President Bush on the Pelosi’s FISA Obstructionism
February 16th, 2008 at 01:11pm Mark Noonan
From today’s radio address:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to.
The Senate passed a good bill that would have given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill, and then left on a 10-day recess.
Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them — and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.
In addition, Congress has put intelligence activities at risk even when the terrorists don’t change tactics. By failing to act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of being sued by class-action trial lawyers.
For six months, I urged Congress to take action to ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively — and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes. Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to protect America after the attacks of 9/11.
And really sad thing? Had the bill come to the House floor, it would have passed by a large margin - Pelosi kept it from the floor at the behest of the trial lawyers, who have given $627,731,581.00 to the Democrats since the 1990 election cyle, and who have already given the Democrats $63,484,240.00 in the 2008 cycle, more than 10% of the total over the past 18 years (talk about really putting your bribes on the line!). Because greedy trial laywers wish to make ever more money, Nancy Pelosi has placed Ameirca’s security at risk - for her, dead Americans are not as important as keeping a well-heeled donor-base happy.
Disgusting.
Entry Filed under: Congress, Corruption, Democrats, President Bush, War on Terror
125 Comments
1. bagni | February 16th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
markfarfisa
agreed…..democrats suck
and despite your shout out defending the repubs
they suck too
it’s hard to trust, believe or have confidence from either party on this one
but as you ridiculingly know
we view this from a different planetary perspective.
2. steveGA | February 16th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Telecoms broke the law when they handed over private customer info to the government, pure and simple. As someone who allegedly supports the rule of law, why would you support giving these companies immunity from prosecution?
From Scooter Libby to telecoms, you seem to support any lawbreaking in the service of Dear Leader’s whims. Quick question: if I robbed a bank and gave what I stole to the Republican party, would you consider me a criminal?
3. steveGA | February 16th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
By the way, Mark, you do know that Democrats offered to temporarily extend the current law again, and the President threatened to veto that extension, right?
If this law is so important for our security, why didn’t the President agree to extend it? Why does he not care about our security?
4. Mark Noonan | February 16th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Steve,
Because its time to stop messing around with national security - the law was passed strongly in the Senate and would have sailed through the House on a floor vote. The only reason - THE ONLY REASON - Pelosi stopped it is because the trial lawyers want to be able to sue the telecom companies. Period. End of story.
Its all about how corrupt the Democrats are, Steve - and if you won’t open your eyes to it, then I really feel sorry for you.
5. Mark Noonan | February 16th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
bagni,
The Republicans are, indeed, made up of people, and thus have their aliquot portion of fools and knaves…in the Democrats, though, knavery is required. There’s a big difference.
6. Rana Quijotesca | February 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
They have what they need… a functional court system and retroactive warrants…
7. LiberalMind | February 16th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Finally the Democrats are standing up to Bush and the Republican fear merchants.
They were elected in 2006 for this very reason.
Way to go Dems!!!!
8. Mark Noonan | February 16th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
LiberalMind,
If the Democratic Party decreed that they were in favor of mutilating puppies, you’d stand up and cheer…I’ve seen a lot of mindless partisans in my time, but you take the cake.
9. Mark Noonan | February 16th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Rana,
If we were trying to arrest them - but we’re not. And this is where we just can’t get through the liberal brick wall - we’re not trying to build up a court case where we’d need to follow the constituitonal rules of evidence; we’re trying to kill them in a war. You on the left just won’t undersatnd that, because you don’t want there to be a war - you want there to be a law case, and then go back to sleep and agitate for gay marriage and midnight basketball…its as if 9/11 never happened…
10. President Bush » Pr&hellip | February 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
[…] Mark Noonan wrote an interesting post today on President Bush on the Pelosiâ��s FISA ObstructionismHere’s a quick excerptTHE PRESIDENT: Good morning. At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to. … […]
11. Barak | February 16th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Hey Mark, I’m sorry this is off topic, but I think we need to get this report on Berkeley portest out. Not only were the people disgraceful, so were there Police force! I will never EVER spend another dime in Berekely. I spent quite some time there last year as I had some friends in school there, but NO more! These people are a disgrace and as a US Marine, I would prefer to save an Iraqi life anyday over any of those Code Pink Freaks or the World Can’t Wait Punks!
see more here! www.moveamericaforward.org/index.php/DailyFile/
12. felix the cat | February 16th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
And if GWB ate the living flesh of freshly aborted babies Mark would claim that it is being done in the name of national security.
Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. No person is above the law regardless of signing statements or the opinion of David Addigton.
13. LiberalMind | February 16th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Mark:
I have criticized Democrats here on this very blog when they have failed to stop Bush’s disastrous policies.
I have railed against Democrats for their role as an accomplice in Bush’s many crimes.
14. Martin | February 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
“I’ve seen a lot of mindless partisans in my time…”
Mark,
Wasn’t it you who said something along the lines of “For now, Thompson’s my guy. If he drops out, then I support Romney. When he’s gone, then I’m a McCainiac….”
15. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
What a bizarre outpouring of fear-mongering by Presidnet Bush. He is the reason that the Protect America Act expired.
Why did he not agree to the Democrats offer to extend the law and repeatedly threaten to veto any such extension?
It expired because George Bush repeatedly blocked its extension!!
Are you really that scared? Time to grow a set and not be constantly cowered by threats of terrorism - that’s what they want, for us to re-mold our society and values in response to their threat.
Even if you accept the outrageous claim that “it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attacks”, then he is the one who is to blame for the expiry of the “crucial” PAA.
The sky is not falling people. Jihadis aren’t going to jump out from your bed at the stroke of midnight.
16. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
bongo, W doesn’t act on a bill until it’s out of Congress. It was blocked in the House. W doesn’t vote there, in fact, “leaders of the House” {that is not W, he is POTUS} blocked a vote by the house. Yet bongo the libtard states, “It expired because George Bush repeatedly blocked its extension!!”
Bongo, leaders of the House blocked the House from voting! W is not a leader of the House. Retard.
17. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
“Telecoms broke the law when they handed over private customer info” steveGa
Steve,
Plea specify which law was broken and which provision in that law was broken. Or are you just repeating a moonbat mantra?
18. felix the cat | February 16th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
The telecoms broke the FISA law and the specific provision is the 4th admendment to the constitution which prohibits warrentless search. Why do you think the administration is pushing so hard to grant retroactive immunity to the telecoms?
If they (the telecoms and the adminitration) had not been in violation of the law, why would they need protection from it?
Study up Phnx and quit defending the indefensable.
19. winnowhead | February 16th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I’m not really surprised that Bush supporters don’t even bother to defend why the administration needs to circumvent FISA and wiretap in a “trust us” modus operandi.
If there was seriousness around this issue, the administration would simply point out what’s so onerous about the FISA court, and submit a bill to congress that further amends the FISA statutes.
But Republicans are more interested in a game of gotcha, and I see Mark is taking the bait. At this point, people paying attention understand that this isn’t about national security. So now it’s back to the old trial lawyer tripe. It’s really so hard to take such insane nonsense seriously.
20. Brian (Boston) | February 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Mike McConnell, security chief, said that even after the bill expired they had until August. He said the only reason they want this bill is to give immunity to the telecoms. And you have the nerve to call liberals fascists? The marriage of government and business is the definition of fascism.
Bush and the Republicans are only fear mongering. This week the DHS released a report that women have been recruited for suicide missions in the US. Interesting that stories like this come out the week when people are voting on a bill for national security. I am sure we will see more of these as the election cycle moves forward.
We cannot give unlimited power to the President just because he says so. We are a country of laws, though, many of the people here would rather have a king.
If the telecom companies broke the law, then they should be punished. But it would also mean that the Bush Administration authorized the breaking of laws. If the telecom companies did nothing wrong then they have nothing to fear.
And Republicans are the obstructionists. They have filibustered more bills in the Senate then any other congress in history and they have another 10 months to go.
21. Mark Noonan | February 16th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
felix and winnow,
Are you listening at all? We’re not trying to take them to court - we’re trying to kill them in war.
Geesh - like talking to a lobotomised brick wall…
22. Mark Noonan | February 16th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Brian,
Since when have trial lawyers cared if a law was broken or not? Haven’t you seen the ads? “Injured? Call attorney so-and-so”…nothing about whether you’ve been wronged or whether a law has been broken, they just want to know if you were injured and then they’ll figure out whom to sue, regardless of whether the deep pockets was responsible or not.
The telecoms want protection against the trial lawyers - the trial lawyers have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Democrats - the Democrats have prevented the telecoms from being protected from the trial lawyers….and you can’t figure it out. You’re still buying the civil rights talking points…geesh!
23. Retired Spook | February 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
The telecoms broke the FISA law and the specific provision is (sic) the 4th admendment to the constitution which prohibits warrentless search.
My understanding is that all the telcoms did was provide our intelligence services with raw data showing what numbers call what numbers — no names, account numbers, addresses or any other personal data. The only way the FBI could find out who a specific number belonged to is to show probable cause (i.e. someone at that number called or received a call from a known or suspected terrorist outside the country.) and obtain a warrant for a wire tap. Felix, can you explain how that violates either the 4th Amendment or FISA?
24. winnowhead | February 16th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Our government operates within the powers that we give them. If you can’t even muster up the support to GIVE OUR GOVERNMENT THE POWERS YOUR THINK THEY NEED (extend PAA), why don’t you title your next post, “Why the rule of law can be ignored at will by politicians I like.”
25. Brian (Boston) | February 16th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mark, Did the Telecoms break the law or not? Qwest denied the request from the government because their lawyers said it was illegal.
26. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
SEW, Bush threatened, repeatedly, to veto any such extension.
That’s what I meant by Bush ‘blocked’…
27. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Can anyone explain why telecom immunity has to be so closely tied to the PAA extenion?
Why put protection of telecoms ahead of protecting the nation?
28. felix the cat | February 16th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Several months ago the head of the FBI admitted during congressional hearings that the FBI abused the FISA laws by wiretapping American citizens with no known ties to terrorisim. This is part of the problem not only with circumventing FISA but also with the Patriot Act. The president can declare anyone at any time and in any place a “terrorist” and therefore a threat to national security. Combine that with the loss of habeus corpus and you have a police state, pure and simple. The government of the United States under George Bush has been collecting information on it’s own citizens by spying on them with the aid (read colusion) of the telecom companies. And this doesn’t bother some of you??
I guess one of the few books GWB has ever read was “The Boy Who Cried Wolf.” Remember the scene in Close Encounters when Richard Dryfuss was in the helicopter and he took off his gas mask? Maybe some of you should take off yours.
29. Magnum Serpentine | February 16th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Tonight at Midnight, Citizens will once again be able to enjoy their Privacy. george’s Spy on America act will expire, as it should. It will no longer be legal to enter a persons home with-0ut a warrant, to use spyware to record everything on a persons computer or to listen to Innocent citizens private phone conversations.
george, this nation is a Democracy, not a Theocracy.
30. Magnum Serpentine | February 16th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Mark.
War? Who did we declare war on? If you mean the actions against Terrorist as a result of the events on 11th September 2001, thats a crime to be handled by law enforcement… ONLY
31. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Oh, and also at midnight, the Administration still has the existing FISA provisions…that is, retroactive warrants and no problem receiving authority from the FISA court for probable cause surveillance.
And for those who keep claiming that what the telecoms did was illegal - they intercepted communications without a warrant.
It is not that hard to understand.
32. neocon | February 16th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I must admit I have had a very good laugh reading the drivel from our resident liberals today.
Honestly, I have never in my time seen such ignorance and slavish devotion to half truths and paranoia. Magnums post# 29 is just to good for words and is a great example of the mindlessness of them all. Well done Mags. BTW, can you turn up the volume on your cell phone, we didn’t quite fully capture the last transmission.
Cheers.
33. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Neocon, is that the best you can do? Attack someone rather than address the substance of the issue?
34. kjstrouble | February 16th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
MS,
Shortly after we were attacked on 9/11 the war on terror was declared. Did you miss that? Or are you so foolish as to think that fighting Jihadi terrorists is not war? They certainly think they are at war with us. I hope we do not get attacked before the law can be reinstated - but that is unlikely. We will not get another law like that till a few thousand more Americans get killed in another terrorist act. Pray you are not where it happens, when it happens.
35. kjstrouble | February 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
MS #30
You truly are a mindless libtard aren’t you. Law enforcement is going to go and stop the terrorists before they attack? Because they are suicide attackers - meaning most if not all will die in the attacks - no one to prosecute.
Give it up, WAR is fought by armies (and navies, and marines) not by police officers. Burgularies and murders (and other crimes) are handled by police. Ask any police officer and they will tell you that they are not equipped to fight terrorist, because that is WAR.
36. neocon | February 16th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Bongo,
The substance of this issue has long past been debated ad nauseum. Sorry your late to the party. Even Harry Reids Senate unanimously passed this bill. Do try and keep up, ok?
Incidentally, and OT but I found this excerpt from Obamas 2004 convention speech.
>>>Now let me be clear. We have real enemies in the world. These enemies must be found. They must be pursued and they must be defeated. John Kerry knows this. And just as Lieutenant Kerry did not hesitate to risk his life to protect the men who served with him in Vietnam, President Kerry will not hesitate one moment to use our military might to keep America safe and secure.<<<<
Priceless. I am sure he feels the same about POW American war hero John McCain, right?
37. stef | February 16th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“The only reason - THE ONLY REASON - Pelosi stopped it is because the trial lawyers want to be able to sue the telecom companies”
Civil liberties groups too.
Also, the house passed the RESTORE Act last year. If bush wants the tools he says he needs, he can get them by extending the PAA or accepting the RESTORE Act. This fight isn’t about the tools though. Its about covering up the illegal wiretaps of thepast.
38. SEW | February 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
No, these clowns think that if we kill OBL, again, that the war on terror is over and they can happily resume smoking pot. Their near braindead posts indicate they never stopped smoking. Such a threat, hiding in a cave, somewhere, now visiting 72 virgins. Hopefully all are Nuns armed with shotguns.
39. Retired Spook | February 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Neocon, is that the best you can do? Attack someone rather than address the substance of the issue?
That’s the problem, Bongo; your posts don’t contain any substance to speak of. It’s like saying the sun doesn’t come up in the East, and then expecting someone to engage you on the “substance” of what you said. This statement of yours in a prime example:
And for those who keep claiming that what the telecoms did was illegal (did you mean legal?) - they intercepted communications without a warrant.
They didn’t intercept anything. That is just a flat out lie. What other response could anyone make other than to call you an ignoramus.
40. Almiranta | February 16th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
My question is, in what way are we authorized to get warrants on phones in other countries?
Now, if the call is originating in another country (which is what “overseas” or “foreign” means) to, let’s say, a landline here in the US, a warrant is the answer, for the US number. But what if the US number is a throw-away cell phone? We can get a warrant for it, but if it is to be used only one or two times, then a new warrant has to be gotten the next time the foreign agent calls a new number.
It just seems to me that this would result in a glut on the warrant process, and the result would be thousands of warrants on phones that are in landfills or lakes around the country. I fail to see the wisdom of insisting on warrants in cases like this.
We do get warrants when it is obvious that a warrant will work. The complainers act as if warrants are never requested. But the question is, how do you get a warrant on a single-use phone? If a conversation is picked up which calls for it, warrants are requested. But you appear to be demanding widespread warrants for every single intercepted or monitored call.
(You do know, don’t you, that with the advent of untraceble cheap cell phones, a strategy to avoid detection is to have an agent buy several, supply the numbers through any of many ways to the foreign contacts, and have a system in which Phone # 1 is used and discarded, then Phone # 2, and so on.) So the idea of wasting time, money, and energy to acquire warrants on phones which will never be used again just doesn’t seem to address the problem.
FISA itself has said that the methods in use are legal and within its rules.
And you guys have just gotten too used to the fantasy that all you have to do to make somehing illegal is to wave the magic wand, sprinkle the fairy dust, and DECLARE it “illegal”. The Liberal “Mind” is a perfect example, repeating ad nausem with what appears to be blithe unconcern for the facts her moonbat mantra (with thanks to phnx for the phrase) the words “illegal” and “criminal”.
That won’t work, Sweetie, any more than repeatedly insisting that you have a mind will make it so. And GASteve is just as bad, moaning and groaning on and on about criminal activity and illegality with not a clue as to what he is carrying on about—but he is a really good regurgitator of radical cant, no matter how silly.
Snakelet is typical of the truly clueless radical Left in whining that terrorist attacks are law enforcement issues. Yeah, right. It’s a level of cluelessness which is so extreme, I need a good word to describe it. Oh, I’ve got it—to take a page from the Lib Playbook, it’s downright criminal.
‘Cause saying makes it so, right?
41. neocon | February 16th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
It’s just been a good day for humor. I found the following on Drudge.
>>>A move to draft a Boulder City Council resolution supporting the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney likely won’t get enough support to get off the ground Tuesday.<<<<
I wonder if Cheney spied on the council meeting?
42. stef | February 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“So the idea of wasting time, money, and energy to acquire warrants on phones which will never be used again just doesn’t seem to address the problem.”
You need a warrant on the target, not the phone number being called.
43. plainjane | February 16th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Felix, can you explain how that violates either the 4th Amendment or FISA?Retired Spook | February 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Exactly, Spook this is what everyone has been saying over and over and over and over and over and over, if the administration used FISA exactly as you said why the need for immunity?????????
Mark, Booooooooooooooooooooooo! there is a terrorist under your bed. If it makes you feel safer I suggest you give up a Constitutional right, a right protected and defended over the years by the lives of millions.
44. neocon | February 16th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Jane,
Why did those millions of people have to fight and die to defend our constitutional rights?
45. neocon | February 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
>>You need a warrant on the target, not the phone number being called- stef<<
What if the target used an assumed name to get the cell phone?
46. Retired Spook | February 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
What if the target used an assumed name to get the cell phone?
And then handed them out to all the members of his cell for whom there is no record of even an “assumed name”.
As someone who spent the better part of 2 decades in signals intelligence, I have to laugh every time I read the Lefty comments here about “intercepts” and “illegal wire-taps”. You folks just don’t have a @$#^&+!* clue.
47. Almiranta | February 16th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I once read an explanation of how data mining, regarding telephone records, could be used.
In this example, calls would be entered into a data base to establish call patterns. So if a pattern were to pop up in which a certain number called ten different numbers, one right after another, and each call lasted 42 seconds, and that was an abnormal pattern, it would suggest a closer look.
The calls could be made by a soccer mom to other moms, saying “Practice tomorrow is canceled because the Coach is sick”. But it could be a terrorist cell passing on code messages to initiate an action.
So this kind of anonymous pattern establishment could lead to a valuable tool for discovering terrorists before they can act. In this scenario, such a pattern would trigger the next stage of investigation—are the calls made to suburban households with children on soccer teams, or to people whose names are also on other Watch Lists?
(You see, to a person capable of connecting real dots instead of pursuing phantom BDS dots, if each of those calls was made to someone who was an illegal, native to Syria or Iran, and all were made from the same number in Afghanistan, gee, that might indicate something bad was developing. Keeping an eye on these guys for a few days might be a good idea, doncha think?)
There would be nothing illegal about the recording of raw data such as the average number of calls made from a telephone number, or the average length of calls, or any such thing. This is not “communication”, nor is it being “intercepted”.
A telecom company can record such information at will—to establish use patterns to tell them where they will need to expand or establish service, for example. It is no big deal. And providing this kind of anonymous raw data to the government is no big deal, either.
But thanks for the comforting information that we don’t need to be worried about terrorists, bong man. Take another hit, man, before you start to believe that that cool movie about planes flying into the trade towers and people jumping 100 stories to their deaths to avoid being burned to death was real.
You are too right, phnx, about the wacko insanity of Post # 29. It is astounding that anyone competent enough to turn on a computer and post a message can possibly be stupid enough to believe that nonsense—or shameless enough to post it.
And the bong man is just as dumb, claiming in Post # 31 that “communications” were “intercepted”.
Where do these people COME from? It’s like some craft from Planet Dumb landed, with its cargo of Dumbs programmed to sign into conservative web sites and spread the Gospel of Dumb—impervious, as we can see, to reason, fact, or even the ability to feel embarassment for being so, well, Dumb. They get programmed to just repeat the same nonsense over and over and over and over again, about crimes and illegalities and warrants and interceptions and “wiretaps” (my favorite) and spying and snooping and so on.
I never thought I would (or could) say this, but bagni might be right–this could be a different planetary thing.
And SteveGA—-(Post # 2) IT’S NOT IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION, YOU NINNY!!!!! Not PROSECUTION!!!! Prosecution is the pursuit of criminal charges against a person for, well, breaking the law. This was about immunity from CIVIL ACTIONS!!! As has been explained over and over again, so often, so clearly, so simply, so concisely, that even YOU should be able to understand it.
LAWSUITS, stevie. Which is why the Dems can’t pass it, because they are too beholden to the trial lawyers who depend on the ability to harass big companies, like telecom companies, with bogus and frivolous lawsuits. You don’t have to anything wrong to be sued. You just have to look like you have enough money to make a shyster take a chance on suing, hoping for a really stupid jury (one including steve and bong and “Mind” and stef and weeniehead and the snake would be a shyster’s wet dream…) for a big, though undeserved, settlement, or at the very least some substantial “go away” money.
Double Duh………….
Duh.
I would never insult a person who was simply born with less mental capacity than most. But when people pursue ignorance, embrace willful stupidity, and are proud of being dumb, there is no reason not to comment on their obvious successes.
48. Retired Spook | February 16th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Actually, sometimes the ignorance is so profound, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
49. William Teach | February 16th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I remember those on the left saying that the saying “if you haven’t done anything wrong, then you should be worried about wiretapping” was BS, that you should worry. In this case, liberals are saying, “hey, if the telecoms have done nothing wrong, then they shouldn’t worry about losing lawsuits.” Ah, but, therein lies the falicy.
Anyone remember Dow Corning? You know, the company who made silicone breast implants? Notice they are no longer in business? They were sued on a massive scale, to the tune of about $7 billion. And then science proved that, you got it, all the lawsuits were based on complete and utter junk feelings. Couldn’t even say science. Where could Dow Corning go to get their money back? Nowhere. And the trial lawyers took 40%.
Imagine that happening with the telecoms, particularly ATT and Verizon. What would that do to the cost of service? The expansion of wireless service would grind to a halt, as the companies pay out ridiculous sums as juries like doing in these David v. Goliath type lawsuits. Then, the same people who whine about “spying” will complain about higher prices, lower service quality, lower customer service standards, etc and so on.
Here’s a fun question to ask the ACLU and the other “let’s go after the telecom’s” folks: who provides their wireline and wireless service?
50. Almiranta | February 16th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
stef, you keep repeating your nonsense, so it must have made sense to you when Ranty Rhodes or her ilk repeated it over and over again so you could come here and regurgitate it.
You keep whining “You need a warrant on the target, not the phone number being called.” ??????????????
So you define the overseas caller as the target, right? That is to say, to make it simple enough for even you to understand, a person who is in a foreign country, calling a number within the United States, is the one you are arguing must be protected under the constitution of a country in which he is not even present?
Are you saying that a Syrian, for example, calling a number which happens to be physically present in the United States, from a phone in Frankfurt, cannot have his outgoing call monitored without a United States warrant for his (the “target”) phone?
Two questions:
1. Why, exactly, does this person who is a citizen of a foreign country, present in a foreign country, qualify for the protections offered by the Constitution of the United States of America? Are you arguing that our constitution extends to support and protect every person in every country?
2. Under what international law can the United States government even GET a warrant on a telephone in another country?
Ooops. there are actually 3 questions.
3. DO YOU HAVE A CLUE????
51. TheHarbinger | February 16th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
So to protect the telecoms from civil action lawsuits the Prez has NO OTHER choice but to veto.
How about this nitwits, (and I’m sure it’s been suggested before) SEPARATE the civil liability issues from the bill.
Why, oh why are the two SO VERY inseparable?
I mean we’re only talking civil suits now aren’t we?
In honest good faith, in the sole interest of great decidin’ ya think Georgie could “suggest” separatin’ the two? I mean come on now, after a trillion dollars, 5 or 6 years,the surge, and winning the war on “terror”, yet we’re so close to bein’ blowd up that we still have to hear the FEAR talk from him?
Please, spare the B.S.
52. js | February 16th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Really, the Executive Office of the President has the lawful authority to issue orders to and prosecut those who do not follow those orders.
The whole issue, if the telecommunications industry believed that the President of the United States had that authority to make an Executive Order for them to cooperate with our National Intelligence network, then there is really no grounds to sue them on.
Its just inconvenient that it costs 30 or 40 million dollars in legal fee’s to get it out in the open.
Yes, Congress has a duty to acknowledge this fact, and they have failed to fulfill thier duty.
Under the Constitution, the President has the option of forcing them to convene to address this issue. He should really excercise that authority. Tell Congress, bad boys, your duty to protect this nation comes first, now get to work.
United States Constitution Article II Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union,
and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them,
and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
53. Brian (Boston) | February 16th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
If the phone companies did give out data then it violates Section 222 of the 1934 Communications Act. If they violated the law, then they deserve to be punished.
http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
54. Magnum Serpentine | February 16th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
When the WTC was bombed in 1993 or so, The FBI captured everyone who was involved with-in a few years. The Army was not involved at all.
Funny, wonder why george has to have the army doing a law enforcement issue?
to Frighten voters. thats why. Just look at the number of times george falls back on 11th September 2001. Fear Mongol to the core.
55. LOLguy23 | February 16th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Deleted - off topic.
56. Christian Wright | February 16th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn’t made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn’t it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn’t renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it’s a very complex issue. It’s true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that’s not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.
Got that? The real issue isn’t keeping us safe–straight from the Director of National Intelligence. We’re safe. The issue is protecting corporations.
57. NeoClown | February 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Brian,
The phone companies were merely accessories in this crime. George Bush is the criminal.
The reason Pelosi took impeachment off the table is because the democrats insist on prison time for GWB.
58. TheHarbinger | February 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
So all the lives, all the treasure, all the rhetoric, and we’re no closer to being “safe” as the day after 9/11.
Is this the reality?
Again, this has nothing to do with making us “safer”…
Again, spare the B.S.
59. Michael | February 16th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
It is simple. If there were some underlying principle that the Dems were trying to stand up for, the bill would never have passed the Senate by such a wide bipartisan majority. It is EXACTLY what it seems to be; a cheap political stunt by the unblinking one with no concern for the safety of Americans.
60. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
LOLguy23, the Dems have indicated they will extend it!! How clueless are you? Just leave out the telecom immunity issue…
But Bush has said he will veto without the immunity. So what’s more important? PAA extension or immunity?
61. Almiranta | February 16th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Watch out!! Watch out!! It’s the dreaded Fear Mongol !!!!
(Post # 54)
It’s worth it to keep these morons around just for the entertainment factor.
Harbinger, the pnly way to “spare the BS” is to insist on reason, fact, and common sense in the posts, and then you and your fellow travellers would never be allowed to spew your asinine BDS rantings. And citing quotes from other equally obsessive hate-mongering sites does nothing to establish credibility—it merely illustrates your gullibility.
But if you want to estabish some cred as one interested in any way, to any degree, in any administration following the law, or in the constitutuion, please feel free to share the complaints you undoubtedly made during the Clinton Adminsitration. Because if you are the least bit sincer, and not just wallowing in BDS hsyteria, you were even more offended then, by the even more egregious offenses committed then.
62. Christian Wright | February 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
March 27, 2006: Republican Pat Robertson discusses the NSA warrantless wiretapping on “Late Edition.” “Don’t Have Civil Liberties if You’re Dead”
March 23, 1775: Founding father Patrick Henry from a speech made to the Virginia House of Burgesses: “Give me Liberty, or give me Death.”
My, how far our country has fallen. It is now run by craven cowards who would give up the liberties fought for over generations for the promise of security.
63. plainjane | February 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Deleted - off topic.
64. TiredofLibBullShit | February 16th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“It is now run by craven cowards who would give up the liberties fought for over generations for the promise of security.”
CW,
Do you include the right to bear arms and the 10th amendment in your list? You do know these two amendments do not exist as far as you liberals are concerned.
65. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
62. Christian Wright | February 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
“It is now run by craven cowards who would give up the liberties fought for over generations for the promise of security.”
And that means the terrorists are winning. They hate us for our freedoms, but we’ll give them up ’cause we’re so scared.
Bu I think the tide has turned - Bush’s fear-mongering quoted above reads like a parody. People are over it.
66. Ken | February 16th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Interesting…. so… Pelosi blocks a law that would hurt Trial Lawyers but would help the US’s National Security. Also, Trial Lawyers have ‘given’ the Democrats over $600M in the last 18 years. National Security or Easy Money… I can see why Rep Pelosi blocked the bill.
67. SteaM | February 16th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Well, William. Good question. What happened to that company that trial lawyers put out of business?
They appear to be in business still.
68. TheHarbinger | February 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Nothing about the measure’s expiration prevents either law enforcement or intelligence officials from carrying out new surveillance against suspected terrorists. They will simply need to get a warrant. Nor is exigency a factor, as warrants can even be obtained after the surveillance has begun.
What part of this statement do you knuckle dragger’s not understand?
69. bongoman | February 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
And they can even get a retroactive warrant within 72 hours under the existing provisions of FISA…
But oh, no, the Jihadis are going to jump out from under our beds on expiry of PAA!!
70. TheHarbinger | February 16th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Oh my Gawd! I’m really scared. The only thing that can save us is…
telecom immunity.
Let’s see, fuel, water, rations, guns, all set.
Head for the hills!
71. js | February 16th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
wow
liberal logic is gone wild again
not one good idea here
they emulate Obama!!
72. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
As I suspected all you leftist morons have got are talking points and allegations.
Or would you leftists morons like to explain how lists of phone numbers, without identification of the caller or the called, constitutes a warantless search, a violation of FISA, or a violation of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.
Fact is its more important to you leftists to leave the telecom companies open to frivilous lawsuits by your trial lawyer friends, than to protect the country from attack by our enemies who have sworn to do so.
The term “Useful idiots” doesn’t go far enough to explain who you are. Following the next attack we can legitimately refer to you as complicit traitors.
73. TheHarbinger | February 16th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Lemming…did you read #68?
Now…it’s cliff time. Follow, follow, follow!
74. Casper | February 16th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
What I find really interesting about this post is that this is the first time in the last year the democrats haven’t folded when President Bush pulled out the old fear card. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The democrats have shown a tendency to give Bush whatever he wants anytime he mentions the GWOT and 9-11. The fact that they didn’t cave this time could make things very interesting. If Pelosi figures out that not folding can be a positive thing, it could make the next 11 months very interesting.
To be honest, I expect the democrats will fold on this one too.
75. phnx | February 16th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Harbinger. The expiration prevents data mining which is the issue that tlecoms are concerned about. If they aren’t given immunity from civil prosection, they won’t participate in data mining requests, which have already been shown not to violate FISA and certainly don’t violate any consitutional protections.
Once a pattern has been recognized, a warrant can be obtained to monitor a specific number. Without data mining, how do you expect that we will be able to find the number for the warrant? Should we call the psychic hotline? Perhaps your tinfoil hat would be helpful.
76. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 12:53 am
For those who are trying to obfuscate the issues by claiming that the telephone companies can simply allow the government to use calling patterns, the answer is “No, they can’t.” The prohibition is contained in 18 U.S.C. 206 (§ 3121. General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace device use; exception). The exceptions are to the extent such devices are used by the carrier for their own business purposes, but they may not simply turn that information over to the government.
For those, like the President, who are trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming that retroactive immunity is necessary to ensure future cooperation from the telephone companies, the answer is, “That’s nonsense.” When the government obtains a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court the warrant is an order to the service provider which they are not permitted to ignore without penalty. In the case of an FCC-regulated industry, such penalty could be quite severe.
For those who want to obfuscate the issue by prattling on about “trial lawyers”, that issue is completely phony. The civil actions pending against AT&T, Verizon and Sprint (Qwest obeyed the law, so they’re off the hook) have the Goliath (the combined legal departments of three multi-billion dollar firms) ranged against David in the form of the non-profit Electronic Freedom Foundation. The small staff of the EFF are attorneys who could make much more working in the corporate world.
For those who are trying to obfuscate the issue by claiming that the Protect America Act, which is only a few months old, is necessary to update the FISA statute, the answer is also, “That’s nonsense.” On October 26, 2001, the President had this to say about the changes to FISA enacted at his request by Congress, “Surveillance of communications is another essential tool to pursue and stop terrorists. The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.”
The fact that the Protect America Act expires tonight is simply because the President was willing to let it expire if he didn’t get what he most cared about - retroactive immunity for the telcos. That’s it. That’s all. If America is endangered by the expiration, which it won’t be because FISA is still there, then it is his total responsibility because he insists that retroactive immunity cannot be considered as separate legislation.
77. NeoClown | February 17th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Dubya’s going to jail for this one.
78. Mark Noonan | February 17th, 2008 at 2:09 am
Diana,
Once again, you are just being dense - we’re not trying to build a criminal case, but kill enemies in war time. And we’re not trying to keep Telecom execs out of jail for 4th amendment violations, but just keeping greedy trial lawyers off their a**…
Only in the paranoid, deluded and ignorant left is there anything here other than a run-of-the-mill national security issue being hamstrung by Democrats who ask “how high” whenever the trial laywers so much as whisper “jump”.
79. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Mark,
That’s all a crock. If the issue was really having a law adequate to the task, then the President could have asked for even more changes to FISA than he already asked for and got. However, instead, the Executive Branch chose to break the law and lie about it until they were exposed. Why did they break the law? Was it because they couldn’t get the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress to change the law as they wanted? No. This Administration is dead-set on expanding the Executive Branch and placing it above the other two branches of the government.
We all understand that you have a financial interest in “proving” how “corrupt” the Democrats are but you can use the magical phrase “trial lawyers” all you want and it doesn’t change the fact of who is facing whom in civil court over the violations of FISA. If you think extracting money from AT&T is SO INCREDIBLE SIMPLE why don’t you just make up something and go sue them for the lost equity in your house? It should be a simple matter to shake them down for a few thousand dollars, right?
President Bush made the conscious and deliberate decision to let the PAA expire over telecom immunity. I know he doesn’t want personal responsibility for his actions. I know you don’t want him to bear personal responsibility for his actions. However, the personal responsibility is his and his alone. If he didn’t like the idea of personal responsibility then he should have stayed with the Texas Rangers Baseball Club.
80. mikeinportc | February 17th, 2008 at 2:27 am
“Because greedy trial laywers wish to make ever more money, Nancy Pelosi has placed Ameirca’s security at risk - for her, dead Americans are not as important as keeping a well-heeled donor-base happy”
Is that copied from Rush Limbaugh, or did he copy it from here ? There isn’t anything at risk with this, except us, from our own government . Whatever powers this president gets will be passed on to the next one . Do we really want to give a HillBilly, McCain or Obama administration access to ALL, and with no oversight? I sure don’t .
Re :”greedy trial lawyers” The EFF lawyers make ~ 1/3 what they could get elsewhere , and that’s ALL they’ll get from this . That whole line of argument is bs. The real question is whether or not the Constitution will continue to mean something , or just be a “quaint” wish list .
81. Mark Noonan | February 17th, 2008 at 2:36 am
mike,
I want the President to have the ability to monitor enemy communications in war time. I don’t care who the President is.
82. mikeinportc | February 17th, 2008 at 2:38 am
“If they aren’t given immunity from civil prosection, they won’t participate in data mining requests, which have already been shown not to violate FISA and certainly don’t violate any consitutional protections.”
With a warrant . Without a warrant - violates EVERYTHING (that’s pertinent) .
“they won’t participate in [ ILLEGAL] data mining requests”
GOOD!!!
“already been shown”
PuhhhLeeeeezzz!!!!
Nothing has been shown . The telecoms say that the WH forbids it , and the WH is stonewalling too . (When do they not?)
Besides, if they’re innocent , they have nothing to fear . Right? =)))))))))
83. Mark Noonan | February 17th, 2008 at 2:39 am
Diana,
It wouldn’t have helped or harmed President Bush at all to allow the FISA law to be done without a shield for the telecom companies - but it would have harmed national security, and that is a concern all Americans should share. You don’t, because you’ve been gnawing an absurd bone on this subject for a couple years now…you have convinced yourself that a law was broken and that President Bush lied about it, and because you don’t want to back down from your position, you just cobble together a rationale for oppositon to anything happening on the matter of signals intelligence.
Its outrageous what is happening here and it disgusts me no end to see what depths you on the left have fallen to in quest of your hatred for President Bush. For crying out loud, let it go - the man is out of office in 11 months. Think of your country, for once.
84. mikeinportc | February 17th, 2008 at 2:40 am
“mike,
I want the President to have the ability to monitor enemy communications in war time. I don’t care who the President is.”
Mark , WE aren’t the “enemy ” . (Last I knew)
85. Mark Noonan | February 17th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Mike,
But as we found out on 9/11, the enemy is here - living amongst us, some times for many years…we must be able to monitor communications between our enemies.
As I said, we’re not trying to build up a court case - we’re trying to kill the enemy in war time. You find you’ve been tapped without a warrant and you haven’t been in communications with a suspected terrorist, then I’ll join you in fighting the government tooth and nail - but that is not what is happening with the Signals Intelligence program.
86. TiredofLibBullShit | February 17th, 2008 at 6:58 am
MS:
“When the WTC was bombed in 1993 or so, The FBI captured everyone who was involved with-in a few years. The Army was not involved at all.
Funny, wonder why george has to have the army doing a law enforcement issue?
to Frighten voters. thats why. Just look at the number of times george falls back on 11th September 2001. Fear Mongol to the core.”
Wow, such ignorance and stupidity.
The terrorists in the first WTC attack lived here! Are you that dense? Or, are you just stuck on stupid?
Are the terrorist organizations we are fighting now live here? Does the FBI have authority/capability to go to Afghanistan or Iraq?
It is the practice of treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue that enabled AQ to grow to their magnitude pre-9/11 in the first place! Thanks to your buddy Bill and his administration terrorism grew unchecked with only a pitiful bombing of empty “training camps” and an aspirin factory.
OBL gives thanks to Allah everyday for USEFUL IDIOTS like you and the rest of your ilk.
Gee, I wonder who OBL supports for president?
Fear mongering? The only fear mongering I see is the Democrats with “If you elect a Republican then will/won’t happen”.
Now all you USEFUL IDIOTS can respond with some canned talking point and throw logic out of the window like the little viper did.
87. Magnum Serpentine | February 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am
There were a few of the 1990’s terrorist arrested by other nations and shipped back here.
I suspect that even if the law was passed as it was written, george would still veto it just to say the Democrats had included something else to it.
You see, I believe that the obstructionist republicans had designed this law as political heavy weight designed to frighten the sheep and to be a pain in the side of President Obama.
On a lighter note, please check out my blog at
http://magnumcorner.blogspot.com/
88. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 11:30 am
“Besides, if they’re innocent , they have nothing to fear . Right? =))))))))) Mikeinportc
You obviously don’t understand our legal system and have never been involved in a lawsuit in which your were innocent.
89. felix the cat | February 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
The contention of this thread is a joke. The Bush administration can still initiate new terrorist monitoring activities. It just has to get a FISA warrent to do so. Just like it did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Even the CATO institute is laughing at the fear-mongering of this president.
The PAA expired ONLY because the president and congressional Republicans refused to approve an extention of that law. The priority of their concern is not national security, rather it is protecting the financial interests of the telecom companies and to avoid judicial scrutiny of their warrentless wiretapping program.
The facts speak for themselves regardless of the refusal of some to accept them.
90. Herman | February 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
“I want the President to have the ability to monitor enemy communications in war time.” — Mark
Regarding Osama Been Forgotten:
“I truly am unconcerned about him.” — The King of the Morons, George W. Bush, March 2002
So Mark, who exactly is Chimpy going to be spying on?
91. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 11:49 am
SteaM,
Yes, Dow Corning is still in business, having just come out of Chapter 11. What you fail to state or comprehend is the damaging effect that this single lawsuit has brought to the medical device industry. Dow Corning, formerly the leading supplier of silicone for medical devices, no longer permits its products to be used for medical implant without a 1 BILLION DOLLAR insurance policy from the purchaser which protects Dow Corning in the event of a lawsuit.
Their decision has resulted in a 1000% increase in the cost of silicone raw materials for implant, which, incase you didn’t know, is the GOLD STANDARD of materials for permanent human implant. Do you ya think a 1000% increase in cost has had any effect on the cost of healthcare???
In addition, the Dow Corning lawsuit has a negative effect on all chemical manufacturers. For example, DuPont, one of the leading suppliers of thermoplastics, no longer allows its products to be used from human implants. This is also true with almost every other major manufacturer, due to potential liability. As a consequence the costs of all materials used in medical devices have shot up dramatically, because manufacturers are forced to test and certify material insead of relying on the company’s tests and certification.
In comparison, foreign manufacturers are not constrained by our litigious environment, as long as they don’t sell in the US. So they can offer products which are far less expensive than those made in the US. This forces US companies to move off shore to produce products for foreign markets whcih were formerly produced in the US with US labor.
So Big Law has dramatically increased the cost of everything, including healthcare, while they have lined their own pockets. They have also been responsible for driving many companies off shore as well, resulting in a net loss of jobs. Far from being the protectors of the little guy, they are leaches sucking the life blood out of our economy.
92. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Diana,
You are being purposely obtuse. A pen register is used for a SPECIFIC number. Anyone with law enforcement experience should know this, even someone as dense as you.
Data mining on the other hand is used to identify patterns which, once recognized, are subject to FISA requests.
93. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
phnx,
Thank you kindly for the personal insult. Pardon me for not returning your animus.
Data mining cannot be accomplished without capturing data which, by well-established law, the telephone companies may not share with the government. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 defines and repeatedly refers to “call-identifying information” and specifically says that a telecommunications carrier must have the capability of:
All the obfuscation that wants to be thrown up can’t obscure basic facts:
1) During all but the last year of President Bush’s term of office, he has had the luxury of having a Congress that was in the firm control of his own political party.
2) The President has asked for, received and praised changes to the laws in this area to address technical issues during the time the Executive Branch undertook activities not authorized by law.
3) Existing law shows that the entire linchpin of what was the reason the President chose for allowing the Protect America Act of 2007 to expire, i.e., retroactive immunity from civil actions against those telecommunications companies, not all, who choose to participate in illegal surveillance, is bogus. The notion that an AT&T would basically tell the government and a court issuing a FISA order that they wouldn’t cooperate with such an order is so stupid that it’s hard to imagine anyone actually employing it.
4) The PAA, which is supposedly “vital” to “helping protect the nation” was allowed to expire at the will and choice of the President only because of the “threat” to the telecommunication companies at the “expense” of the American peoplle.
94. just another citizen | February 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Deleted - not a comment.
95. Mark Noonan | February 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Diana,
Once again, its not about building a legal case against terrorists - its about monitoring their communications so we can thwart their attacks AND KILL THEM IN WAR.
WAR. ITS A WAR. Not an issue of criminal law.
96. just another citizen | February 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
How right you are Mr. Moderator. Or would you rather known as Joseph Goebbels ver. 2.0?
The link I provided was not a comment, but rather a statement of undeniable fact put forth much more succently than I ever could. I provided it as a service to your readers. You know, to get the other side of the story. But since you seem to be so determined to censor any information that challenges what you want so desperately to be true it is no wonder that you only allow that which agrees with your square peg in a round hole version of reality and contemporary events.
Bottom line: Bush and his imperial presidency out and Obama, Clinton or McCain in. And you and those who think like you will be as the Wicked Witch of the West was as the bucket of water gets thrown upon her and as she melts into nothingness she complains about her beautiful wickedness being destroyed. And lets not forget what destroyed her.
97. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Mark,
So, the fact that we are supposedly “at war” means that the laws of the United States are now irrelevant and meaningless? If this “state of war” we’re allegedly in means that the President of the United States can essentially do anything whatsoever independent of the law, then what limits are their on presidential power short of those equivalent of a king and where do these limits, if they actually exist, come from?
98. Jeremiah | February 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
And you and those who think like you will be as the Wicked Witch of the West
Ms. Clinton is he Wicked Witch of the North, East, South and West.
–Jeremiah–
99. just another citizen | February 17th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Jeremiah:
I don’t know what you are trying to say. “Ms. Clinton is he…”? Do you mean is SHE THE…wicked Witch?
I take it that you are unfamilar with The Wizard of Oz. Let me elaborate. There were only 2 evil witches and one was killed by Dorothy’s falling house. (The witch of the east.) The other (her sister) sought the Ruby Slippers under the false guise of personal pain and retailated by excoriating an innocent who caused her sisters death. But the witch of the west didn’t really care, all she wanted was the power that the slippers provided. In the end she met her fate by an altrusistic, selfless act of Dorothy who was trying to save a friend from an unjust punishment. And all the while in the background we have the wizard. A phoney baloney who used fear to control those that might otherwise question his all knowing all powerful command of Oz.
The story is an analogy of the human political condition. You are obviously a munchkin. I am a reader…..
And I do not suffer from nightmares.
100. Mark Noonan | February 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Diana,
Your complaint is a non-sequiter. The President is Commander-in-Chief and has need to know enemy communications. You’re essentially saying we can’t le the dog loose because the apple tree needs to be watered…there’s really no sense in your complaint.
This is a war measure - not a law enforcement measure. I’d be horrified if Joe or Jane Average had his or her communications monitored by the government without a warrant…but that is not what we’re doing…we’re monitoring enemy communications, some of which originate/terminate here in the United States. This is like going after Nazi sabateurs in WWII, not like going after mafiosa in the 70’s…
101. Jeremiah | February 17th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Do you mean is SHE THE…wicked Witch?
No, I wasn’t asking a question … just stating the obvious.
–Jeremiah–
102. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Mark,
Of all the arguments you have put forward, this is probably the weakest yet. For anyone who bothers to actually read the text of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is one of the laws that the Constitution of the United States absolutely requires that each president shall take care be “faithfully executed”, they would see that the statute begins, as most do, with a set of definitions. The first term that is defined? Foreign power. What is one of the things that this term encompasses?
Any comparisons to law enforcement pursuing organized crimes are, in a word, specious. The President had the law. The President had a Congress that made changes to the law that he lauded. If the law is inadequate then the question is why didn’t the President ask the Republican Party-controlled Congress for more changes over the last seven years? Why didn’t he, Mark? Why is that? Why did the Republican President and his Republican Congress do that?
Instead, the President chose to deliberately violate the law. The President decided to violate a law that was designed to combat terrorism. I know you hate that reality, but that’s what it is.
103. felix the cat | February 17th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Mark:
Bush beleives the enemy is us for questioning his lawless actions, signing statements and trying to hold him accountable for his egregious behavior.
It doesn’t matter. His presidency is through, his approval ratings are below 30% and even a die hard zealot like you can’t breath life into a lifeless fear based ideology. Good try though…
Keep supporting an incompentent Peter Princliple poster child.
Maybe you should read “A Tragic Legacy”.
Might enlighten you a bit.
104. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 defines and repeatedly refers to “call-identifying information”. DP
No insult intended, your posts indicate either you are dense or are willfully ignoring the facts. Can you explain how a list of numbers identifies anything? A list of numbers with names and addresses attached is calles “identifying information”.
Once again try to pay attention. Numbers are numbers by themselves they represent nothing. You run them through a computer and look for a pattern. Once the pattern is identified, the agency goes to the FISA court to get a warrant. Now was that so hard for you to uinderstand?
105. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
phnx,
Interesting notion, that. Calling someone “dense” isn’t an insult. If you say so.
If you’d like to “pay attention”, you could pay attention to the law as written instead of what you’d like for it to be. The CALEA statutes contains a clear definition, to wit:
Now, if a court hearing one of the lawsuits dealing with data-mining wants to interpret the phrase “dialing or signaling information” as something other than numbers then that’s why we have courts and suits at law.
106. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
DP Try reading what you posted again and then explain how a set of random numbers applies to it.
While you are at it please explain how the caller ID information provided by the phone company doesn’t violate the provisions you have quoted.
107. Diana Powe | February 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
phnx,
Because they aren’t “a set of random numbers”. I know you don’t want it to be so, but a plain reading of the actual definition in the statute plainly covers what you’re trying to misidentify as “random numbers”. Now, if you think that there is another interpretation to that plain reading, then, by all means, support the lawsuits that are pending over the issue so that an actual court of law can issue a ruling. If a court says that they’re random numbers then we’ll have a basis to proceed from.
As to Caller ID information, the CALEA statute pertains to information being given to the government and specifically excludes information used in the normal course of its business. Part of their business is to sell Caller ID as a service to customers. The government has to have legal authorization to acquire call-identifying information.
108. TiredofLibBullSh** | February 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
MS:
“On a lighter note, please check out my blog at
http://magnumcorner.blogspot.com/”
Virtual worlds???????????
Can’t live in reality???
Explains alot.
109. phnx | February 17th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Sorry DP, but when a computer review numbers that’s all they are, nothing more nothing less. It doesn’t know anything else. I know you would like it to be otherwise, but alas that’s the way it is.
And when the computer program finishes it ends up with a number against which a FISA warrant can be issued. Until the warrant is issued nothing more is known about those digits. They are simply numbers.
110. Magnum Serpentine | February 17th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Mark,
You have deleted a lot of peoples remarks that are off topic. However you have left Tired’s attack on me which has nothing to do with this topic.
Why?
Just because I like visiting sites on the Internet does not mean I am trying to escape reality. And since when does a persons Blog become a topic about the FISA?
It says a lot when someone has to resort to insults just to carry on a debate. And I will continue visiting Virtual Worlds. I see nothing wrong with it nor is it an escape. only narrow minded people think so. (You should visit the republican HQ in Second Life… are those republicans trying to escape Reality, eh Tired???)
111. stef | February 17th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
“This is a war measure - not a law enforcement measure. I’d be horrified if Joe or Jane Average had his or her communications monitored by the government without a warrant…but that is not what we’re doing…we’re monitoring enemy communications, some of which originate/terminate here in the United States.”
FISA is about ensuring that only the enemy communications are monitored, not building legal cases against the enemy.
112. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 12:42 am
phnx,
Yes, they are numbers. However, no matter how much you want that to be the point, that’s not the point. The point is what the statute says the numbers are, which is call-identifying information and those numbers can’t be given to the government except as authorized by law. Now, if you don’t believe the government should follow the law, then I can’t help you there because I have the peculiar idea that it must follow the law. I’m just weird that way, I guess.
113. phnx | February 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Yes Diana , I guess it is wierd to read things into the law that simply are not there.
114. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
phnx,
Well, it’s there in a plain reading of the black letter law even though you just don’t like that fact. I can’t help you with your refusal to read the statute. However, as I said, there’s a very simple answer. Ditch the unprecedented and, frankly anti-American, idea of retroactive immunity for the telecommunication companies and let the lawsuits proceed unhindered or, if you don’t like that, let the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rule on the legal issues as proposed by various bills put forth in Congress. The White House has resisted such a step, but then again, the President has lied about the program so I think the Administration has forfeited any credibility on the issue.
115. westmich | February 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Can someone help me clarify? I got lost in the back and forth somewhere around post #50, but is the law specifically about civil immunity or criminal immunity or both?
116. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
westmich,
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 contains provisions for criminal penalties of up to five years in federal prison and/or a fine of up to $10,000 for someone who “engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute” and also allows for the recovery of civil damages by a person, other than a foreign power “who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809″ of the FISA statute.
117. SteaM | February 18th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
So, this question is for the “anti-left” crowd.
With this in mind:
Let’s assume that the law was broken when the President asked telecommunications companies to break it.
Q. Assuming that telecommunications companies broke United States law. Should they be brought to justice or given a “get out of jail free” card by the government?
Assuming:
yes, they broke the law
yes the President asked them to do it
yes, the President is going to shield them from the illegal acts they commited and any legal issues they might have faced as a consequence by giving them immunity
How are you guys ok with this? I don’t care if you are republican or not, how are you ok with this? And, who cares if you are ok with it or not. How is this ok in this land of laws?
Please tell me what happens when someone commits an illegal act under the direction of an authorty figure who then uses the same authortative powers to declare them immune from any legal consequences of their illegal actions that said authority figure asked them to commit?
Uh, seems pretty irresponsible to let this happen. Yet, it’s happening. And it’s another reason why no one should let anymore republicans run our federal government until they can be more careful in following the laws.
I swear to God, with my hand on the bible, that if this were a Democratic president, if it were Obama, I don’t care who… I would demand that this be reversed and someone be held accountable.
It’s not partisan politics. It’s not BDS. It’s real crooked stuff and the republicans on this blog are all for it because they either don’t care about it or don’t believe that anything wrong or illegal ever occured. Well, no one can help you to believe the truth. However, when you refuse to believe the truth and hold your leaders accountable then you get botched and failed policies carried out in your name and the name of the United States of America.
118. sleepygene | February 18th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Here is an interesting article by the Judge Napolitano of Fox news. If you can’t convince a Fox news analysts that spying on americans is okay you are in trouble.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-oe-napolitano18feb18,0,3760112.story
Spy on Everyone let God, err I mean Bush sort’em out!
119. SteaM | February 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Nice article.
Seriously, let’s reverse this craziness before it goes too far.
120. FmrMarine | February 18th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
WOW
The tag team posting from NAMBLA and GLT are at a feverish pitch today.
I hope the first terrorist attack not foiled, because of piglosi and her flying monkey show, affects the very people wishing this bill to die.
121. Diana Powe | February 18th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
No, FmrMarine, the Protect America Act of 2007, which was only six months old, expired because of the deliberate decision by the President of the United States to let it expire. It was more important to “protect” the telecommunication companies (from what, is pretty unclear) than it was to “protect” you.
122. Psychic Reading Unlimited&hellip | March 19th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Psychic Reading Unlimited Questions
Interesting - because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.
123. termination letter format&hellip | March 27th, 2008 at 5:44 am
termination letter format
. Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as
124. Gay Sex Gay Men Fucking F&hellip | April 16th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Gay Sex Gay Men Fucking Free Gay Pics
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
125. congressive | April 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
MAAARRRKKKK!!!!
WHAT THE HELL, DUDE? DELETE THOSE POSTS!!!