can seemingly come up with any kind of B.S. and we can count on the usual crowd of Democrats to swallow it hook, line and sinker (Evan Bayh being a name that's never missing from the wrong side of these votes).

[gulliver]

20. It's the people who swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

I'll bet none of the outrages committed by Bush, from the wiretapping, to Gitmo, to the Iraq war have done anything productive. The wiretapping and eavesdropping have probably caught no one, stopped nothing. Same with Gitmo. Same with the Iraq war. Same with the assault on habeus corpus. All just sound and fury, signifying less than nothing, and at astronomical cost to the country. All of it done for political power.

So I completely agree with you. The things Bush is doing are unnecessary. They are all just voodoo. That doesn't mean we can just treat them that way, though, because the American people make the decisions, and they are too damned gullible to deal with an Administration this savagely, cynically dishonest and self-serving.

The Dems are going to have a steady stream of spitballs from Bush, Rove, and Cheney for the rest of his presidency.

[quiet.american]

35. Yet, it's our reps who vote in our name --

-- I'd be willing to bet that if we had 49 Democratic citizens on the floor voting tonight, we would be looking at drastically different results. True, the sheeple bought all the rah-rah in the beginning, but that has changed. The Dems representing us have no excuse for this, none. If they STILL haven't figured out how to deal with letting the Republican cockroaches back them into a corner.... oy!

[djjimz]

15. Well said, gulliver...

Let's just hope you're right. The man can't be trusted with anything, so I think that's why we're all so leary.
But you're so right, should a terrorist attack occur (planed or otherwise)the people would crew us up and spit us out; we'd be right back where we started from, with everything we've worked so hard for in shambles.

All we can do is wait and see.

But again, well said.

[WinkyDink]

17. There won't be "another terrorist attack", not soon, not ever. The one-off accomplished what it

needed to.

[Kool Kitty]

39. I tend to agree with you, WinkyDink.

[TahitiNut]

19. "ACLU Condemns Senate for Passing Spy Law Changes" (Now thet can condemn the House, too.)

ACLU Condemns Senate for Passing Spy Law Changes
(8/4/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [e-mail]

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned the House and Senate for bowing to pressure from the Bush administration and rushing to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The administration lobbied heavily to alter the legislation before Congress recessed. The White House pushed for sweeping changes to the spy law after a FISA court judge recently rejected its use of wide-scale, untargeted surveillance. The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 60 to 28, and the House is poised to take up the same legislation late tonight.

“We are deeply disappointed that the president’s tactics of fearmongering have once again forced Congress into submission,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “That a Democratically-controlled Senate would be strong-armed by the Bush administration is astonishing. This Congress may prove to be as spineless in standing up to the Bush Administration as the one that enacted the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act.”

The legislation that passed would allow for the intelligence agencies to intercept – without a court order – the calls and emails of Americans who are communicating with people abroad, and puts authority for doing so in the hands of the attorney general. No protections exist for Americans whose calls or emails are vacuumed up, leaving it to the executive branch to collect, sort, and use this information as it sees fit.

“It seems that political cover is more important to our senators than the rights and privacy of those they represent,” added Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “The administration is on the verge of reviving a warrantless wiretapping program even broader than the illegal one it conducted before. Though lawmakers claim these changes are temporary, we’ve just witnessed their lack of backbone today and, unfortunately, may soon see it again. Luckily, the sunset expires in the midst of primary season – so the voters will be able to keep lawmakers at their word.”

To read the ACLU’s letter to Congressional leadership on FISA changes, go to:
www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31154leg20070731.html

To read the ACLU’s Myths and Facts about FISA, go to:
www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31144res20070731.html

Now ... how about that 'trust' you've got? Hmmmm?
:eyes:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: Myths and Facts
(7/31/2007)

The administration is asking for greater authority to wiretap without warrants in a proposal being floated to House and Senate Intelligence Committees today. President Bush wants Congress to make significant changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that would allow warrantless spying on calls and communications between Americans and their friends and relatives overseas.

MYTH: We need this now.
FACT: This is not the time to hand even more power to an administration that has denied the legislative branch's constitutionally mandated oversight role and refused to hold the attorney general accountable for a series of contradictory statements. The only thing more outrageous than the administration's call for even more unfettered power is a Congress that would consider giving it.

MYTH: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act needs to be modernized.
FACT: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has been updated more than 50 times since being enacted in the '70s. It was updated as recently as last year.

MYTH: We need warrants to wiretap foreigners abroad.
FACT: Current law allows foreign-to-foreign communications to be intercepted without a warrant. What this proposal is really about is the right to wiretap Americans - without a warrant - who are speaking with people overseas.

MYTH: FISA has not kept up with new technology.
FACT: There is absolutely no new technology that evades FISA. Even the man responsible for prepping and filing all FISA applications, James Baker, head of the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, has said that, "There's no type of collection that's prohibited by the statute." FISA was modernized by the Patriot Act, by Intelligence Reform legislation and by the re-authorization of the Patriot Act - indeed has been updated 50 times since it was enacted in 1978.

MYTH: Congress knows the facts about the NSA warrantless spying program.
FACT: The Senate Judiciary Committee asked for the legal rationale for the program nine times before issuing subpoenas, and still hasn't received an answer due to consistent stonewalling by the administration and the Department of Justice. The American public and their elected senators and representatives do not yet know the full extent of the warrantless wiretapping program and the extent to which FISA has been violated. So why would Congress grant additional power to this administration?

MYTH: The telecom giants need immunity.
FACT: The administration has asked for a provision that would give immunity - from criminal prosecution as well as civil liability - for the telecom companies' participation in any future warrantless wiretapping program. It is unprecedented to give sweeping immunity to an entire industry - especially before a full and public airing of the facts.

[gulliver]

22. That's a valid point.

But I still trust our Dems. The ACLU has to scream about this. That is their job, and they have no downside. The Dems have to take the political ramifications into account. If a terrorist attack occurred, there is no way Bush would not exploit it. Then Bush would get absolutely everything he wanted and then some. Not only that, it would discredit the Dems so much that the Iraq War would be salvaged for Bush. Then the ACLU would scream, but no one would listen.

You get a guy like Bush in the White House, and nothing makes sense.

[TahitiNut]

30. Feet made of political clay is still cowardice - even worse, it places job above principle.

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” - Plato

[never_get_over_it]

21. Go read the freaking Constitution would you

try the 4th amendment. NOBODY is opposed to legitimate wiretapping - its the warrantless wiretapping we object to. The current FISA gave I think 72 hours AFTER starting the surveillance to obtain a warrant. The FISA court had denied only a handful out of THOUSANDS of requests. The Dems wanted to extend the time to 15 days and the freak in chief balked at that. WHY WOULD THEY BALK AT HAVING TO GET A WARRANT unless what they are doing is so freaking heinous that they KNOW THEY WOULDN'T GET ONE.

You can't trust the freak in chief or his evil freak VP or his pathetic little Attorney General and the Dems should NEVER HAVE GIVEN INTO THEM.

[gulliver]

26. I agree with you.

But the Constitution gives Bush power, and it is very difficult to prevent him from abusing it. America is a shambles after this guy, and we don't have the power or the voice to stop him.

Take comfort. The guy also has his finger on the nuclear button, and could start a world-engulfing conflagration at any time. That's within his power too. So, yeah, he can intercept some messages to foreign destinations without a warrant. I hate it, but the alternative is to risk losing all rights, and re-empowering the highly discredited Bush/Cheney/neocon philosphy for another decade or more.

[seabeyond]

23. bush broke the law. passing this is all about clouding issue, excuses for laws broke

bushcos needed to be prosecuted for laws broke. THEN is something needed to be addressed further they should have done it. now it will be nigh impossible to call bush on his criminalities.

[gulliver]

27. Could be. That's where the trust comes in.

I don't know that the Dems are ever going to be able to give Bush the tarring, feathering, and rail-ride to prison he so richly deserves. Maybe the Dems helped him dodge what would have been an impeachable offense. Maybe they didn't. I think they get it, though. At least I hope they do. My Senator, Claire McCaskill is one really smart lady.

[aquart]

25. It is always wrong to reward bad behavior.

Any nanny will tell you that.

[gulliver]

29. Agreed, but then you get into extenuating circumstances.

Suppose the kid has daddy's 44 pointed at you. Then you give the kid a cookie and let him belch out loud without comment.

This is a mugging. I don't know whether the Dems could have suspended the recess to fight this or whether they even see this as a genuine breech of civil liberties to begin with. I just trust them. If a robber holds up a liquor store, the clerk is told to just give them the money. That prevents a greater harm.

The Dems have a tough job to get the Bush poison out of America's bloodstream while the snake continues to hang on our leg for the next 1.5 years by law. And a whole bunch of the country is on the snake's side. It is a mess.

[Kool Kitty]

40. I think that Bush and Cheney and Gonzo

getting to decide what they think is a threat is a horror in the making. Couple that with the "take away everything you and your family own", "no access to a lawyer", etc., make me VERY uncomfortable. This asshole-in-chief can't even agree with his own spymaster.

[Forkboy]

31. You spelled your nic wrong.It should read "Gullible".

[gulliver]

34. Har, har.

I think Swift intended the name Gulliver to imply that the character was gullible. I knew I should have chosen "candide." Maybe it was taken at the time. Can't remember.

[ChiciB1]

33. Oh I Don't Know... It Just Feels Like We Got Snookered... I'd Say I

could be wrong, but I'd have to feel it first!

[Mind_your_head]

36. Ick....you're another *sucker* who won't claim their own government

The Dems probably did the right thing. I trust them.

But you don't KNOW anything, do you? And they won't tell you anything, will they? How do you know that you can trust them if they haven't done/shown anything that can prove their trust????

*pat*pat*pat-on-your-head* you trusting little sheep.....THEY know MORE than you do....TRUST...YES, TRUST.....go to sleep now. Millions of elderly people have been bilked b/c of 'trust' such as yours.....*sheesh*

Simpleton.

[sanskritwarrior]

37. Agree 1000%

good post

[Jack Sprat]

41. Agree that foreign destinations and sources

are not instruments of contradiction. As far as trusting them and being assured that this won't lead to something more sinister involving illegal or unwarranted spying on our citizens, I fear not.

[michaz]

46. Why blame Bush or the Repugs for how these Dems voted?

That is plain ridiculous! These people know the deal. They know why they were elected. But most importantly, they have minds of their own. They are responsible for their votes. Them and them alone! When you and I go into the voting booth, we are responsible for our votes. No one sways me no matter what they say to me. I am able to reason why I vote the way I do. So are these elected members. This is why there are no excuses for why they vote as they do. Do you come out of the voting booth and offer excuses for why you voted as you did?