In a frenetic scramble, Congress may have given the Bush administration more surveillance powers

[EV_Ares]

than it had sought:

By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: August 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches of American citizens and the collection of their business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

Concern Over Wider Spying Under New Law; “We did not cover ourselves in glory,” said one Democratic aide, referring to how the bill was compiled.

It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s Congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans.

Administration officials acknowledged they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.

They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.

The dispute illustrates how Democrats, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought. It also offers a case study in how changing a few words in a complex piece of legislation has the potential to fundamentally alter the basic meaning of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a landmark national security law. Two weeks after the legislation was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president.

((((entire article @ NY Times link))))

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/washington/19fisa.html?hp

[aquart]

1. No one should be allowed to vote on anything they haven't read.

[Zenlitened]

3. Totally agree. And I mean actually *read* the entire bill.

"But the bills are so complicated," they would cry out in protest. "And we couldn't possibly find the time to do all that reading!"

Well... try crafting less complicated bills, instead of cobbling everything under the sun into one messy package.

And allocate your time wisely -- like the rest of us have to. Less "Dandelion Awareness Day" stuff, more stuff that genuinely matters.

Sure, "what genuinely matters" is always going to be a judgment call to some degree. But I think it's possible to find a pretty broad consensus on What Needs Doing and Doing Now!

As for the "questionableness" of this particular congressman's action... I don't see any question about it all: It's flat-out wrong and the law that emerged from the re-written bill isn't law at all. This was no mere technicality.

And if the rest of the stuff that was in that bill gets thrown out with the bathwater... well, see above re: writing less complicated bills.

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[AndyTiedye]

2. Bush** Made Them An Offer They Couldn't Refuse

I guess if you wake up with a horse's head on your bed you will sign whatever they put in front of you.

[rodeodance]

4. the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country,

Yet Bush administration officials have already signaled that, in their view, the president retains his constitutional authority to do whatever it takes to protect the country, regardless of any action Congress takes. At a tense meeting last week with lawyers from a range of private groups active in the wiretapping issue, senior Justice Department officials refused to commit the administration to adhering to the limits laid out in the new legislation and left open the possibility that the president could once again use what they have said in other instances is his constitutional authority to act outside the regulations set by Congress.

At the meeting, Bruce Fein, a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration, along with other critics of the legislation, pressed Justice Department officials repeatedly for an assurance that the administration considered itself bound by the restrictions imposed by Congress. The Justice Department, led by Ken Wainstein, the assistant attorney general for national security, refused to do so, according to three participants in the meeting. That stance angered Mr. Fein and others. It sent the message, Mr. Fein said in an interview, that the new legislation, though it is already broadly worded, “is just advisory. The president can still do whatever he wants to do. They have not changed their position that the president’s Article II powers trump any ability by Congress to regulate the collection of foreign intelligence.”

[MuseRider]

5. How dare they

claim to represent us when they let shit like this get through. What the hell are they doing? This is incompetence pure and simple. They have a job and they can't do it. Read the fucking bills! Would you sign something you did not understand or had not read?

[Alacrat]

7. Anyone have a link to who voted for this?

or who was absent?

[MuseRider]

14. There were some

links around but I did not save any of them. Sorry.

[Alacrat]

17. Thank you anyway

I will look for it.
The link in the OP didn't give the # of the bill, but I'm sure it won't be to hard to find.

[MuseRider]

28. Sorry

I had to leave. I am going out to finish up my work and will be back in around 9 or so. If you have not found it I can do a search for you. It should be pretty easy.

[EV_Ares]

8. U said it so well, agree completely. I am so pissed off about this

among other things. I was excited about getting the house back and on top of that the senate and now getting this kind of crap from those I expected better from.

Yes, we all understand the #s are not that much where they don't have their battles but with some good legislative skills, I think they could do better there as well. After all the republicans did not have overwhelming #s when they were in charge and they did better than this.

But to totally give Bush this, no excuse at all for that kind of crap. Very disappointing indeed.

[MuseRider]

12. I don't even care

if they win the fights but they HAVE to stand up for something don't they? I can't think of anything better than our constitution/our rights. So far they have supported an administration who is taking those things away now in giant leaps not little by little and there the Dems are, signing on with big happy grins (look how reasonable we are) thinking they are a shoe in for the 2008 election (because that is the only thing that really matters). NOBODY will want to vote for chickenshits. Add this kind of incompetence and what do you have? NOTHING. I really think they are just happy as pie to be on the same side with the Repubs and I think we have been suckered big time. I have felt that way for quite a long time but it is just too obvious to ignore. This is no plot with a bigger (shhhh secret) plan. We are so screwed.

This is not unintentional. Who else are you going to vote for? They don't have to work to earn votes they just have to warm those seats once in a while, put up a good front then vote for the path of least resistance. We will be there, out on the streets getting signatures and passing out info. We will be there manning the phone banks. I am speaking as a fellow liberal, I am no Democrat and I can tell you I will not be doing any of those things for most of them. There are still a few that I would but that is all. The rest don't seem to care enough about us to warrant our time and money and energy. Can't read the freaking bills. Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch.

[EV_Ares]

23. One thing we now know how they or most got snookered into voting

for this war. Hell, if you don't know or read the legislation before you, I can see how the idiots voted for the war. Here you have Kucinich working his ass off to get the truth out, stood alone, always has been against the war. Has a universal health care plan out there which won't get passed. He is looked at as being too far out there when to me, he is the one the majority of this country needs because he is about the only one working for them/us. Edwards is also saying and doing a lot of things, Obams but Hillary of who Murdoch held a fund raiser for her at his house is as much a corporate senator as the republicans and other democrats.

Know what you mean. I just keep trying to be optimistic about things, but it does get harder.

[Alacrat]

6. No excuse for this!

This really pisses me off. They need to get off their asses and do their job.

Trying to hurry up and get through, so you can hit the beach, is a piss poor excuse for letting this slip by.

Surely one of them can read and then explain legislation like this to the rest of OUR congressional leaders, if not, we need to find actual leaders who can read and will pay attention.

What else can we give you Mr. bush? More troops, more money, more surveillance powers....... whoops! we already did that.
Maybe a new paper shredder to help him further shred the constitution.

Mr. President, just ask and ye shall receive, or so it seems.

Sometimes I think Our leaders are asleep at the wheel, or to busy dreaming about the White House in 08.
They won't be in the White House in 08 if they continue to do stuff like this.

[formercia]

21. Legislation written by attorneys

What we need is a law that forces Congress to write bills in plain English that even a High School grad can understand.

[Alacrat]

24. I agree

I would love to read a congressional bill and understand what it means but I'm not an attorney. IMO everything written by the Gov. should be in plain English especially the tax code.

This isn't an excuse for members of congress. If a puke attorney can write a bill in attorney language, a Democratic attorney should be able to understand and explain it to our members of congress, if not, we need new attorneys.

The pukes are in the minority, there is no excuse for letting them slip legislation past the majority.
Our majority isn't a guarantee. We need to be taking action and making changes while we have it. You never know what will happen in the next 18 months.

[Solly Mack]

9. LMAO What a crock of shit....."It is possible...."

"It is possible that some of the changes were the unintended (Yeah..my happy ass) consequences of the rushed legislative process just before this month’s Congressional recess, rather than a purposeful effort by the administration to enhance its ability to spy on Americans."



"The dispute illustrates how Democrats, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought."

Yeah...OK..what-the-fuck-ever

If ignorance is no excuse for the law...then why is it an excuse for lawmakers?

[MuseRider]

13. I almost spit

out my tongue when I read that. Aren't these responsible grownups? They sure don't look like 6th graders. :eyes:

[Alacrat]

15. The key word being..

Ignorance or ignorant.

The quote:

"The dispute illustrates how Democrats, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation
they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought"


"They may not have fully understood"

IMO, Anyone who reads that phrase is left with the impression that the Democratic members of Congress are ignorant.
It hurts me to say that, but what other impression could it leave?

It says bush & co. are able to out smart the Democratic Congress. DAMN IT! on his best day, bush couldn't out smart a turd by flushing the toilet but he was able to out smart a majority Democratic Congress.

All legislation is important, but legislation which expands the ability of domestic wire tapping/spying, something we have always called illegal and one of our #1 talking points against this administration, is allowed to slip by.

If anyone read the entire link in the OP, it also allows for the possibility that Democrats voted for this out of fear that they would be portrayed as being soft on terrorism.
Please don't tell me our leaders are so afraid of being labeled soft on terrorism they just roll over and give Lil'bush anything he wants.

That was not why they were elected and if it continues, it will kill us in the upcoming elections.

[Neecy]

10. jesus christ!

Harry Reid should step down NOW for allowing this shit! Unbelieveable!

[bbgrunt]

11. when are we going to stop accepting the excuse of incompetence

and realize that we have complicity?

[Individualist]

16. Hear, hear!

We hear excuses of fear, ignorance, etc. When the cabal is given everything it wants, the only explanation is complicity.

[Disturbed]

19. The majority of Dems in the Senate & House voted no on this.

The Busholini Regime timed this so that it would be a rush to get a Bill approved. Dems could have refused to go along & demanded more time to craft a Bill that did not have such sweeping powers for the Exec. It seems that the threat was a that these powers were needed immediately to avoid another Terrorist Attack within the USA. Remember the build up of Terrorist threats a week before this Bill was demanded? Rethugs are at War on many fronts, the major one being Amerika.

[donkeyotay]

26. Absolutely! They were not incompetent; they were complicit. nt

[Nutmegger]

18. 5

:thumbsup::kick:

[Ezlivin]

20. Testing the system - how widespread is the surveillance?

If thousands of motivated people began calling each other and using phrases such as "we're planning to use the bomb" or "we've chosen the target", would this trigger a response by the government?

There is a term used in electronics called "signal to noise ratio". This refers to how loud the signal is in reference to the noise. Too much noise and you lose the signal.

Would thousands of bogus calls inject so much noise into the system as to render it useless?

[Alacrat]

22. I love my Lab to much for that.

I love my Wife and Son also, but the dog is the one who always seems to get shot by the Jack Boot Thugs after they ram the door down.

I also love the beach as much as anyone, but I'm not up for an indefinite vacation at GITMO either, and I'm not into S&M........hmmmm........ lets just say I'm in a monogamous relationship.

Let us know how it turns out.

[Maven]

25. The 4th Amendment is so *yesterday*

Thanks Blue Dogs!

:hi:

[donkeyotay]

27. -insert stream of profanity here -

How come DU knew and congress didn't?

"we did not cover ourselves in glory,”

unintended consequences...?

"...passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers..."

WTFWTFWTF.

Say, anyone heard any of that teevee BULLSHIT about how terrist were going to attack or did it stop right after this legislation got passed? Anyone know how that anthrax investigation is going?

Congress. You suck. When I saw Reid and Pelosi all breathless after coming out of the inner sanctum, all aglow with some inside terra information, I new we'd been had - again.

[Alacrat]

29. Hoodwinked & Bamboozled.

I guess this was rove's parting shot.
The thought of that fat bastard & lil' bush laughing it up really pisses me off.

It would be one thing if Congress came out and said they voted for it, but to admit they were
taken is disgraceful.

Unbelievable.

[OneBlueSky]

30. sorry, but the Democratic Congress is out of its collective fucking mind . . .

why would they give Bush ANYTHING that he wants? . . . have they not been paying attention? . . .

some things are dumb, some things are stupid, some things are just fucking insane . . . giving Bush more power falls in the latter . . .

[puebloknot]

31. "...collective fucking mind..." That's what bothers me. They're "Sheeple"...

...if ever there were any "Sheeple."

Lockstep! Isn't that supposed to be a Repug trait?

"some things are dumb, some things are stupid, some things are just fucking insane" And some things are just fu**ing criminal: Crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity. Enabling Bush entails all three!

[bemildred]

32. They knew what they were doing. nt