Allowing the new surveillance law to stand would seriously cripple our free press.

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/11/10276/

Chris Hedges

"If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday — giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans — is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society...

The law, passed under the guise of national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and disseminated, not just to the U.S. government but to other governments.

This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

I have joined an ACLU lawsuit challenging the new law along with other journalists, human rights organizations and defense attorneys who also rely on confidentiality to do their work. I have joined not only because this law takes aim at my work but because I believe it signals a serious erosion of safeguards that make possible our democratic state. Laws and their just application are the only protection we have as citizens. Once the law is changed to permit the impermissible, we have no recourse with which to fight back..."

[babylonsister]

1. Chris Hedges is a hero, as is The Nation staff and of course ACLU.

I look forward to seeing how this goes.

[slipslidingaway]

2. Yes and thankfully there are some willing to challenge our

government and our Congress.

[merh]

3. Not it does not.

Christ on a crutch, how hard is it to understand that the bill does not allow the monitoring of US citizens without probable cause and an Order authorizing same by the FISA court?

Go read section 703 of the legislation.

And if you care to post of your concerns in this thread maybe we can rationally discuss them .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6487175&mesg_id=6487175

[Mojorabbit]

4. Amazing that you are

one of three people that "understand" this bill and everyone else is terribly mistaken.

[merh]

5. Not true at all.

I am just willing to speak up and against the hysteria. It's cool to be uninformed and scared.

:hi:

[Mojorabbit]

6. Like these people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3600936

[Subdivisions]

8. merh should call them and let them know everything is ok. n/t

[merh]

9. You can think for yourself, can't you?

Does parroting the words of others make up your mind for you?

I'm willing to discuss the legislation and your concerns.

[Mojorabbit]

15. Oh I have read the bill

and I agree with the other poster. Why don't you call the concerned journalists, the aclu, the constitutional scholars, and the nation and let them know they are worried about nothing.

[merh]

17. Why don't you just send them links to these threads, let them know

how they think for you.

BTW, their 1st amendment lawyers will tell them that they are overreating, but hey - whats a little more outrage in the big scheme of things.

[slipslidingaway]

7. For me this issue boils down to one of trust, so I'll trust those

organizations and people who have come out against this bill more than I will your interpretation.

Maybe you could list the organizations and groups of people who support this bill, the question has been asked before, but nobody has answered.

:shrug:


Frequently bills refer to other legislation and other clauses within the bill, so again, for me anyway, it comes down to who do you trust.

[merh]

11. LOL - to me it comes down to thinking for myself

and reading the legislation.

I don't like folks telling me what to think and god help us, I don't agree with the ACLU all the time, never have and never will.

This is something you need to think about. Feingold claims that GWB violated the law, that it is a given he violated the law and the monitoring began before 9/11. Doesn't that mean that the statutory defenses (what some refer to as immunity) doesn't apply?

What this person says cannot happen is not allowed by that legislation. Go look at 702, 703 and 704. Notice that the sections deal with US persons (citizens) and other than US persons. Also notice that the provisions do not allow targeting of US citzens/persons without probable cause and lawful order.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Well I am happy that you are an expert at reading this bill

and all the other legislation that it might refer to, I admit that I am not.

Sometimes you just have to trust people and groups who generally think the same way.

:)

Again, which groups are in favor of this legislation?

[merh]

18. I don't do group think so I haven't been tracking the groups.

But if you would like another perspective you may want to check out this op ed piece as linked in the OP here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6473419

[slipslidingaway]

27. A few groups are the Bush administration & telecom companies

who allegedly broke the law, many Republican lawmakers and some Democratic lawmakers.

And I saw the one person referenced your link.

[slipslidingaway]

10. Have you called Senator Feingold's office to tell them they are

wrong?

[merh]

12. No, why should I.

He isn't my senator.

Have you ever called GWB to tell him he is wrong?

[slipslidingaway]

16. Maybe you are not interpreting the bill correctly and are not

privy to the collection methods being used.

:shrug:

[merh]

20. The collection methods cannot be used if the lawful order of the

FISA court, based upon probable cause and in accordance with the US constitution, is first obtained. You need to stop putting the cart before the horse.

Now, if you want to be honest, you know that GWB has been ignoring and violating the existing FISA law and our rights since 2001 - if you admit that fact then you will have to admit, that under the new FISA, the statutory defenses (what some call immunity) do not apply.

[Zodiak]

23. That is incorrect

7 days until they must submit report to FISA.

If FISA overrules them, they get to do the surveillance, anyways.

By the time the appellate process is over, the surveillance has already been conducted because the time for review and appeal was extended in this bill.

[merh]

25. Read it again

the formal application or certification must be made within 7 days (7 days being the latest) - they must inform the judge - come one, try to follow the law.

[Zodiak]

29. Yes, they must...7 days

And if the judge disagrees, then the government can continue surveillance during the entire appellate process, exactly as stated. In fact, the Supreme Court is given the ultimate authority over this matter in the bill (which I did read), however, there is no provision in the bill that the Supreme Court must take up the case.

And remember, an informed judge can still be a toothless judge...these are separate issues. A FISA judge is not free to inform the general public that he disagrees. Public disclosure never occurs here...only disclosure to select committees of Congress. Most of the oversight still resides in the executive branch.

Lastly, do not editorialize and imply that I cannot follow along...just address the arguments (which you did not...only restated my point as if I never said it). You are the one who claims the wish to engage in an intelligent debate, and you are going off-field from that original plea.

[merh]

33. Tell me what section of the bill provides for this.

Don't tell me what someone else says that it says, give me the language.

You know, like this

ORDERS-

‘(A) APPROVAL- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) contains all the required elements and that the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are consistent with the requirements of those subsections and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall enter an order approving the certification and the use, or continued use in the case of an acquisition authorized pursuant to a determination under subsection (c)(2), of the procedures for the acquisition.

‘(B) CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) does not contain all the required elements, or that the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are not consistent with the requirements of those subsections or the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall issue an order directing the Government to, at the Government’s election and to the extent required by the Court’s order--

‘(i) correct any deficiency identified by the Court’s order not later than 30 days after the date on which the Court issues the order; or

‘(ii) cease, or not begin, the implementation of the authorization for which such certification was submitted.

Or how about this

‘(d) Emergency Authorization-

‘(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--

‘(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order authorizing such acquisition can with due diligence be obtained, and

‘(B) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subsection to approve such acquisition exists,

the Attorney General may authorize such acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) is informed by the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.

‘(2) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES- If the Attorney General authorizes an acquisition under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures referred to in subsection (c)(1)(C) for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.

‘(3) TERMINATION OF EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- In the absence of a judicial order approving an acquisition under paragraph (1), such acquisition shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

I've noticed that some folks are confusing what surveillance procedures are allowed regarding the monitoring of non-US citizens (other than US persons) and US citizens or persons.

[Zodiak]

38. Still insisting on this? Read your own quote

"for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order authorizing such acquisition can with due diligence be obtained" What is due diligence, legally? What is subsection C?

"If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) does not contain all the required elements, or that the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are not consistent with the requirements of those subsections or the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall issue an order directing the Government to, at the Government’s election and to the extent required by the Court’s order--" Looks like the attorney general's office gets to "elect" whether they want to follow the rules. What does "elect" mean legally, anyways? Anyone got a Black's law dictionary? I know what I think it means, but then again, most people think they know what a "theory" means, too.


The correction of deficiencies provision you underline does not address the merits...only that the procedure is followed and the elements are there. Immaterial. The merits of reasonably believed to be an agent of foreign intelligence, reasonably believe out of the US, and the merits of the probable cause, as well as the minimalization requirements and the compliance with stays in the court are all determined by the attorney general ultimately...not the court to get the ball rolling. The court gets to do that later, long after someone's rights were stomped on.

And read that last sentence before your underlined quote...can the average person interpret that jargon? Which further underlies the point made before about trying to navigate this thing.

Yeah yeah, 7 days...we went over that. They extended it from 3 days. Not a huge deal, but definitely an expansion. But we've now discussed this three times already. This is not a point of contention.

Quoting one paragraph of a 114 page bill to establish that the judge can stop things is not looking at the big picture, according to the analysis that I cited.

"The House legislation also drastically extends the timeline for reviewing surveillance activities, potentially allowing the government to commence eavesdropping and then drag out judicial review for months. Under existing law, the government must obtain judicial approval within 72 hours of the start of emergency wiretapping. In contrast, the judicial review of "certifications" can stretch out as long as four months. After beginning eavesdropping, the government has a week to submit its "certification" to the FISA court, which has 30 days to review the application. If the judge finds problems with the certification, the government can continue eavesdropping for another 30 days before it is required to comply with the order. And the government can buy still more time by filing an appeal to the FISA Court of Review. The appeals court may take as long as 60 days to make its decision, and the government will often be allowed to continue eavesdropping throughout the process of judicial review. This means that in many cases, the government will have completed its spying activities long before the courts reach a decision on its legality."

Sometimes it is not what a bill says, but what it doesn't say....or doesn't properly define. The entire procedure is not outlined in your bolded paragraph...why? Probably because you are citing 0.05% of the bill...and the bill has numerous cross-references.


If you want to engage in sophistry, that is fine, but I won't "play the game". Read the analyses...because picking nuggets out of this huge, complicated bill is an exercise is futility. The articles are much shorter, and they do all of the cross-referencing for us.

The bill is not good. Not by a long-shot.

And my job wasn't to convince you, anyways. It is clear that your sticking with your method no matter how logically fallacious and pedantic.

[merh]

44. Yes, still insisting you read the language as written.

‘(3) ORDERS-

‘(A) APPROVAL- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) contains all the required elements and that the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are consistent with the requirements of those subsections and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall enter an order approving the certification and the use, or continued use in the case of an acquisition authorized pursuant to a determination under subsection (c)(2), of the procedures for the acquisition.

‘(B) CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) does not contain all the required elements, or that the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are not consistent with the requirements of those subsections or the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall issue an order directing the Government to, at the Government’s election andto the extent required by the Court’s order--

‘(i) correct any deficiency identified by the Court’s order not later than 30 days after the date on which the Court issues the order; or

‘(ii) cease, or not begin, the implementation of the authorization for which such certification was submitted.

‘(C) REQUIREMENT FOR WRITTEN STATEMENT- In support of an order under this subsection, the Court shall provide, simultaneously with the order, for the record a written statement of the reasons for the order.

It is the Court that has to approve the surveillance (see A), if the court finds deficencies it can order that they be corrected and that the surveillance not be had (or continue if the certification is for a renewal of an existing approved program). It is the government that elects whether or not it wants to correct the deficiencies to be able to continue or begin the surveillance. The court can't order them to correct the problems but without its approval there is no authority to begin or continue. The election is whether or not the government wants to correct the problems and come back to the court.

[Zodiak]

45. You didn't even bother to read anything I posted

You addressed nothing.

It is unfortunate that you cannot debate in good faith. More sophistry.

[merh]

46. I did read what you posted.

As I had already corrected you about the 7 days I thought repeating myself would be wasted effort but if you insist, I will go over that language again.

if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) is informed by the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.

The AG has to INFORM a FISA judge of the emergency and as soon as practical and no more than 7 days must apply for authorization. That means that they go to or call the judge and say "here is our situation, we have this emergency" and the FISA judge can tell them "I want the application tomorrow" (that is as soon as practical). The 7 days is the latest but the "as soon as practical" is the operative term and the judge is informed.

And I did address your post and pointed out to you that the election is to correct the problems with the certification, not that it can elect to conduct surveillance without the FISA court approval as required under the section.

[slipslidingaway]

28. We'll have to agree to disargee as I am not interested in

playing your FISA game.

"Let's play the FISA game."

[merh]

34. I hope you do decide to take the time to read the legislation

It really isn't that complicated and it will relieve you of your concerns.

[slipslidingaway]

36. I'm going to pass and keep my sanity instead of reading the

entire bill and any accompanying legislation it might reference.

[Zodiak]

19. Actually, the probable cause provision was greatly weakened under this bill

It used to be determined by the courts; now it is only asserted by the executive branch. The courts role is to determine if the executive branch has all of their paperwork in order, but does not determine whether that paperwork is needed.

And the minimization stuff can encompass large-scale communications only to target one or two potential Al Queda members. It is a serious loophole.

[merh]

21. Please, provide me the provision that states that.

Let me ask you, do you know how search warrants are obtained?

The police determine what is the probable cause but the court's have to review the application and determine if the probable cause is sufficient or if the cause given is actually probable cause.

[Zodiak]

22. Try again.

For one, I am not going to go through this bill to pull out the individual provision. The bill often cross-references other bills like any other legislation, and I am no lawyer.

However, I have read the bill and it made my eyes cross.......about 10 pages of legalese, and the real bill is 114 pages.

There are plenty of analyses available, which are far more suited to a layman's venue such as DU.

Here's one:

http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/fisa-compromise.ars

"No individual warrants for international calls

When it comes to judicial oversight of domestic-to-foreign calls, the legislation the House passed last month is an unambiguous victory for the White House and a defeat for civil libertarians. The legislation establishes a new procedure whereby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can sign off on "authorizations" of surveillance programs "targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The government is required to submit a "certification" to the FISA court describing the surveillance plan and the "minimization" procedures that will be used to avoid intercepting too many communications of American citizens. However, the government is not required to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur. The specific eavesdropping targets will be at the NSA's discretion and unreviewed by a judge. Moreover, the judge's review of the government's "certification" is much more limited than the scrutiny now given to FISA applications. The judge is permitted only to confirm that the certification "contains all the required elements," that the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to target foreigners, and that minimization procedures have been established.

Crucially, there appears to be no limit to the breadth of "authorizations" the government might issue. So, for example, a single "authorization" might cover the interception of all international traffic passing through AT&T's San Francisco facility, with complex software algorithms deciding which communications are retained for the examination of human analysts. Without a list of specific targets, and without a background in computer programming, a judge is unlikely to be able to evaluate whether such software is properly "targeted" at foreigners.

The House legislation also drastically extends the timeline for reviewing surveillance activities, potentially allowing the government to commence eavesdropping and then drag out judicial review for months. Under existing law, the government must obtain judicial approval within 72 hours of the start of emergency wiretapping. In contrast, the judicial review of "certifications" can stretch out as long as four months. After beginning eavesdropping, the government has a week to submit its "certification" to the FISA court, which has 30 days to review the application. If the judge finds problems with the certification, the government can continue eavesdropping for another 30 days before it is required to comply with the order. And the government can buy still more time by filing an appeal to the FISA Court of Review. The appeals court may take as long as 60 days to make its decision, and the government will often be allowed to continue eavesdropping throughout the process of judicial review. This means that in many cases, the government will have completed its spying activities long before the courts reach a decision on its legality."


There are serious problems with this bill if the bulk of detailed analyses are to be believed. The guy who wrote the one I am citing was pretty well-balanced.

I know that minimizing the negatives of this bill serves a rhetorical task to rally the troops, but there are serious problems with it.

And demanding provisions from a 144 page bill is not exactly the best way to conduct a debate when the participants most likely won't understand what they are reading, anyways. It's probably one of the reasons your other thread went over like a lead balloon. How many lawyers with time to read this bill do you think will show up, anyways?

[merh]

26. LOL -- read the law

and apply it, if you don't you are just talking out of your ass and letting others think for you. You are just a parrot.

How about the law, would you like to read it and see that it does require probable cause and lawful orders of the court?

As I have said before, the monitoring of US citizens requires that the 4th amendment be complied with, that is, warrant/orders based upon probable cause.

The AG certifies to the courts that there is probable cause and the courts review the certification and ascertain whether or not probable cause exists before issueing the order.

[Zodiak]

30. I am a parrot talking out of my ass, eh? Cute

You have now devolved into insults...not a good indication that you are winning this argument. I realize that argument by authority is inherently flawed, but the preponderance of analyses all agree with my assertions.

I must point out my original assertion that very few are qualified to read the actual bill and make heads or tails of it. We are not lawyers. I am a scientist, which has its own set of specific jargon...so I understand the dangers of reading and interpreting something outside of your field. These repeated demands to read the bill as if everyone can understand it as written I find to be a bit disingenuous.

As many experts have asserted, the court does not review probable cause other than to make sure there is one put down procedurally. They do not investigate the validity of said probable cause...that is the Attorney General's determination (the AG is appointed by the President). And once again I must reiterate that even if the judge says "no", the surveillance may continue anyways throughout the appellate process.

This is of course independent of the problems with the weak minimalization requirements in the bill, which you have not addressed yet.

ON EDIT: One last thing, you haven't addressed the fact that neither you nor I know the true scope of this program...just like 70% of the Senators, but we do have the testimony and documentary evidence provided by Mark Klein, the AT&T whistleblower. His account is chilling. Too bad Capital Hill wasn't interested in hearing from him.

[slipslidingaway]

31. Thank you....

"...I must point out my original assertion that very few are qualified to read the actual bill and make heads or tails of it. We are not lawyers. I am a scientist, which has its own set of specific jargon...so I understand the dangers of reading and interpreting something outside of your field. These repeated demands to read the bill as if everyone can understand it as written I find to be a bit disingenuous..."

:applause:

[merh]

32. There is nothing complicated about the bill.

To fall on the "I'm no lawyer, I don't know legalize" is a cop out.

What is most comical about your relying on others is your obvious refusal to recognize the truth about their opinions as it relates to the law. If you believe GWB's actions were illegal then the law does not protect them as it specifically provides that the directives of the pres had to be legal and had to be in compliance with FISA provisions.

And again, do you know how search warrants in regular old criminal cases are obtained? As explained, the certification for an order of the FISA court for the monitoring is to be accomplished in the same manner, that is probable cause alleged, sworn to and proven to the FISA Court. All of your ascertains are not supported by the legislation.

[Zodiak]

35. I have read the bill, and it was complex

Two parts of it were almost identical copies of themselves, but they related to different types of targets. The first page was full of definitions...there were many terms in there that I did not understand, and probably a bunch of them I only know as a layman and not the specific professional definitions. Any lawyer would tell you that if you are not versed in these things, you should not be reading and interpreting a legal document. Call it a cop-out all you want, but it is my professional opinion that I would not touch that bill with a ten foot pole, just as I would not expect you to read my last paper on metabolomics and understand it enough to debate its finer points.

You are grandstanding with this empty point. If you want to argue with a lawyer or a self-appointed one, knock yourself out, but it looks like all you have is me.

I am glad you mentioned the omission of the criminal liability for the telecoms. This is the assurance that arises from John Dean's analysis, correct? While I agree with his analysis from what I have read in the bill (I saw no mention of criminal immunity anywhere), I am not throughly convinced that there is political will to pursue these charges since the government must originate all criminal charges. I can hope that this is the plan, but let's just say that we have a lot of dry powder laying around here.

The FISA court is designed to be different than criminal court when it comes to probable cause (a well-known criticism of the 1978 law), so your point about crminal proceedings is immaterial. The FISA court does not determine the merit of the probable cause, only asks that the spying entity signs off on it, which you have stated yourself. The review process months down the road is supposed to go over that. In other words, the FISA court determines if the forms are filled out. And like I said before and you have ignored...the surveillance can go on anyways whether FISA says yes or not. The appellate process ends with the Supreme Court, as outlined in the bill (there were some things that were clear). That could take years.

Any many have argued that FISA as it stood in 1978 was still a lowered standard for probable cause. After all, it was challenged in court a couple of times and ruled unconstitutional.

I assume you are conceding my point about the fact that we are arguing about a program that we know very little about, and the bulk of our senators know just as little.

I also assume you are conceding my point that the effort in the bill to enforce minimalism is weak. In other words, technically, they can write one FISA request for the entire phone network as long as they think there's one or two "foreign agents" to listen to. In effect, writing a warrant to search all of New York city for a couple of crack dealers. If the attorney general gets to determine the merits of probable cause, can you see where this is a violation of the separation of powers?

FISA gets to judge, but they don't get to judge the good stuff...the merits. The Bush-packed federal courts and the Supreme Court get to...when they feel like it. Meanwhile, the President, through his Attorney General can pretty much do what they want as long as they sign off on it. Yay fun!

[merh]

51. When you have time you should go research the Federal Tort

Claims Act and the two exceptions provided under 18 USC § 2679(b)(1). The causes of action can continue depending, the target of same may change as they should. The fault lies in the hands of this administration and as the district court ruled the other day, GWB violated FISA and knew it when he did it.

[chill_wind]

50. Just curious, are you a legal expert? A lawyer by profession? n/t

[slipslidingaway]

13. Remarks of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/07/20080709.htm

"...Mr. President, I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans. If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure.

So I hope my colleagues will think long and hard about their votes on this bill, and consider how they, and their constituents, will feel about this vote five, ten or twenty years from now. I am confident that history will not judge this Senate kindly if it endorses this tragic retreat from the principles that have governed government conduct in this sensitive area for 30 years. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill."

[Perogie]

24. It's not going to stand

Once Obama is Pres and more Dems are in office, then things will change. The repubs have been dimantling things for 30 years and getting their claws in everything. It's going to take time to correct everything. It won't happen until the Dems get more people in and replace the Dinos

[warren pease]

37. Does anyone else find it ironic that...

... almost this entire thread is devoted to arguing fine points of the law when this administration ignores any provisions of any laws that it doesn't agree with?

It's as if people see the Bushies as a group of honorable, trustworthy, sane people when in fact they're just the most visible members of a pathological global criminal enterprise.

The point, it seems to me, is not what the law says but which parts they'll thumb their noses at. Just think "Mukasey" and shudder.

Either that or, in this single case, they'll feel compelled to obey the law in all its provisions when history suggests that's about the least likely outcome.


wp

[Zodiak]

40. Also a very good point

Since the attorney general gets to pretty much determine everything, I find little comfort that Mukasey will tell the truth entirely when filling out his little certification forms.

[merh]

42. That is sorta the point

It is not the law that is the problem, it is the branch of government charged with enforcing it, it is the executive that swore an oath to uphold it and execute it.

[slipslidingaway]

47. Yes I do, also I view quoting segments of the bill more as a tactic to

to distract and silence any criticism.

:tinfoilhat:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

39. Further expanding executive power CRIPPLES democracy.

And,...it's freakin' SICK that this bill was allowed to become LAW!!! :puke:

BUT,...but,...if a Democrat is elected, will this regime pay for pushing this concentration of power?

:shrug:

[merh]

43. It did not further expand the executive powers.

It did what the FISA law before it did, it allowed the enforcement branch of the government to explain to the court who they wanted to monitor and why before the court issued the order allowing the surveillance. The laws were broken because GWB ignored the FISA court and ordered the surveillance as president.

[slipslidingaway]

48. If this regime is held accountable I would be VERY surprised

and I also believe this bill could have been defeated if those who had the media attention made an issue of the wiretapping program.

:(

[shadowknows69]

41. Luckily our press already had it's spinal column removed surgically years ago

[slipslidingaway]

49. There are some left, but the number is diminishing . n/t