Democrats Choose Leaving America Vulnerable In Order To Score Political Points
February 15th, 2008 at 01:28pm Matt Margolis
To protect Americans or not to protect Americans… that is the question. And Democrats have answered “not to protect American” in favor of scoring cheap political points.
Writing to President Bush regarding vital reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), House Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) noted that the Preamble to our Constitution states that one of the highest duties of public officials is to “provide for the common defense.” Reyes goes on to claim that he works “everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong” and demands that the House be given more time to debate the telecommunication company protections passed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin in the Senate. Reyes fails to mention that the House has had 194 days to debate this issue since temporary FISA reforms were passed last August and he does not explain why House demands for another 21-day extension will be any different than the 15-day extension the White House agreed to on Feb. 1.
Instead of actually debating this issue yesterday, the House instead chose to vote on contempt citations for White House chief of staff Josh Bolten and former counsel Harriet Miers. This choice of how to use their precious time perfectly underscores the real priorities of the House leadership: scoring cheap political points against the White House is more important than settling real policy debates that affect our national security.
Entry Filed under: Corruption, Democrats
26 Comments
1. plainjane | February 15th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Try as you may to muddy the waters with the separate by very important contempt of Congress chargers against Miers and Bolten it will not work.
The way the average American sees it, either the President wants to protect the American people or the telecoms. If you want we can dig up endless clips of President Bush and his cronies stating to America they have broken no laws in the gathering of wiretap information. If they are telling the truth then why are Republicans so relentlessly pushing the immunity issue? Besides telecoms like most corporations have corporate offices full of lawyers at their disposal. They are getting paid whether they are on a case or not.
If President Bush’s primary goal is as he says to protect the American people he could end this with one phrase. “Send me a FISA bill free of the immunity issue. It is not so important and it can easily be taken up at a later date.” If his priority is to protect telecoms than by all means the Republican strategy should continue to demand telecom immunity at the expense of American’s safety.
Anyway I am not too worried since there are systems in place to legally wiretap with a warrant and also without warrant on an emergency basis provided one is obtained within the timeframe the law provides. These laws have been in place and contrary to wingnut radio they have do not expire with this bill.
But let’s be adults, we all know why the Republicans are pushing the immunity issue. There are certainly dirty little secrets from this culture of corruption concerning the trampling of our Constitutional rights that would come out in any trial.
2. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
The rank dishonesty of the reaction to the House of Representatives having the audacity to deny The Leader his full demands is in full bloom here. Just this morning we have President Bush saying this:
Guess what? It’s a false statement. There is no need to “convince people to help protect you”. An order under FISA is just that - a court order which, as the statute says, will direct, among other things:
In other words, if America is being “left vulnerable” by the House’s actions yesterday, it’s only because the President wants it to be that way.
3. Dennis | February 15th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Matt, on another thread you just said “If a Democrat were commander-in-chief for the duration of the war on terror, we’d all be dead by now.”
Wow. You take pretty much everything Mr. Bush and his surrogates say at face value, don’t you?
Please remember America’s founders believed in strict limits on the power of the executive branch. They would look with outrage at the unthinking credulity that exists in our country today. At Congress passively approving structural changes that undermine Constitutional principles; at all these frightened people acquiescing to enormously increased powers to the executive, looking to a daddy state to keep them safe.
When did America become such a nation of panty-waist, limp-wristed fainting flowers?
4. bongoman | February 15th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
How exactly is America ‘left vulnerable’?
Please explain…
5. bongoman | February 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Seems like the *real* issue is liability protection for the telecoms.
And if you take Bush at his word, then he’s prepared to put the nation at risk in order to ensure that AT&T and Verizon do not have to be held accountable in a court of law for having broken the law.
Either way you look at it, it’s an outrage.
6. LOLguy23 | February 15th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Deleted - off topic.
7. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
The point is that the wiretapping without warrants was never necessary. There was already ample ability to conduct surveillance under the existing FISA statute but even that was modified after the attacks of 09/11/01 at the President’s request. However, he still ordered wiretapping without warrants because this White House is intent on making the Executive Branch superior to the other coequal branches of the federal government.
8. Uncommon | February 15th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
The issue here is that the administration doesn’t want limited time-specific wiretaps as granted by FISA - they want PERMANENT wire taps on all calls made/received in the United States. They say that it is only to monitor suspicious phone calls but unfortunately to find those shady calls you have to tap EVERYBODY. The truth of the matter is that this does not make us safer and if anything creates a new threat from the government that is supposed to protect our privacy not their own. God DAMNIT!!! do you people really want to live in this fear mongering, increasingly apparent police state where slowly our basic rights are stripped away for “safety and security”. Don’t you realize that when you sacrafice freedom for security you lose both!? This is BS. You know what 9/11 was an awful, awful day. I mourn the loss of any life foreign or domestic but this has gone to far. Better that we are attacked, survive it, and punish those responsible then to live in perpetual fear with freedoms lacking. When you are attacked by the bully on the playground you defend yourself- you don’t go around the playground beating up every person you suspect might kick your ass. Leading up to that point of defense you try not to make yourself out to be a target. You don’t cower in the bathroom but you also don’t go around getting into pissing matches with people. We had all of the available intelligence we needed to thwart 9/11 we just lacked the ability to organize it and to understand it. We should have fixed that before doing all of this other crap. More importantly had this country allowed airlines to protect their assests and property none of this would have ever happened. If the airlines would have been allowed to have plain clothed security officers with at least tasers if not handguns then a group of terrorists armed with box cutters would have never hijacked their planes. And we wouldn’t be having this conversation of whether or not permanent wire tappings are even necessary. This is bullshit!!
9. bongoman | February 15th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
LOLguy23, so just get rid of Article IV then?
10. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
You have to wonder why, if it’s all such a good idea, that the President and his fellow-Republicans feel the need to blatantly lie about the situation.
11. bongoman | February 15th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Maybe those in favor of warrantless surveillance need to ask themselves how they would feel if an incoming President Obama or President Clinton had tha power? Would you be OK with that?
The issue is not whether you trust the Bush Administration or not. It is whether you want to set a precedent that is open to abuse down the track.
How about it? Let Hillary tap phones without warrants? Yes or no?
12. Brian (Boston) | February 15th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Mike McConnell, intel chief, said this morning on NPR that the problem is not that the laws will expire, which they do not until August, but they do not provide cover for telecoms. So Republicans are not interested in protecting the people, only business.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19072207
13. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Brian,
It’s almost certain that they’re also protecting themselves because of the possibility of the lawsuits revealing Administration lawbreaking in detail. That’s why they’ve continually trotted out the lie about needing immunity so the telecoms will continue to “cooperate” even though there’s no issue of cooperation because FISA warrants are court orders not court requests for cooperation.
14. phnx | February 15th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Actually Brian, the after the expiraation date the law only covers KNOWN trrorist organizations. Any new ones are not covered and are free to go about their business.
Better hope nothing happens in the interim, or there will be some sserious ’splainin to do on the part of you dhimmicrats.
15. bongoman | February 15th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
phnx - so why not get a warrant under FISA then if some new scary terrorist group is formed and we need to monitor communications?
16. bongoman | February 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
And if it is that crucial, drop telecom immunity.
If the sky is about to fall ’cause of the expiry, then surely protecting telecoms who broke the law is the least of our worries.
17. Diana Powe | February 15th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
bongoman,
I suspect that perhaps the supporters of chucking the Protect America Act of 2007 unless it has telecom immunity in it are afraid that the telecoms might react to future FISA warrants, which are court orders to said telecoms, in the same way this White House reacts to Congressional subpoenas which is to politely say, “Screw you.”
18. js | February 16th, 2008 at 7:56 am
The whole jist of the matter is the idiots that are sue crazy.
I cant see any judge in the US allowing this to move forward without addressing the core issue, that being if the Executive Office has the Constitutional Authority to collect intelligence on threats from foreign and/or domestic sources without Congresses approval.
I would think so. The President of the United States has no greater responsibility than protecting the American people from threats, both foreign and domestic. He is vested by the Constitution with the authority and responsibility to accomplish this essential task.
Any law that Congress passes, that interfer’s with the Executive Offices duties, are not Constitutional. The only way that could happen, would be with an amendment to the Constitution, which would decentralize our military and intelligence efforts, resulting in more harm than good.
19. js | February 16th, 2008 at 7:59 am
At the end, if that issue is determined, Judicially, that there is Executive Authority, then the real point of this is to evade irresponsible law suits that both tie up our Justice system, and impose massive legal fee’s on those who serve this nation, telecommunications companies who comply with the Executive Offices lawful Orders.
20. Brian (Boston) | February 16th, 2008 at 9:02 am
JS,so we have a king and not a president? This sounds like Nixon talk. Nixon said, “that when the President does it, that means it is not illegal.” No one in this country is above the law.
21. plainjane | February 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
js | February 16th, 2008 at 7:56 am
I am certain the Presidential oath states the primary goal as..”protect and defend the Constituiton,” and thus protect the American people. You have it ass backwards.
22. js | February 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
20. Brian (Boston) |
Get a grasp on reality BB. The core theme, “PRESERVE, protect and defend the Constitution”, makes it the Presidents obligation to insure that the Constitution, and not a barrage of laws from Congress meddling in his duties, are his primary duty.
As it is, Congress has a mass of responsibilities, many of which are failing, to wit; our nations deficit, the failure of social security, and even more so, the lack of adequate regulation over insurance and health industries to insure that all Americans can enjoy the benfits that we deserve, and the list goes on, and on, to include the moral obligation Congressmen and women have to serve this nation for the benefit of its people, instead of corporations.
You know why they havent moved for impeachment? Because they know they could never prove any laws were broken. Its that simple. All the screaching and screaming from Reid and Pelosi was nothing but gossip, romors and lies. These are the people the Democrat Party put in charge? Read Marks book. They both belong in JAIL!!
and PJ, get a life, you really dont have a clue whats going on here!!
23. Brian (Boston) | February 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
JS, reread the Constitution. The duties you described are functions of Congress, not the President.
As for the deficit, blame the Republicans. They have created the biggest deficits and debt in history. Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr are to blame. Actually I have more respect for Bush Sr as he tried to do something about it. The same goes for health care and social security. The Republicans magically believe that business will do the right thing. No, businesses don’t care about us, only profit.
No one is talking about impeachment because it would take too long and divide the nation. Bush said we don’t torture, which was already forbidden by law, but Mike McConnell said we did torture. A violation of law ordered by the President. The President said they still need warrants for phone taps, it turns out that he ordered phone taps without warrants. Again, a violation of the law ordered by the President.
24. LOLguy23 | February 16th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Deleted - off topic.
25. Almiranta | February 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
LOLguy, we do get it, but you are wrong—your posts are the epitome of idiocy.
It is no surprise to see the Usual Suspects swarming to this like maggots on roadkill. This bogus non-issue of the alleged “warrantless wiretaps” has been a staple of the mouthbreathing rabid Left for a long time now, and once they mastered the polysyllabic nomenclature they are loathe to give it up. It rolls so trippingly off the tongues of the uninformed.
Diana, you are an excellent cheerleader—you deserve a bonus for this one, managing to pack 50 pounds of BS into a five-pound bag and supporting the fellow travellers who are regurgitating their spiels so well.
What a charming little group. Not. But not even your incessant bleating about issues on which you are completely wrong will change the fact that you are—-completely wrong.
But who cares? You get the buzz of wallowing in that intoxicating mixture of lies and loathing, and mere truth can never match that high.
26. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Bong,
Data mining invloves pattern recognition. It is this that is can no longer be done. and that the phone companies want immunity from prosecution.
After a pattern is recognized, a warrant can be requested. For a specific number. How do you propose that our intelligence agencies first discover that number, by divination, or by using a tin foil hat like yours???