Bush FISA Amendment Now Debated In House; Bill Passes

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Legislation
Posted on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:32:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update [2007-8-4 22:2:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: It passes. At least 43 Dems voted in favor. The list of shame will be posted here shortly. The capitulation is complete.

On C-Span.

Intelligence Chairman Reyes is giving a pathetic speech to support the bill.

Republican argument? President Bush wants it. And the kicker, the Repoublican argues that EVEN THOUGH the Dems are capitulating today, they still are emboldening the terrorisits because they did not immediately cave in. Dems will never learn. Idiots.

The Capitulation enters its final stage.

Live blogging on the flip. It is only a 30 minute debate. The House adopted a special suspension for this with only a simple majority needed to pass the bill, whereas the Dem bill required 2/3 passage. A complete capitulation.

Zoe Lofgren argues against the buill for all the reasons we know - it cuts out the FISA Court and empowers the Attorney General to spy on Americans.

Blunt says he is "pleased." Of course he is.

Argues that we need this bill because the terrorists are winning. my paraphrase.

Blunt says we should feel comfortable because the guy who wants to do the spying AND Gonzo want to agree should be sufficient comfort. Then he lies and says the IFSA Court will defend Americans. How can they if they are cut out?

Reyes is the worst specimen I've seen in some time.

Rep. Tierney objects that bill does not protect civil liberties and the 4th Amendment.

Says that this law removes the protection of the FISA courts and puts the power in Gonzo's hands. Attacks the Senate. Says this is not gonna be fixed in 12 days.

Good job by Tierney. Sounds like a No.

Republican Gomer Pyle

(Gohmert) says that civil liberties must give way "in a time of war." Cites, incredibly, self defense as the basis. Then he lies and says Aemrican person won't be surveilled, only furriners.

What a goober.

Nadler, if you trust this President and this dishonest Attorney General to spy on Americans, then you can support this bill. If you do not you must oppose.

Nadler points out that DNI McConnell has made a deal with the House and then Bush vetoed his own DNI.

Nadler points out that this is retroactive leglaization of BushCo illegality.

Issa objects to Nadler's accusation of illegality by the Bush Administration. He should take it up with the FISA court.

Nadler withdraws his "truthful and accurate" statements.

I am enjoying the Republicans calling Dems traitors. It is what they deserve for their capitulation.

Holt - The should be called the Just Trust Gonzo bill.

GOPER Kirk lies and says FISA has not been amended since 1978. That is a flat out lie.

Sheila Jackson Lee - we are shredding the Constitution and putting us in the hands of the dishonest incompetent Alberto Gonzales. Shame on the Senate. Amen.

Lungren - GOP. What a prick. Says DEMS are scaring the American People. What chutzpah.

The Democrats deserve what they get, the cowards.

Lungren promises no Americans will be surveiled, and if they are it be minimized. And it has never happend before. Lies all around.

Eshoo D - the problem is this bill allows the AG to listen in to American citizens calls from overseas. Thus, American citizens cna be listened in on. This is an Admin that acknowldgeed its illegal acts this is a disgraced AG. This should be a matter of law.

Issa is a schmuck.

He contradicts Lungren and says of course we will be listening in to call into the US. Then he lies and says we were not listening to bin Laden. Excuse me Issa,

BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE US!!!

Issa: We need this bill so we can leave town. Incredible.

CONYERS - This law DOES allow surveillance of American citizens.

Rogers of the GOP - there is no reverse targetting permitted in this bill. Let's hold him to that. He is not telling the truth.

Rogers says the problem was the Dem bill was not technology neutral. I tell you what, give them the technology language and nothing else. Of course Rogers is a liar.

Reyes says the GOP snookers Dems all the time. No sh*t.

CONYERS - reverse targetting is in the bill by implication because of what is NOT in the bill. "Reasonably believed to be located outside the US" - Conyers' point is that Gonzo can not be trusted to be reasonable.

Flake GOP - troubled by the bill but will support. Calls it an interim measure. Riiiight.

INSLEE - cites Ben Franklin's famous statement about sacrificing liberty for security is left with mneither.

Fossella GOP - Idiot.

SCOTT - DNI accepted Dem bill. We did not pass the bill and here we are. This bill goes too far. etc.

Section 105 is the real problem.

Thornberry GOP - Huh? Does not include electronic surveillance? Say what?

HARMAN - Only a handful, including her, have access to full briefings on TSP. The Senate bill punts on the issue of checking Executive power. And here we are poised to repeat the Senate's mistake. She accepts that the bill wil pass which it will of course.

Wilson - Disgusting.

LANGEVIN - We answered McConnell's call but we also did something the PResident did not ask us to do - protect the civil liberties of American citizens.

Instead we are asked to put pur trust in Alberto Gonzales. That scares me.

WATT - What the American People do understand is the do not want to entrust their rights to Alberto Gonzales.

SCHAKOWSKY - Strongly against.

COHEN - basically taking judges out of the process. When we fear judges, we are in trouble. cites the great Brandeis quote. Gonzo MUST resign.

ELLISON - Reads the 4th Amendment. [Where are the originalists?]

SESTAK - [Resume is impressive.] Seems to be against.

Tiart GOP - Don't hate Gonzo.

Dems are traitors.

WU- More power to Gonzo? That's nuts!

HOYER - Thanks. I'm sorry but we have to sell out our principles. We're scared the GOP will say mean things about us.

Wow1 Hoyer will vote against! good for you Steny! My apologies.

We'll fix it, I promise, sez Hoyer.

I do NOT believe him.

Boehner - Jerk.

WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ - Worse than the Schiavo bill. We do not trust theBush Administration. When do we so no farther. This bill is a victory for the terrorists.

REYES - I am a boob.

CONYERS - This bill fails. Time has expired.

CONCLUSION - Pretty speeches. Brandeis, Franklin and Jefferson were very smart. Too bad no one will follow their advice.

< FISA: "Tough Guy" Webb On Why He Cowered Before Bush | Bonds Hits 755, Ties Aaron >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bush FISA Amendment Now Debated In House; Bill Passes | 90 comments (90 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Reyes, the guy who didn't know the difference (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:34:14 PM EST

between Sunni and Shiite, is giving away the farm.

Wonder Why (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by squeaky on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:41:36 PM EST

They even bother showing up for work. They could hire interns to blog for them in lieu of appearences.

Reyes is such a bozo (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:07:40 PM EST

Yeah, the American people are surely going to all be reading the text of this bill. Fat chance, when members of congress won't even read the bill. Besides, it's not our damn business to read the bill. We elect you bozos to do the people's work for us, and to be prepared, and to debate effectively and vote for bills. Bastard. Passing the buck.

Rise to power (5.00 / 4) (#12)
by Edger on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:14:50 PM EST

The Reichstag fire

The day after the fire, Hitler persuaded President Hindenburg to issue a decree entitled, "For the Protection of the People and the State." Justified as a "defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state," the decree suspended the constitutional guarantees pertaining to civil liberties:
...
Two weeks after the Reichstag fire, Hitler requested the Reichstag to temporarily delegate its powers to him so that he could adequately deal with the crisis. Denouncing opponents to his request, Hitler shouted, "Germany will be free, but not through you!" When the vote was taken, the result was 441 for and 84 against, giving Hitler the two-thirds majority he needed to suspend the German constitution. On March 23, 1933, what has gone down in German history as the "Enabling Act" made Hitler dictator of Germany, freed of all legislative and constitutional constraints.

Completely different ... (none / 0) (#49)
by chemoelectric on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:11:35 AM EST

This is completely different, because Adolf Hitler happened in a milieu of literal private armies, putsches, assassinations, acting upon a well-documented platform of conquest, slaughter, enslavement--and, most of all, earlier in his life, at the first opportunity, Hitler had volunteered for the army and served with distinction.

This bunch we have here can only dream of being a Hitler, or play-act as one, and borrow the language of a Hitler.


: on the other hand (none / 0) (#50)
by Sumner on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:56:27 AM EST

there may be larger forces at play. there may be biological imperatives for reducing the human population on a regular basis that drives war. perhaps this is one reason why the military has taken a keen interest into the somewhat new field of Evolutionary Cognitive Neuroscience.

Noxious people (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by janinsanfran on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:26:18 PM EST

Looks like those of you not from California are getting a good taste of some of our prime fascists: Issa and especially Lungren. At one time, I had to work for the useless Gray Davis (much like his name) to avert having the latter as Governor. The former made a fortune selling car alarms -- after getting busted for car theft.

: Not that the Catholic, Notre Dame (none / 0) (#51)
by oculus on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 02:18:25 AM EST

graduate, right to lifer Lungren had any chance of being elected Governor of California.

This is (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by troqua on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:38:50 PM EST

depressing the hell out of me. I feel utterly powerless. No one is on our side.

This is too depressing (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by troqua on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:48:35 PM EST

I can barely watch this display on cspan. Caving in to a 28% president. It's disgraceful. And to give even more power to a proven liar like Gonzo - why? Why would they do such a thing?

What a Patriot! (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:52:07 PM EST

Such a stirring defense of liberty by Rep. Hoyer. I am so proud that he is our majority leader. Modern day Patrick Henry. I am so fired up right now, what a great man!

God, what a muddled, boring, stupid statement. What is his point?

Nancy Pelosi was not seen during this fiasco (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by rootless3 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:08:49 PM EST

Probably conferring with Bob Shrum.

News for you folks (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by TomK on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:09:01 PM EST

Enough democrats are idiots that the republicans are evil fascists.

We need to get rid of all these people. This is really ridiculous.

Seriously Folks (5.00 / 2) (#30)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:19:24 PM EST

If people like Reid, Hoyer, and Pelosi can't even keep their caucuses together over not voting to essentially rescind the 4th amendment when they have the majority, why are they the leaders of this party?

227/183 UGH (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:20:35 PM EST

: Bush (none / 0) (#32)
by Edger on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:39:03 PM EST

will be uncontrollable hearing that.

Thanks for (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by Edger on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:54:42 PM EST

the live blogging, Armando...

well don't be too sure of yourself (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Miss Devore on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:57:00 PM EST

you thought Webb was the future of the Democratic Party, too.

then again, maybe he is.

: Tester is the future (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:01:16 PM EST

I said,. He voted against this. However, he voted for the Iraq Supplement. I blasted him for it.

Also, thank you for allowing new users to post (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:00:19 PM EST

Comments. I hate the fact that I have to wait 24 hours to comment on dailykos, and 7(!) days to try to post a diary.

I have never really posted comments on another blog, I needed that to retain my sanity today.

Thanks again,

And keep up the good work.

what part of stupid don't they understand? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by doubtful on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:31:55 PM EST

So depressed, so angry, so fed up. Get a clue or get out of Washington. Oh, that's what they are doing.

Lucky bastards. How many people do you know who get a one month vacation? Can't wait to see what Rove et al have in store for us over the next 4 weeks.

The Dems are spineless, unAmerican cowards. Give my country away to these jerks, and I will fight. Guaranteed.

While everyone was busy (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Edger on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 11:08:30 PM EST

did anyone notice the media not talk about this at all yesterday or today?

Bush Abolishes Fourth Amendment, Aug 3, 2007

George W. Bush has continued his efforts to destroy the United States Constitution and transform the office of the President into a dictatorship. Today, George W. Bush has issued a new executive order similar to a July 17th, 2007 executive order that allowed the government to potentially seize the property of anybody who they determined without due process was undermining the Iraqi war and reconstruction effort. The language in that executive order was so entirely broad in scope that the executive order even applied to war protesters and political dissidents who might be indirectly undermining the Iraqi war reconstruction effort. This new executive order is similar in nature and uses broad language to allow the government to seize the property of anybody who they believe is attempting to undermine the sovereignty of Lebanon or its democratic processes and institutions. This executive order essentially makes both the Fourth and Fifth Amendments null and void.
Executive Order: Blocking Property of Persons Undermining the Sovereignty of Lebanon or Its Democratic Processes and Institutions
...
Bush has already issued a directive stating that he will effectively be a dictator in the case of a broadly defined catastrophic emergency, so the language in this executive order stating that he is declaring a national emergency is quite disturbing.

For their part, the German people quickly accepted

the new order of things. Keep in mind that the average non-Jewish German was pretty much unaffected by the new laws and decrees. As long as a German citizen kept his head down, worked hard, took care of his family, sent his children to the public schools and the Hitler Youth organization, and, most important, didn't involve himself in political dissent against the government, a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.

As an American (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Alien Abductee on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 11:19:51 PM EST

living outside the country and working with people in Third World and Islamic countries over the Bush years, all I can say is thanks a lot Dems for working so hard to preserve my Constitutional right to privacy. I'll be thinking of you every time I (and whoever else) read my email.

Alien (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:38:38 AM EST

Uh, you didn't carry those rights with you when you left the US.


: Actually (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:45:43 AM EST

Regarding the US government, she did.

We Are Outta Touch (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by squeaky on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:22:52 AM EST

Maybe.....

My guess it that most Americans like the idea of big brother watching over them and keeping them safe. They feel that they have nothing to hide and are afraid of losing their artificially high standard of living to terrorists.

Scaring the public seems to work really well. The Repugs have the facist rhetoric down pat:

The Dems are weak on defense, and the terrorists are coming to get you.

Just ask ppj, our resident right wing shill.

As long as a German citizen (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:35:15 AM EST

kept his head down... etc. etc. ... a visit by the Gestapo was very unlikely.


Squeaky squeaks squeakly (1.00 / 1) (#62)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:32:21 AM EST

They feel that they have nothing to hide and are afraid of losing their artificially high standard of living to terrorists.

How about explaining that comment.

Are you claiming that Americans should reduce their standard of living?

If so, to what level?

I asked you before that since you won't fight with the radical Moslems, you will have to surrender out right, or try and negotiate.

Along with the reduced standard of living you apparently hope for, what rights will you give away to the radical Moslems during the negotiations?

The rights of Gays to live a peaceful life and not be killed because of their sexual orientation?

The rights of women to attend school and become educated?

The freedom of speech, especially the right to make fun of the Prophet??

I could go on, but I think these are a good start.


You do want (none / 0) (#83)
by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:10:43 PM EST

America to retain the same standard of living that the Nazi Party delivered to good Germans, don't you?

;-)


edger gets edgyt (1.00 / 1) (#84)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:11:39 PM EST

Whenever you, or one of your buds get trapped you try to change the subject.

So I'll ask you the same questions.


: I know the answer! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:47:30 PM EST

Do you still beat your wife?

Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Al on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:33:09 AM EST

These are the people who are going to end the war in Iraq?

Well... (none / 0) (#81)
by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:48:04 PM EST

actually... these are the people who are not going to end the war in Iraq, or rollback anything else Bush does.

It looks to me like they are going to rubberstamp to let him do all the dirty work for them to give the next Democratic president all the power he can, who will do all the dirty work to give the next Republican president all the power he can.

Etc. etc. etc.

Eventually Congress and the Senate will no longer be required.

Maybe sooner than later.

Streamlining and efficiency...


: Don't forget (none / 0) (#82)
by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:49:54 PM EST

to vote.

Can someone explain? (1.00 / 1) (#14)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:18:27 PM EST

Can someone explain why a federal judge needs to sign off on monitoring a phone conversation between, say two Pakistanis ome in Tibet and one in Yemen?

A judge does not have to (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:20:41 PM EST

Why do you ask a stupid question?


Are you sure? (none / 0) (#34)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:43:55 PM EST

Even if the call is routed through the US?


I am positive (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:54:17 PM EST

the Dem bill addressed that problem.


As I have said before (none / 0) (#53)
by Jeff in Texas on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:42:56 AM EST

I bet that is not even a problem. But if it is, the tech fix proposed by the Dems would be sufficient. That was not what the White House wanted though-- they wanted the "new", AG and DNI approved programs. The tech issue, even if legit, was a smokescreen.


: Jeff (1.00 / 1) (#75)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:26:44 PM EST

What was the fix??

Clarity (none / 0) (#55)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:36:32 AM EST

Then perhaps your initial posting would be clearer to note that the driver for the this entire episode was that a judge ruled that even though communication originated and destinated in foreign countries a federal judge would have to sign off on the practice if the communication was routed through the US.

Implying that the monitoring of a communication from Tibet to Yemen is domestic spying is a bit misleading.


The spying occurred in the US (none / 0) (#73)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:12:42 PM EST

And we have only the word of rethugs that that was the reason it was rejected. Rethugs who lied about WMDs, who lied about a connection between iraq and 9/11, rethugs who lied about everything about the war (last thoroes, anyone?)

Then perhaps your initial posting would be clearer to note that the driver for the this entire episode was that a judge ruled that even though communication originated and destinated in foreign countries a federal judge would have to sign off on the practice if the communication was routed through the US.
Implying that the monitoring of a communication from Tibet to Yemen is domestic spying is a bit misleading.

As was pointed out earlier the dems fixed that, if it ever was a problem.

The main problem is bush et al insisting on spying on Americans w/o a warrant and locking them up because they disagree with his radical extremist christian POV.

Whether it's protesters, discharged soldiers, or college professors bush wants to stifle dissent and ugly american fellow travelers go along with him.


The spying occured in the US (none / 0) (#87)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:20:51 PM EST

but the targets were outside the US! You are more than welcome to call that domestic spying, but its your credibility.


: wrong as always (none / 0) (#88)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:27:34 PM EST

But in doing so, McConnell's letter also underscored that the full scope of the NSA's surveillance program under Bush's order has not been revealed. The TSP described by Bush and his aides allowed the interception of communication between the United States and other countries where one party is believed to be tied to al-Qaeda, so other types of communication or data are presumably being collected under the parts of the wider NSA program that remain hidden.
News reports over the past 20 months have detailed a range of activities linked to the program, including the use of data mining to identify surveillance targets and the participation of telecommunication companies in turning over millions of phone records.

Because the communications intercept is in the US! (none / 0) (#28)
by Cugel on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:12:41 PM EST

And what's more, there's no way it's limited to "Pakistanis", that's the entire point!

All it is is Gonzales certifying to the court than an entire "basket" of warrants is about communications "likely" to be outside the U.S. -- no confirmation and NO review!

"Oops! We intercepted 10,000,000 US phone calls. Well, we though they were 'likely' to involve foreigners, so it doesn't count! And we've just taken away your power to review it anyway so nobody will ever know what we're doing!"

Completely arbitrary power with ZERO accountability and ZERO Oversight! That's what this bill does!


Cugel (1.00 / 1) (#76)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:29:21 PM EST

Why should these calls have any expectation of privacy??

They are made from outside the US to a location ouside the US.


: wrong as always (none / 0) (#89)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:30:55 PM EST

McConnell's letter also underscored that the full scope of the NSA's surveillance program under Bush's order has not been revealed. The TSP described by Bush and his aides allowed the interception of communication between the United States and other countries where one party is believed to be tied to al-Qaeda, so other types of communication or data are presumably being collected under the parts of the wider NSA program that remain hidden.
News reports over the past 20 months have detailed a range of activities linked to the program, including the use of data mining to identify surveillance targets and the participation of telecommunication companies in turning over millions of phone records.

Get that? BETWEEN the US, not routed thru the US.

RE: That's what this bill does! (none / 0) (#33)
by Edger on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:41:07 PM EST

That's what Abdul wants...


yeah, about what just happened (none / 0) (#45)
by Sumner on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:23:44 PM EST

this bill now mandates, into place, the machinery for spying, into your telcos and ISPs and elswhere, under the pretext of spying on foreigners.

It removes specific reporting requirements and substitutes "basket warrants" with long delayed reporting requirements, dodging and dancing around specifics.

no doubt, new higher security clearances will be devised above those presently designated to the FISA judges.

this game has long been about passing pretext laws while legislating. this technology will be used against American citizens, even if it suggests a miniscule change-up in the law, once everything is snuggly in place.


Just Trust Us (none / 0) (#3)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:56:24 PM EST

Representative Holt is on the ball right now. Unlimited authority to spy on Americans without oversight of the courts.

This actually has historic importance.

Thank you Mr. Holt.

Changes In Communications (none / 0) (#4)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 07:59:12 PM EST

Rep. Kirk (R) has a good point that communications technology has greatly changed in the past 20 years. The is an extremely important issue, I agree, but WHY DO THEY HAVE TO DO THIS ON A SATURDAY WHEN NO ONE IS PAYING ATTENTION AND HAVE ONLY 30 MINUTES OF DEBATE? IF THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, LET'S TAKE OUR DAMN TIME TO GET THIS RIGHT!

Unbelievable.

: FISA has been amended many times (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:02:31 PM EST

since 1978. Kirk lied.

Slight correction (none / 0) (#5)
by jerry on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:01:57 PM EST

I have to object when you say..
Gomer ... what a goober.

Wrong!

Gomer

Goober

Still, they're cousins,
Similar cousins and you'll find,
They laugh alike, they walk alike,
At times they even talk alike --

You can lose your mind,
When cousins are two of a kind.

Holt and Jackson Lee get gold stars (none / 0) (#6)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:01:59 PM EST

sadly, the can't change this.

are you sure on the rule? (none / 0) (#9)
by selise on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:11:57 PM EST

i didn't hear the info on the rule (simple majority). are you sure, BTD?

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:12:59 PM EST

: then the fix is in... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by selise on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:48:20 PM EST

and we're just watching the kabuki.
if the dems wanted to block the vote tonight, they'd be operating under a suspended rule and 2/3 votes required.

Hoyer read it out as a UC I think (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:14:26 PM EST

as in the Senate.


Awesome! (none / 0) (#13)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:16:42 PM EST

Did you guys just here Rep. Rogers (paraphrase)
"I know you guys hate the Attorney General, I know you hate the President, but don't you love our soldiers? Don't you love the people that are trying to keep us safe?"

I was so sure he was going to say that the Dems hate America on the floor of congress.

creepy (none / 0) (#15)
by Sumner on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:19:49 PM EST

One of the telltale signs last night with the Senate was that they nearly all seemed to have these sh*t-eating grins after the vote like the cat that ate the canary. Whenever lawmakers sport those I know something untowards is really up.

Some on the Right in the House are sporting that grin on the floor even now.

Even Awesomer! (none / 0) (#17)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:24:26 PM EST

Won't you please think of the children?
http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2007-08-02_612653722375110/tv/simpsons/misc/woman_children2.wav

This would be absolutely hilarious if this wasn't such a travesty.

By the way... (none / 0) (#20)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:43:06 PM EST

Isn't there some guy who is running for president on the Republican side that is some sort of Libertarianish old doctor who should be screaming about this? What's his name? Oh yeah, Ron Paul. I might be jumping the gun, maybe he will speak out later, but where's that guy? Where's Dennis Kucinich?

Somebody Get a Hook for Hoyer. (none / 0) (#24)
by scarysh*t on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:54:09 PM EST

He is eating up the rest of the Dems' time, with tepid lame platitudes. Absolutely awful. Get him off the stage.

so where was she to object to unanimous consent (none / 0) (#29)
by rootless3 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:18:09 PM EST

for the rule?

the last Reyes synopsis (none / 0) (#35)
by Miss Devore on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:45:39 PM EST

made me laugh.

but didn't I get deleted the last time I used the b-word?

o well, let the boob-parsing begin.

: You were? (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 09:51:56 PM EST

I am postive you used a different word.

Roll call is up (none / 0) (#42)
by andgarden on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:05:14 PM EST

See it here.

The bright side (none / 0) (#43)
by s5 on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:07:13 PM EST

Now Congress can go on vacation! yay!

: They've been on vacation (none / 0) (#44)
by Edger on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 10:10:40 PM EST

since November 7/06...

It will be interesting (none / 0) (#54)
by Jeff in Texas on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:51:39 AM EST

To see how the Dem leadership tries to fig leaf themselves from this travesty. Regardless of how many Dems ended up voting for the bill, it should have NEVER seen the light of day, period. Pelosi and Reid, and by extension, the whole Congressional Dem caucus, have absolutely no cover on this.

For those calling them "stupid" and "clueless"-- take a step back for a second. Many individual Dems are truly stupid and clueless, and certainly, this vote is objectively stupid, but that is not what is going on here at bottom. You think Pelosi and Reid, and the various handlers and advisors, don't know what the score is? They wanted this to come to the floor, and they wanted it to pass. The "we have to do this cuz we have no choice" and "we are in a vise" nonsense is just babble to cover up complicity in the crime. Saying they are merely stupid lets them off the hook.

Democrats sell out America (none / 0) (#58)
by Edger on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:40:16 AM EST

Not only did the Democrats almost completely cave in to the Bush junta on this most critical issue, they actually gave him more power. Unbelievable. How can any Democrat paint themselves as a logical alternative to the GOP when you have this kind of sycophancy going on? Aren't we past this knee-jerk "ZOMG THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING TO KILL US!!!11111″ nonsense yet, that we should so easily give up the rights for which we're supposedly fighting?
...
"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy -- not the executive branch."

Scholars & Rogues

: Nope (1.00 / 1) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:11:57 AM EST

"We make the policy -- not the executive branch."
Looks like a joint affair to me.

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;.....
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

So.... (none / 0) (#59)
by garyb50 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:04:08 AM EST

Does this mean that if my daughter calls me here in Texas from Turkey where she's on a geology field trip that our call will now be recorded/monitored whereas a few days ago it wouldn't have been?

Because we both badmouth Bush at the drop of a hat & I sure wouldn't want THEM to know that. LOL

I need to find out how often she's worn her 'Bush International Terrorist' Tshirt.

Hello One Party State.

Not all calls are equal (1.00 / 1) (#64)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:35:43 AM EST

Not unless she is calling from a number that is a suspected terrorist's number, and not unless she is calling a number that is a suspected terrorist's number.


"suspected"... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
by garyb50 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:19:14 PM EST

...being the operative, completely unknowable & universal explanation/excuse, huh?

Comforting.

But whatever, pathetic is the World of Bush.


garyb50 (1.00 / 1) (#69)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:13:58 PM EST

Yeah, that is the word.

"suspected"

The basic difference between us is this.

In the unlikely event that your daugher's telephone number in Turkey wound up on a "suspected terrorist" list I believe that it would shortly be recognized as her not being a terrorist and discarded.

To me, her small loss of privacy is worth the benefits of finding, tracking and capturing terrorists.

On the other hand, you don't believe that the number would be removed from the list and that she would have no privacy in her communications.


On what track record... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by Dadler on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:28:17 PM EST

...are you basing your trust that the current government will do right thing?

Have you forgotten "Men are not angels" from our founders' reasoning for separation of powers and the checks and balances on all of them?

Why such a belief in angels in the government listening rooms?

Now, I suspect you won't address the actual issue, but instead talk about having to go fast, fast, fast with these terrorists, that we have no time for courts or warrants, etc.

Which is a moot argument as these warrants were always able to be retroactively gotten in a reasonable time frame.

We've taken a play right out of the old Soviet, current Chinese Big Brother book. Nothing to be proud of or happy about. Emulating the worst aspects of bad governments.


: dadler (1.00 / 1) (#71)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:39:33 PM EST

I am well aware that the Government does not always do the right thing. I am also aware if they do not we can always change the law.
As to whether or not warrants were always able to have been gotten in a reasonable time neither of us can prove/disprove that. As for the future, that again is speculation on both our parts.

Sort of like how all those hapless victims... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
by garyb50 on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 01:46:03 PM EST

...on the 'no fly' list SO EASILY get their names purged? Huh?

Your assumption is beyond ridiculous. You trust Bush?

Ever spend half an hour watching TSAers in action?

It's a joke and you buy it. Wonderful.


garyb50 (1.00 / 1) (#77)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:35:39 PM EST

I don't even trust myself.

And if the Left had been 1/10th as skeptical as me they wouldn't be wringing their collective hands and gnashing their teeth.

But from a practial view I see little to no damage done to the privacy of the individuals, and the flip side is a quicker better system for tracking catching terrorists.


Agree With PPJ (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by squeaky on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:44:54 PM EST

Finally you have something in common with all those here who are to the left of you.


Yes (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by squeaky on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:49:05 PM EST

We do not trust you either.


Squeaky squeaks squeakly (1.00 / 1) (#85)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 08:13:31 PM EST

The difference is that you have that burning need to be accepted. To be part of the party...

I don't.


: lol (5.00 / 1) (#91)
by jondee on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 04:27:55 PM EST

Jim's a renegade, a maverick.
In these days of do-your-own-thing to parrot whatever talk radio hosts and Fox are saying this week, is the ultimate act of rebellion.

: Trust Is Not Partisan (none / 0) (#86)
by squeaky on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 09:34:56 PM EST

funny how ppj flipflops ... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Sailor on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:20:00 PM EST

... he kept claiming that only overseas calls were being monitored, no matter how many times bush admitted to domestic spying and even after linking to WH, ABC, CBS, NYT and WaPo articles (that he claimed were all 'opinion' pieces, even while he only had powerlie as a source) he still tried to claim it was all overseas.

Now he supports the latest wrongwing lie. He's a very flexible, uuh, fellow.

funny how a self proclaimed liberal constantly regurgitates the rethuglican talking points, no matter how they shift.


sailor - Go attack someone else (1.00 / 1) (#78)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:39:26 PM EST

What are you blathering about?

I still see no domestic here not connected to an outside call.

And I still have seen no admissions.

I did see one that you quoted one paragraph of. Leaving out the one that said no domestic.


: flip-flopping (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 05:04:00 PM EST

by jimakaPPJ on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 03:29:21 PM EST
Why should these calls have any expectation of privacy??
They are made from outside the US to a location ouside the US.

if you suspect someone ... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Sailor on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 03:32:17 PM EST

... you get a warrant, it's the American way.


I have to attribute Dems voting for this bill (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 12:53:12 PM EST

to Dianne Feinstein, who apparently endorsed it.