Can someone explain to me the outrage towards Democrats over FISA PLEASE?

[Harper_is_Bush]

Anyone have some specifics about the vote and it's implications?

All I've seen here is angry rhetoric. Sorry if I missed the intelligent examination of the issue...if there was any.

What I've read, the legislation is almost a claw back from the absolute freedom to spy Bush was claiming, but I'm mostly focussed on the issue of global warming so might have missed the complete jist of this FISA vote.

Folks seem to be abandoning the Democratic Party in droves over this. Why?

thx.

[The Traveler]

1. Because we are coming perilously close

to having all the necessary instrumentalities of tyranny explicitly in place. Because this constructs a very dangerous precedent. Etc.

Not sure abandoning the Democratic Party is the answer here ... there seems to be a shortage of effective alternatives ... but our leadership needs to light the fire in their bellies or something. Or maybe we need new leaders. This whole thing has left many of us shaking our heads and asking, "What the fuck?"

Seriously, I just don't know what to make of it. I don't think I'm alone in that ...

Trav

[Harper_is_Bush]

5. I appreciate your poetic descriptions, but it is just more rhetoric.

Can you explain your objections with any more clairity and specificity than this:

Because we are coming perilously close to having all the necessary instrumentalities of tyranny explicitly in place. Because this constructs a very dangerous precedent. Etc.

that doesn't tell me anything.

[The Traveler]

17. Sure

In combination with certain executive orders that establish an executive branch power to seperate you from your property under rather broad and vague conditions, and without judicial review, this is really scary stuff. As I understand it, the bill as crafted pretty much establishes that if you ever contact anyone outside the US through any media you can be monitored with cause or warrant. Participating in this board almost certainly qualifies you for this program. If you are jiggy with that, fine. I'm not.

[G_j]

40. I'll thank you for that

in case others weren't paying attention...

[Kagemusha]

2. Because before, Bush's freedom to spy was in gross violation of the law.

Now, it IS the law.

And we have the party to thank for that, because they considered their own political hides more valuable than freedom. (If you really believe Bush wouldn't stop spying no matter what the law says, how the hell can anyone argue that national security was actually in peril from a refusal to rubber stamp?)

[Harper_is_Bush]

7. Does this legislation give him permission to do what he was doing before?

that's not how I rememnber it from the one article I read.

And how many in the Dem party voted for this? I thought it was a minority.

[Kagemusha]

11. To answer your first question, pretty much, yes.

As for "how many in the party voted for this," that's not the point, the leadership made sure the bill came up for a vote; especially in the House, Pelosi could have easily prevented this from coming to a vote, but Bush threatened to force them to go through summer school at Congress and they folded like cheap suits. The Republicans didn't force the bill through; the Democratic leadership allowed the Republicans and their foolish Democratic allies a pair of orderly votes that happily sent the President what he had asked for.

After which the President asked for Congress to do more when it got back. Specifically, give complete immunity to telecom companies for cooperating.

[nebula]

3. Not just over this issue

Just another in a long list of issues that the Dems have totally conceded to Bush.
For many, this is the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Democrats in Congress are basically good for nothing.
They should all be impeached along with Bush IMO!

[Harper_is_Bush]

8. How is this issue conceding to Bush?

That's my question.

[Kagemusha]

12. Because this bill does way, way, way more than fix the problem even Feingold conceded

This technical thing Bush was waving around about a secret FISA ruling (but Boehner decided to tell us about it anyway even though it was secret..) that foreign to foreign wiretaps weren't being allowed to be done without warrants... look, under FISA, foreign to foreign wiretaps CAN be done without warrants. If a judge really ruled that this was a new situation not foreseen by the law and that new legal authorization was required, fine. But fixing that was like 2% of what Bush got. The other 98% is concessions to Bush on compromising the 4th amendment rights of American citizens with no recourse, no review for individual cases by even secret courts, and no accountability, ever.

[sandnsea]

4. warrants without court orders

That's really the bottom line of it. Surveillance of Americans and people talking to Americans from foreign countries, without a warrant. I just can't find the justification for trash canning the Constitution when we've already given them permission to begin surveillance and get a court order within 72 hrs. And none of them can explain why a court isn't good enough, they don't even bother to try. Very discouraging. We'd have been better off if they'd just announced the Constitution was suspended on 9/12, because at least people could make a conscious decision about it that way.

[Harper_is_Bush]

9. Thankyou for some specifics. Although this legislation is about pre-court surveillance....

does it not tie it up in some more restrictions than what they've been doing...which is NO restrictions?

[Kagemusha]

13. The only restriction I've heard of is that...

...the target of the surveillance must be reasonably believed to be outside the territory of the USA in the opinions of Alberto Gonzales and intel chief Mike McConnell.

...That's it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

16. isn't that a restriction over the blanket coverage they claimed ealier?

They need to keep a record of their specific behaviour now, no? And rationalize it.

Did they have to do that before?

[Kagemusha]

19. ...It's not a restriction worthy of the word. It's meaningless.

Please, do yourself a favor, don't try to portray this part as some kind of victory. It'll earn you no friends. You're familiar with the phrase, a distinction without a difference? That's what this is.

[PSPS]

22. It's far worse than that

Gonzo only has to claim that one of the people "may have a relationship with a foreign national or someone who has had such a relationahip." Geez, is that broad enough? In other words, all domestic calls and email, even when both people are in the US, are fair game for this.

By the way, they can make this claim after the surveillance (although it is safe to assume that everyone is now under constant surveillance.)

Also, the data amassed can be kept forever. It will be used in data mining with all the other records they've tapped into.

Every inhabitant of the country will now have a very thick and rich dossier based on all of their emails, phone calls, US mail, purchases, library books, driving records, criminal records, magazine subscriptions, travel destinations, bank deposits and records, grocery and other items purchased using a membership card, etc., etc.

This is like the Stazi on steroids. We're not living in a free country anymore.

[Harper_is_Bush]

47. "Every inhabitant of the country will now have a very thick and rich dossier.....

....based on all of their emails, phone calls, US mail, purchases, library books, driving records, criminal records, magazine subscriptions, travel destinations, bank deposits and records, grocery and other items purchased using a membership card, etc., etc."

Do you seriously believe that?

[nebula]

20. There's this thing called Google

He has already done more than explain it to you.
If you still have a hard time understanding it
then do your own damn homework and please refrain
from being such an annoyance.

[pnwmom]

33. Nasty reply. n/t

[BeHereNow]

34. Actually, I would call it exemplary in its patience.

The OP is displaying something along the lines of idiocy at this point.
It's really very simple.
Either we have a Constitution or we don't.
At this point, we don't because our Congress
has refused to uphold their oath to protect it.
BHN

[LittleClarkie]

49. Google can explain outrage from Democrats?

Damn, they're getting good over there.

[JDPriestly]

25. Just how far this measure reaches is unclear to me.

What if a communication between two Americans in the U.S. just happens to get routed or transmitted outside the U.S. and then back into the U.S.? I don't know if that is possible, but I suspect it might be because I read with regard to this measure that some communications that originate and end outside the U.S. are routed through the U.S. Would the communication be subject to eavesdropping just because it happens to be outside the U.S. at some point?

[Kagemusha]

27. Very good insight. Flips the foreign-> foreign but inside the US logic on its head

In any case, the standard is a "reasonable belief" that one party (the 'target') is outside the US. And if that belief is wrong? Too bad, so sad. 1 year eavesdropping free.

[Breeze54]

55. They're spying within the USA too!! City to city, state to state!

They're spying when and where they want and now, they don't even
need a warrant or court over site. You and I are fare game, period!

The big NSA vacuum in the sky sucks up everything in it's path and
holds that info indefinitely. You have no say or recourse anymore.

It's now... THE LAW!!!

:grr:

[madfloridian]

6. They made what a judge said was illegal...legal...and expanded it.

They gave Bush more than he wanted.

When you have deluded person in the AG's office and also one in the WH who can't speak English....it is totally nuts to give that power.

[Harper_is_Bush]

10. all rhetoric, no specifics. n/t

[madfloridian]

18. Then research it yourself.

Do a google news search on FISA. Look it up yourself. Do a google blog search.

[madfloridian]

21. When someone uses the word "rhetoric" about my post...

When it is pretty clear...I resent it.

You sound arrogant the way you said that to me.

So look it up yourself. It is all over DU.

[Harper_is_Bush]

44. Sorry, but I tell the truth, and that's all it was.

And I've looked it up. I was just wondering if any of the outraged posters really understand their own outrage, or if it's mostly rhetoric.

[madfloridian]

48. No, we are not very smart here.

Educate us, please.

[Harper_is_Bush]

51. Ok.

You're pretending to represent the "we" and "us" of DU, but I judged you for your own written response, and so you should stand behind what you yourself wrote instead of hiding behind your imaginary clique.

Feeling smarter?

[madfloridian]

52. No, you must give clear simple thoughts, so I can take them in.

:shrug:

[Harper_is_Bush]

53. i think you got it

[madfloridian]

54. No, please explain it more clearly.

I only have two degrees, and it takes me a while to catch on.

[Harper_is_Bush]

56. google it.

[nebula]

23. Do your own homework then

You expect people to do all the work for you?

Get off your lazy ass and do it your damn self.

[Harper_is_Bush]

45. I have, thanks.

And I still don't think the outrage is all that well thought out. It's mostly fueled by rhetoric.

[Lerkfish]

37. baited trap syndrome

[JDPriestly]

28. This law is not just illegal. If one of the parties to a target communication

is American, it violates that American's rights under the Constitution. It also violates the right of a criminal defendant outside the U.S. to the assistance of counsel or at least of the confidential assistance of counsel. If the assistance of counsel is not confidential, it is not effective.

[KT2000]

14. Check this link

for a picture of where we started - the prez breaking the law with warrantless wiretaps
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1531440

the law passed by Congress codefied the illegality

[On the Road]

15. I Heard that Part of It

Concerned situations in which surveillance is being conducted overseas and one of the parties is found to be a US citizen. Previously this would have required that the surveillance stop until a FISA warrant is issues (although I don't know why, since I thought there was a 72-hour window). Under the new law, surveillance can continue.

I don't know if this is accurate, but it's what I heard on the radio. It seems illegal but limited to citizens overseas. Don't know what other provisions there might be either.

I am also frustrated by the lack of specifics. For all the rodomontade, I haven't seen any more details than you have.

On Edit: Olberman has a good segment on it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8kLzwJEurQ

[AndyTiedye]

24. We Are Beyond Outrage and Have Progressed to Hopelessness and Despair

[BeHereNow]

26. Go fish.

I cleared my deck of those cards long ago.
Best of luck to ya-
BHN

[berni_mccoy]

29. The Reason ===> It Legalizes Bush's Illegal Acts and Removes a Significant Reason For Impeachment

That's the bottom line.

Bush committed CRIMES when he broke FISA law. This ammendment makes what he did legal. Furthermore, it makes Gonzales, judge, jury and executioner. Gonzales merely needs to report, semiannually, what he has done. The FISA Court can object, but the law grants ultimate appeal to the DoJ who can get approval from the S.C., and we all know how that will go. There will be no accountability for the wiretapping of *any* *person* and it legalizes a criminal activity that the Bush Administration had engaged in.

[BeHereNow]

31. You are wasting your breath- just so you know.

True Believers can not be persuaded and they love
to invite discussion to that end.

BHN

[Mythsaje]

30. At this point I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not

but you're definitely aggravating a few folks here.

Let me try.

A judge ruled that the spying that was going on, circumventing the FISA court the way they were, was illegal. Rather than use this ruling to go after BushCo, they allowed Bush and the Republicans to bully them into making it now legal, andd basically rendered the FISA court obsolete. The discretion to intercept communications is now in the hands of two individuals, one of which we KNOW is a lying, traitorous bastard.

It is the belief of many here that they've been using this method of gathering information to track the communications of their POLITICAL enemies, not just so-called "enemies of the state." With this new definition of legal and illegal, there is nothing stopping them from gathering more such information and using it to further their political goals at the expense of the American public, the country as a whole, and even, by extention, the whole world.

Does this help at all?

[BeHereNow]

32. See my post above- #31

Hello?
Who do you imagine you are dealing with?
BHN

[pnwmom]

35. A good number are always looking for an excuse to be outraged at Dems.

This time, I'll admit, they have a better reason than usual.

But you have to take the outrage of the perpetually peeved with a large grain of salt. It's that kind of attitude that fuels the Naderites and the Greens, and brought us Bush over Gore 7 years ago.

[BeHereNow]

36. Oh what a bother, eh?

Expecting the Congress to uphold and protect the Constitution and
rule of law...
Uh-huh.
BHN

[U4ikLefty]

38. Yeah, I think I have heard it all now

OMG, someone actually pulled out the "Nader-Card" to defend the Dems on wire-tapping!!!

They have the freakin majority...jeez!!!

I'm going to bed, maybe I'll wake up & that post was a bad dream.

[BeHereNow]

39. Hate to tell you, but it's not a dream.

However, I can tell you, you are not alone in your disgust.
BHN

[G_j]

41. come on

could you travel beyond your attachment to "clever" jabs?
Oh, I forgot, this is the "Rush" generation: "clever" barbs/insults and piss on intelligent communication. OK...

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Because normally when someone BREAKS A LAW, the first reaction isn't "How can we make this law less

of a pain in the ass for you, your Highness?".

[Heidi]

43. Is your Google broken? Here, you can borrow mine.

http://news.google.ch/news?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn&q=FISA

[nini]

46. "intelligent examination" - a thing of the past

:-(

which is what I miss about the DU that kept me informed and focused on real issues.

[L. Coyote]

50. HERE. About 100 links for starters.

SO, how many secret domestic spy programs are there anyway, and are they legal?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1481897

There are some here trying to convey an impression that "Folks seem to be abandoning the Democratic Party in droves over this" but that isn't very realistic.

I cannot explain your so-called "outrage."

Certainly, it is part of Rove's strategy to make the Dems appear soft on terror, so maybe the Rovians been working overtime.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

57. One traditionally gets a little miffed at blatant treason.

:shrug:

[brentspeak]

58. I haven't met anyone abandoning the Democratic Party over FISA

Just anonymous posters here on DU who claim they are.

[dflprincess]

59. A) Because it violates the Fourth Amendment

and the Constituion is in enough trouble without Democrats deciding what they deem a politically expedient vote is more important than the Republic.


B) Because Gonzo is the one who gets to decide who is tapped and, as I haven't heard that any of these Democrats have been in comas that last couple weeks, they should know better than to trust him.

[burrowowl]

60. And do you think Congress will

Aborogate the damn thing after 6 months!?
The damn thing is against the CONSTITUTION!