Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, February 15, 2008
Amanda Carpenter :: Townhall.com Columnist
FISA Law Expires At Midnight
by Amanda Carpenter
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The House of Representatives left for a full week of President’s Day recess without authorizing a law that permits the government to monitor terrorist communications that will expire Friday night.

President Bush pleaded with the House to quickly pass the Senate version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization that was agreed upon with bipartisan support, but House Democratic Leadership refused to call a vote on it.

“Failure to act would harm our ability to monitor new terrorist activities and could reopen dangerous gaps in our intelligence,” President Bush warned in a press conference early Thursday afternoon.

Instead of working on FISA legislation in the final day of congressional work before President’s Day recess, Democratic House leadership scheduled a lengthy debate that culminated in a late-afternoon vote on charges of contempt against White House aide Josh Bolton and former White House counsel Harriet Miers.

House Republicans were so outraged that FISA would be left to lapse, they staged a walkout before the contempt vote.

Since the New York Times broke a story in late 2005 that found the Bush administration had engaged in covert surveillance activities with cooperation from phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth, a debate has erupted, largely on party lines, over whether or not to protect those companies from prosecution under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Disputes over the phone companies’ decision to cooperate with government requests has resulted more than 40 multi-billion dollar lawsuits.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell wrote in a Washington Post op-ed Friday, "we are already losing capability due to the failure to address liability protection."

The Senate version of FISA reauthorization would grant immunity to those phone companies, but liberal Democrats in the House were staunchly opposed to doing so. Democratic Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Rep. Silvestre Reyes (Tex.) wrote in a letter to President Bush on Thursday, “I see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.”

His Senate counterpart Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.V.), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, urged his Senate colleagues to vote in favor of the immunity provision in the Senate bill. On the Senate floor Thursday, Rockefeller said that without FISA reauthorization, "the quality of intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest."

House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi argues that a FISA lapse “does not mean that surveillance activities will cease” but the White House says otherwise.

White House press secretary Dana Perino says Pelosi is wrong. Perino explained in a release that if FISA is not reauthorized, “The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence would be stripped of power to authorize new certifications against foreign intelligence targets, including international terrorists, abroad.”

The current FISA bill, that permits the government quickly obtain communications records, will expire on midnight February 15th. The law will automatically revert to a previous version that requires the government to prove probable cause of terrorist communication before communications may be monitored.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Amanda Carpenter is the author of “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton,” published in October 2006.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Amanda Carpernter. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Big Brother takes a blow
The conservative position is the position of limited government. Opposite this is the authoritarian position, which advocates the ceding of all civil liberties so that a powerful central government can wage endless "wars" against abstract concepts.

The feds have no right to monitor my communications, be it under the guise of fighting terrorism or anything else. Over the long term, the federal government poses more of a threat to me than any foreign enemy. History demonstrates this.

Let the feds monitor the communications of foreigners. Leave us citizens alone.

Sorry sack the Democrats may be, they got this one right. They finally accomplished something that helps protect ordinary Americans from the ever-increasing power of the federal government.

Let's hope the Patriot Act is repealed next.

Juan...
It behooves you to actually read the provisions of the bill so that you know something about what it actually authorizes.
None of which is anything close to what's in your paranoic rant.

A shining example
of how much "our" elected offficals hate this country! They refuse to do the basics to defend this country. What a bunch of mewling, sniveling, whining bunch of Quislings. What is really sad, are all of the well meaning America loving dems that swallow this bull. People, we'd better get off our butts and get rid of all these traitors. We can no longer close our eyes and assume that we have no recourse. VOTE THEM OUT! They are flaunting their anti-America views in our faces, it's time to show them what we think of them. Washington D.C. is fast becoming bezerkly east. That's not an exaggeration.

juan
No they do not have this one right.

The original FISA required the government to get a warrant for each phone which is tapped. It also only applied to foreign governments and has since been extended to any organization(Al Qaeda isn't a government). The Bush administration used FISA to follow email, cellphone and other communications on a person by person basis. After all, nowadays anyone can grab a new cell phone at WalMart for 50 bucks.

The legality of this was decided to not extend to non-phone communications. The telecoms do not want the trial lawyers to cash in on civil liberties cases and they deserve protection for helping protect America. The telecoms represent peoples livelihoods and many people's retirement/IRAs. I though we cared about jobs and retirement?

The entire process is STILL and has ALWAYS been under judicial review. This means any evidence collected under FISA is subject to review before it could be used in a case.

Handcuff the Intelligence agencies and we will get more of what we got under Clinton: USS Cole, Tanzania, 9/11, Khobar towers, etc.

DavidM
Then why did Bush refuse to sign the billl if it did NOT protect teh phone companies? Are teh phone companies more important than American lives? Is Bush protecting the phone companies at the risk of more 9-11's?

Why would he do such a thing? Hmmmm....why indeed.....

Our spineless gutless representatives
have once again proven that the American voter is worried more about what government can do for them and to hell with the country. I have no confidence that this election will be any different. A majority of representatives feel that playing political games with our national security is more important than our safety. The maddening thing about it is, if we get attacked again because our hands are tied, who do you think will catch the blame? Bush!

If we lose this election to the fascist liberals, we'll end up being attacked again; then we'll have the pleasure of experiencing another Korean and/or Vietnam debacle as only the Democrats know how to fight a war....we negotiate and appease while the enemy slaughters our soldiers.

Juan is Right
Juan's right and we would better off to let this toxic piece of legislation die.

Read this letter to Bush:

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/ReyesRelease021408 .pdf

Stupid
This Congress has now proven to the world that all the enemy has to do is complain that they are being monitored and some STUPID LIB will join them. Thats why the Terrorist always uses the LIBS talking points when they are on the MSM

What is more shocking is that they care more about who uses steroids in a ballgame than who is calling INTO or OUT of a known terrorist location.

Hey Juan if you are calling into a known terrorist location you bet your sweet ARSE I want to monitor your calls.

But they call themselves AMERICANS and god forbid if you call them UNPATRIOTIC.

I think we need to start monitoring Congresses calls more often.

I still say that we need them(DEMS) to answer one question only?

If waterboarding could have stopped 9/11 would you have authorized it?

Expires!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OH NO!!!

I'm sooooo scared that the big bad terrorists will get me, without it. Save me big incompetent government and stop the evil doers in places all over the world, while my front and back door is wide open!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we have more to worry about, than FISA at the moment.


Before this FISA Bill
Before the existing FISA bill, and before 9/11 Bush had intelligence that Osama was planning an eminent strike.

And Bush did what about it? That's right, go on vacation. And Bush doesn't worry about him now, his words.

Ho hum.

Sorry, I think I speak for the majority of Americans when I say, "yeah right, whatever."


laff
MLdogg: Al Qaeda is who I blame for the COLE, and if you do not you are hopeless.

Jack:
"Then why did Bush refuse to sign the billl if it did NOT protect teh phone companies? Are teh phone companies more important than American lives? Is Bush protecting the phone companies at the risk of more 9-11's?

Why would he do such a thing? Hmmmm....why indeed....."

Let me help you since you are reality challenged. Trial lawyers do NOT want the telecoms protected because they have plenty of money to loot. Anyone can sue anyone today and the ACLU will gladly help them do it.

The F in FISA is FOREIGN. Unless you are talking to Osams it DOESN'T AFFECT YOU. You are advocating that we should place foreign terror suspects above our own companies. You know the ones that provide services, jobs, retirement, etc.

The reality is we currently get a warrant against John Smith overseas and when he gets a new cellphone boneheads such as YOU think we need a new warrant each time. Hey genius why would we not allow wiretapping him the second time?? Has he turned over a new leaf?

Of course all the hand wringing over government control comes from the SAME CROWD who wants them controlling health care, education, businesses, etc. AKA real fascism.

Litigation against the telecoms
... benefits lawyers, and no one else.

It injures the telecoms, no matter what the outcome, because their legal defenses will be costly.

Moreover, the idea that routine "discovery" will allow all of us, or even a federal judge, to see who has been wiretapped is invalid. The federal government has only to determine that keeping this information secret is vital to national security, and no judge can force the executive to release it in a civil -- or, for that matter, criminal -- proceeding. A judge does not have the authority to override the president's decision on this. Congress would have to intervene, by making new law.

The bottom line is that litigation is not an effective means of forcing the revelation of which phones were wiretapped. The House doesn't want to preserve the opportunity for it because of anyone's civil rights, but because litigation pays the bills for trial lawyers.

(As a separate issue, I advocate developing an effective method of ensuring that federal surveillance is not abused. But our existing litigation procedures do not constitute such a method.)

The telecoms can say NO to cooperating with NSA and the FBI. If they have no immunity from prosecution, they are likely to. The president cannot force them to cooperate.

So unless the telecoms are unnaturally willing to lay themselves open to lawsuit, they will, indeed, begin to curtail their cooperation at midnight tonight. That House Democrats are prepared to accept this is, frankly, execrable.

Afraid Juan
is right on this one. FISA ought to be reauthorized quickly but without the give away to big telecom companies.

Oh, please
Is this not the same administration that recently allowed 100,000 foreigners to get green cards without the (heretofore) required background checks? And hasn't this administration also refused to do anything to protect our borders and, indeed, tried to get amnesty for millions of people who came here illegally?

When they get serious about doing the obvious things to protect this country, maybe I'll rethink their sincerity on issue. The terrorist threat has been a useful excuse to chip away at the liberties of Americans.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington




Post Holler
So if Bush had intel on OBL attacking where did he get it from?

Wait I can answer that the CLINTOONIANS and why didnt they do something about the Terrorist besides just blow up a ASPERIN FACTORY and SCUDDING MONICA.

Or is that like the same INTEL that Bush had on
WMDs that most DEMS stated IRAQ and SADDAM had before Bush was even elected. You know the one were the 9/11 committeee stated that the WALL between the INTEL groups that CLINTON built to save you Americans from being spied on(WIRETAPPING). Sure helped us then didnt it.

I think Clinton had his own spy gate called the Escelon Program(SPYING ON AMERICANS and THEIR E-MAILS)boy we sure heard you LIBS screaming about that one didnt we.

What do you have to hide?

Juan McCain writes: Friday, February, 15, 2008 11:41 AM
Big Brother takes a blow


Not supposed to monitor your personal communications eh? But you will scream like a stuck pig right along with your Democrat buddies if we are attacked?





Intelligence!
MlDoggg

Hey old buddy, have you ever spent time in the Military? If yes, did they teach you anything about Intelligence and it's importance in knowing what the enemy is doing? Do you know what SIGINT and HUMINT means and where it fits in to protecting the sorry arses, who put self interest before the nation as a whole?

Let Me Get This Right
We are suppose to give up our Constitutional Rights and allow our Gov't to infringe on our liberties without a warrant, but Millions of Illegals are allowed to be here without being checked out and flood across our borders at will. This all in the name of Freedom and Security!! What is wrong with this picture??

Did you notice?
navywave61 writes: Friday, February, 15, 2008 12:16 PM
A shining example

Good post navywave61, and did you notice the reaction of our elected officials in Congress, during 9/11 when they heard that the Capitol could be a target? Did you notice Congress' reaction during the anthrax sacre, or their reaction when there is a bomb scare? I'd say they're a pack of cowards wouldn't you? Self interest is their mantra and to hell with anyone else>\.

Great letter!
Freedom Toast:

Thank you for posting that most excellent letter.

Isn't it sad how quickly so many people are willing to relinquish their civil liberties, and in response to dubious, even melodramatic predictions of doom sputtered from jingoistic bureaucrats?

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/ReyesRelease021408 .pdf

On ECHELON and screaming
I'm no liberal. I wasn't aware that protecting our Constitution is a liberal position.

Like many conservatives, I was outraged by what was revealed about the invasion of privacy due to ECHELON during the Clinton years. BTW, do you think the NSA has shut it down during the Bush administration?

We need to get beyond whose party is in power when these abuses occur. How will you feel if Hillary is president in 11 months and has the tools given her in the updated Patriot Act, FISA and ECHELON?

http://tinyurl.com/dlwre



David M et al
So Bush is mroe worried about telecoms getting sued than he is about protecting Americans? I really can't intepret what you say any differently.

I am not askign why the Democrats want to eliminate the immunity for the telecoms, I am asking why protecting the immunity is more importnat to Bush than protecting American lives?

Your response is simply not plausible.

Jack
Protecting Americans from what? Having their overseas telephone conversations heard? Frankly I would prefer protecting them from being blown up in the streets.

Here is the thing: a "warrantless" wiretap can NOT be used in a court of law. In that light, what are you worried about? As for the FISA court, it really has ZERO say over what the president does. We already have a court that keeps the president in check; it is called the United States Supreme Court. The FISA court-created in the 70s- does not superscede the USSC. It may be able to judge you and I, but as far as the president is concerned it is a dog without teeth.

You needed proof??
Sheesh, just listening to Pelosi should have told you she does not give a happy damn about the security of this country. Dems do not care - they are busy burning tributes on the alter of recession; praying for more doom and destruction anywhere so they can blame the current administration; hoping that they can find any act to prove their worth; and even dipping down to sports trials in congress to prove they are on top of everything. MLB investigations -- phew, I feel better. Time to throw those democrat bums out and try to get someone who at least cares about the security of this country. At least we know that anyone with a D does not care.

Re: Constitution 101
"Opposite this is the authoritarian position, which advocates the ceding of all civil liberties so that a powerful central government can wage endless 'wars' against abstract concepts."

A smoking funeral pyre in Lower Manhattan is hardly an "abstract concept". The reason men institute governments is to secure the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (Property).

The Preamble of our Constitution states the case for National Security very plainly, to wit:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution
for the United States of America."

The first War fought under this Constitution was against Islamic raghead terrorists who were pirating our commerical vessels, killing and enslaving our citizens, and stealing their property. Unlike the current crop of terroristic ragheads, their 18th Century counterparts didn't attack our shores, nor did they declare war on us for being the "Great Satan". Yet we waged war on these terrorists in their homeland and even physically supporting the ouster of their 18th Century Saddam equivalent dictator.

There is nothing abstract about murder, and our Bill of Rights was never intended to serve as "license" for foreign terrorists and their treasonous US resident accomplices to plot their narfarious deeds covered by a Constitutional "blanket of privacy". I believe if you check you will not find the word "privacy" anywhere in our Constitution.

Civil liberties
Lets assume those mean republicans want to spy on you.

Since FISA only applies to Foreign entities, they have to get Al Qaeda to call you. HA!

Then assuming they do that(or Osama dials your number by mistake) they hear you say you have a some C4 and cocaine that you need to sell.

The justice department will tell them to take a walk off a pier. Why? Because Osama is the one the wiretap was authorized for.

Of course Osama could just walk into a Walmart and grab a trac phone and Jack and others require we go back to the judges, because its important to safeguard the privacy of whomever Osama is calling.

Of course when you discover they listened to your conversation you go get a lawyer and sue Cingular for 50 million dollars for invading your privacy.

The telecom loses money and other telecoms stocks drop, costing retirees who are invested in them money. But hey they should depend on government, not private business right!

The telecom decides not to cooperate anymore as it is too costly so they wait for a court order for EACH wiretap.

Al Qaeda sends the DNC a gift basket.

As a last word, the TRIAL LAWYERS are ensuring the telecoms do not have immunity. Any belief this is some kind of principle with the Democrats is a hallucination.

Jack
I don't get this "more important than protecting American lives" thing.

Bush isn't threatening to stop the wiretapping. He's explaining that without immunity, the telecoms will stop cooperating in it. He has no power to force them to cooperate.

Bush is making no threats that he won't protect American lives. He's pointing out, correctly, that without the cooperation of the telecoms, the effectiveness of electronic surveillance will be considerably diminished. If Bush could force the telecoms to cooperate, in spite of the certainty of being subject to lawsuits, we would have something different to argue over. But he can't.

David M
Well said!!

SV, Its Simple
Bush specifically said that he would veto the Bill if it did not contain the retroactive immunity provision. This has nothing to do with getting the telecoms to cooperate. He wants immunity for them for things they have already done.

If he wanted immunity going forward, he could get it. But he doesn't. Your argument might make a wee bit of sense if it weren't for one fact. The guy who worked for a telecom company blew the whistle. The Bush administration was eavesdropping on conversations without regard to where they initiated or who participated.

So we have a whistle blower. We have a president who would rather not have the power to monitor electronic communication at all than to have his previous eavesdropping exposed.

Oh nop. Nothing worry about here. Just move along folks.




Security vs. privacy

Is Bush uses scare tactics to railroad spying act?

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/our-view-on-securi ty-vs-privacy

David M
You are conveniently forgetting that the NSA is copying every email and phone call through that splitter at AT&T's office on Folsom Street in San Francisco; and, that started BEFORE 9/11.

You are ignoring that Bush always had the power to eavesdrop on any foreign communication; and, could include US citizens with a warrant based on probable cause.

You forget that if Bush had given the telecoms a legal request in the first place, there wouldn't be any issue about immunity. Qwest knew the 'request' wasn't grounded in law and didn't cave in. The reason Bush is pushing this, is trying to protect his backside from his own criminality.

The question for you, is why are you such a scaredy-cat, that you would trash our Bill of Rights for the illusion of security?

trashing bill of rights
Its not shredding anything, its *unreasonable* search and seizures.

So by your logic if I am a cop and following a suspect and I see him start talking to someone I haven't seen before I should drive back to the station and get permission before I listen in?

Don't be ridiculous. If anyone is the scaredy-cat its the naysayers who think Bush is coming after them with Black helicopters.

David...em

If it was "reasonable", no harm done. But Bush does not want anyone to be able to determine whether it was reasonable. He wants to eliminate any sccrutiny of the program at all.

It seems far more likely that he wants immunity to protect what he and others know damn well was illegal.

Re: Hysterical Historians
"NONSENSE - the military WAS WARNED by intelligence agencies NOT TO REFUEL in Sudan (the Cole) - and General Zinni ignored the warning. - Blame the Military for those deaths - not US intelligence."

NONSENSE - Using YEMEN (not Sudan, although Federal Judge allowed the Sudanese government to be sued in a civil suit involving the 17 KIA USS Cole sailor's families as the al Qaeda terrorists involved hailed from there) as a refueling point was a political decision, not a military one. I don't particularly care for General Zinni but don't blame him for a decision that had been forced on him by the Clinton's State Department.

As for pre-attack intel that al Qaeda was targeting US warships in Yemen, it took US intel services, including the FBI, many months after the incident to even confidently state that al Qaeda was even involved.

Amanda Duct-Taped Her House
Reaganite: On ECHELON and screaming
I'm no liberal. I wasn't aware that protecting our Constitution is a liberal position.

Like many conservatives, I was outraged by what was revealed about the invasion of privacy due to ECHELON during the Clinton years. BTW, do you think the NSA has shut it down during the Bush administration?
-----------------------------
I'm with you there, too. If the telecoms broke the law, we need to break them. If Bush broke the law, he needs to go to prison. No man is above the law, and no man is beyond its protection, remember?

I'm an old-line conservative: "Love your country; fear your government."

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.
-- George Washington (disputed)

In 1913 the "income tax" amendment
was sold as a necessary accomodation to real world exigencies, egg-headed philosophical arguments be damned. Though it technically eviscerated the concept that a free man owns his labor, main street was promised that only those Wall Street fat cats would be subject to takings. Of course such assurances amounted to nothing more than Big Government's foot in the door.

Not that there is a parallel . . .

Security
Wow all this for just security of this country.
I agree with Jack where in the Constitution do you find the word Privacy.

You have a SSN and a Drivers license , credit cards that has your name and address on them and you hand them to people you dont even no when you buy something or enter areas where ID is required.

These items allow people to steal your identity anytime and you think that you have PRIVACY now.

BULL HOCKEY

You just dont want a REP President to tell you what to do. But the Clintons sure had all of your info and you didnt care.

This isnt about your Privacy its about a REP President trying to do the right thing and all you will ever do is whine and complain anyway.

So quit your whining and just waste the taxpayers money on investigating STEROID cases with people we rely on for our ENTERTAINMENT and be happy that your ARSES havent been blown up lately.

Harry Reid, WE HAVE STOPPED THE PATRIAT ACT.
THE WAR IS LOST, THE SURGE ISNT AND WILL NEVER WORK. Why dont we have the right to call people like this UNPATRIATIC when the words out of their mouths is that we need to give TERRORIST Combatants the same rights that you are screaming about today.

What a shame this country has become.

You can monitor all my calls if you want because I have NOTHING TO HIDE or be ASHAME OF

No, Jack
I haven't forgotten any of it. Retroactive immunity is as important as anything else. The statement that Bush could easily get immunity for future acts is unproven, and also irrelevant, since prosecution for prior acts would (a) be legally disjunctive with immunity for the same future acts, and (b) function just as effectively to persuade the telecoms to stop cooperating.

I realize you will probably refuse to understand this, but it is not possible to identify terrorist communications on disposable cell phones by waiting to tap until you're sure that a specific terrorist talks on a particular phone. It is not possible. I can't say it any more plainly than that. It is NOT POSSIBLE.

Your description of "eavesdropping on conversations without regard to where they initiated or who participated" is called target development in the intelligence community. Eavesdropping doesn't continue past the point of determining that a conversation is not of interest. If this were being done with surveillance of hand-held radios, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It is only a political hot potato because it involves telephones and email, communication methods in which the contacts between parties are routed through switching/relay centers. It's the switching/relay centers that have become the issue.

If you insist that there be no transitory sampling of phone calls, then you ipso facto insist that we not try to intercept the communications of terrorists.

I prefer that we institutionalize a method of supervision over such "target development" when it comes to the phone calls of Americans, so that there is an accountable process for reviewing what has been done. Neither the 1978 FISA provisions nor our litigation process function in that manner. They do not protect our rights while allowing effective surveillance; all they do is shut down effective surveillance.

David M & trashing
Your example omits the fact that FISA permits immediate wiretapping, with a warrant to follow within 72 hours. That would save you the trip back to the station; and, it involves a second branch involvement to watch for any abuse of the system.

Maybe you missed this AP story from 2 days ago, "WASHINGTON (AP) — A plan to use U.S. spy satellites for domestic security and law-enforcement missions is moving forward after being delayed for months because of privacy and civil liberties concerns.

The charter and legal framework for an office within the Homeland Security Department that would use overhead and mapping imagery from existing satellites is in the final stage of completion, according to a department official who requested anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly about it."

And, did you also miss the story about how Customs officials will copy all your files from your laptop and cellphone contacts when you return to the US from abroad? Are you a citizen with God-given inalienable rights or a suspect having to prove yourself innocent?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/02/11/laptop.searches/index. html

King LIB
What did the 9/11 Commission state. TEAR THAT INTEL WALL DOWN MR PRESIDENT because without the INTEL Departments connecting the Dots we cannot protect this country. They also stated that the Terrorist have been at war with us for how LONG?

But we (BILL CLINTON) didnt recognise it because of the WALL that he and Gerelich built for what.

YOUR PRIVACY, and what did that get us.


BOMBED/ATTACKED by the same people that you LIBS defend today with this Privacy BS.

You have no rights to anything if your ARSE is dead. Hell they even have a DEATHTAX for your ARSE. So dying doesnt pay either huh ,but at least i can say that I feel safe at home now that they are investigating them TERRORIST STEROID USERS

Idiots and cowards
I am so tired of trying to point out fact on this insiped website. Read the CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS before you spout the BUSH verse and text. It is illegal to spy on United States citizens without a warrent and probable cause. If the government has any CAUSE to tap a phone, they should demonstrate such cause. In these cases, there has been no proof, no showing of cause to monitor ALL email, web, and phone calls of ALL americans. Those telecoms who have violated the 4th ammendment have in fact broken the law. If not, why then would they need immunity???? The only reason that Bush and the senate are hot to trot for immunity is very simple. They have something to hide. Should these cases go forward, the Telecoms and the BUsh administration will have to PROVE that they had reasonable and probable cause to spy on YOU, ME, your mother, father, anyone and everyone. Nice to see socalled conservatives who claim to be for LESS GOVERNMENT, be willing to give up thier 4th ammendment rights to BIG GOVERNMENT and big business. "If telecoms dont get immunity they might not help us break the law."

ML DOGGIE
Ohhhh now you want to push the ABLE DANGER theme huh, Well you LIBS didnt want to hear about the INTEL where they also told PRES Clinton about OBL and where he was at so we could take him out. Rememer Clinton was on the Golf course and didnt want to be disturb. What a joke for you to bring up ABLE Danger when your DRIVE BY MEDIA blasted them for trying to say they were lieing about the PRES CLINTON warnings of AQ and OBL where abouts.

Please try and blame the correct people next time for as I know you are a LIB and its hard for you to not lie about these things. We on TH no you also and you can bring up some WHOOPERS.

How can you expect
the current gang of leftist, LSD 60's burnouts who got themselve elected by their same 60's burnout compatriots, and re elected by the same one plus the indoctrinated children by the academics who also are relics of the 60's to understand we are at war with people who will give no quarter and rousing verses of Kumbayah just won't impress them. The useful idiots have taken control of our government, and intelligence is as foreign to them having the i.q.'s of dead iquana's as the U.S. Constitution is to them.

re: Chuck's King Lib
I feel your pain that East Germany no longer exists, because that is where you could feel safe at home and free of any pesky freedoms and liberties.

Now, for extra credit, what was Patrick Henry extolling back in his day?

What are They Thinking?
The problem is: The liberal Democrats really don't think there is a war against radical Islam. They do not believe that radical Islam is a threat to our country. These liberal elites believe that right wing Christians and Evangelicals are a bigger threat to peace than radical Islam, these atheists and agnostics see Islam as a religion of peace to be tolerated and negotiated with. Many of them are convinced that the Bush Admin was behind 911, they are just afraid to state it too publicaly. They truly believe the war in Iraq is a war for oil to benefit Cheney and Halliburtin. The liberal Dems are NOT anti-American, they do not hate the military. They are honestly convinced the war on terrorism is a Neo-con invention and when the Neo-cons are out of power, the World will return to a peaceful coexistence with those mis-understood Islamists.

The Cognressional dems are not passing the FISA updates, not because of politics, but because deep in their minds they see no threat out there that we need protection from. If these liberal Dems gain the Whitehouse and enlarge control of Congress, their lack of understanding of the threats facing the Western World will result in untold violence in the next 4-6 years as radical Islam accelerates their Jihad offensive. Just look at the situation in Europe where like-minded socialists continue to bend to Islamist demands and abandon their own traditions to accommodate their Muslim populations. I wonder just what it will take to make these "blind" people understand that there is a real World War in progress.

The ignorant public
Democrat leftists know that nobody in the USA , except for Talk Radio , bloggers, and some junkies know what FISA is. Nan knows the public is uninformed and ignorant of what surveillance is on our enemy, the Islamofascists. The Dems keep talking about domestic spying which it is not. These Dems are Quislings and traitors and the public needs to flood their offices and phones with complaints. John McCain should speak out as should the President naming Democrats who are making our nation unsafe.

The real enemy is the christo-fascists
The christo-fascists want to use the government to keep tabs on everyone in the US.

Not allowing Big Brother to spy on us is a good thing. Anyone who disagrees just wants the Ministry of Love to be implemented.

How's that for taking away the "moral high ground" from the christo-fascists and perfectly imitating their shrill rabid hysteria over the muslims? Yes, they're just terrified of muslims and want to murder them. It's got nothing to do with "islamofascism". It's about establish a global christian hedgemony.

The paulists are beginning to crawl out

after being in hiding for the past few weeks...

knight_of_bawaa
Please go and take your meds immediately then get back to me with some proof of that grand conspiracy theory you got going there.

Charles Barkley
said today, "...whenever I hear the word 'conservative,' it makes me sick to my stomach. They are fake Christians. They have done horrible damage to America."

Why'd he say that?

-America comes first

McCain/Obama

country before party
He said that because for one liberalism is like a disease and is spreading and for two he never was the brightest crayon in the box.

knight of baloney
Same song, thousandth verse. Get a life. ditto
Lolo1.

Boehner: Too little too late. Such a show, walking out. Well as far as we are concerned the Republicans walked out the day Jorge was sworn in. where were you in 2001, 2002,2003, 2004 and especially 2005, 2006 (thats easy AWOL, since you didn't listen to the people who hired you in '94)2007. 2008 election year, running scared because the taken for granted base is mutinying so you make a shallow show of nothing but a lot of wind coming from a gaggle of overpaid, privileged gasbags. Start earning you percs and money and instead of showing loyalty to a presidential wolf in sheeps clothing who never saw a liberal he didn't love;
or an illegal invader and start showing loyalty to the Constitution and the country you swore to protect and defend. As Renaldo Magnus often said, it's not going to be the base trusting
blindly; we will trust but we will verify.

Lolo1
I asked because I thought Barkley was a Republican. And I thought he'd written a book excoriating both parties in the past.

So what gives now, to make him see Republicans in a different light? Is it because conservatives and Republicans are now mutually exclusive?

-America comes first

McCain/Obama

Tea Party
I see where you coming from and to an extent I agree with you. But bear in mind there is a reason they called Delay the Hammer! If they didn't go a long to a great extent Hassert and Delay would see to it that nothing they ever did would reach the floor for a vote or even make committee. You must know how the game of politics is played and that it is not the same as government or diplomacy either. All three are separate.

Really politics is just a pretty word for blackmail.

country before party
To my knowledge he has never been a Republican let alone a conservative. Even so, his wallet depends upon what is the most media friendly expedient thing to say. He isn't the first to talk out both sides of his mouth nor will he be the last.

SV
Maybe this is the key

"Your description of "eavesdropping on conversations without regard to where they initiated or who participated" is called target development in the intelligence community."

How nice for them. So that means I should allow the government to monitor everything I say or do? If that's the case then I want the Bush administration to come out, SAY THAT, and field the response. They are not doing that. In fact they are trying to obscure the process and its outcomes.

If we were actually engaged in resolving the issue, things would be different. If the question was "how do we identify terror threats in the current technological environment?" things might be different.

But we aren't. And one bit of evidence to support that contention is the current dispute. It doesn't fit the scenario you describe. If Bush is asking for the right to do transitory sampling of all electronic communications, and that is what was happening in San Francisco, then he should just tell us that. Lay out the case. Ask the people if they are willing to accept his ends versus means equation.












Truly Sad
It is truly sad that the President's fearmongering have mad so many people so willing to ignore the Constitution and give up our basic rights to privacy. And the same people who are OK with this are the ones usually complaining about government interfering in our lives.

If my neighbor is talking to someone in foreign countries about blowing up buildings or other acts of terrorism, I absolutely want the government to be able to monitor those calls, obtain warrants wherever necessary and arrest the responsible people. They still have the power to do that. The reason why Bush wants telecom immunity is because he knows that he was asking for more from them than that. The AT&T whistleblower said that every single piece of information was being gathered and passed on to the government. It was not just foreign to domestic calls and vice versa and had nothing to do with probable cause. Information on every call you made was being passed on to the government. It is not being paranoid or unpatriotic to say that that is completely wrong, illegal and unconstitutional. And it is completely accurate in this case to say that Bush's pledge to veto any bill that does not contain telecom immunity shows that he is more concerned about the telecoms than about the security of our country and our people. This is the guy who is supposedly fighting the war on terror. He is what we should all be fearful of!

I'm guessing most of the people on this board are not going to be so happy when Hillary or Barack are in the White House and have this kind of power.

Contemptable Traitors
I wrote my ugly wart-hog of a Stalinist traitor congressman (Henry Waxman) to express my total contempt for the entire Democratic Party. All the conservatives considering not voting or casting a protest vote for Obama should consider that a vote for ANY Democrat for ANY office, no matter how local or minor, is a vote of sympathy and support for the terrorists. The next leftie that snivels about gun control to me is going to get a hot response which will include asking why they want to disarm our own citizens at the same time they are opening our borders and shutting down our intelligence capability.

badgerboys world
"the President's fearmongering have mad so many people so willing to ignore the Constitution"

How are those blinders? Comfortable?

"And it is completely accurate in this case to say that Bush's pledge to veto any bill that does not contain telecom immunity shows that he is more concerned about the telecoms than about the security of our country and our people."

Let me help you with that:
"The democrats pledge to remove telecom immunity from the bill shows they are more concerned with their trial lawyer donors than about the security of our country and our people"

The real fearmongers are the people in here crying civil liberties left and right.

I would love just ONE of you to give me a step by step of what Bush will do in the next eleven months with FISA. Just tell me what he will do to violate your liberties.


DavidM
If you so sure Bush is not going to do anything to violate civil liberties, what to you need an immunity bill for?

A law to allow some other entity to possibly break the law?

So-called "Conservatives" seem to have a lot of trust in the executive branch of government all of the sudden, and no need for checks and balances.

If phone companies have broken the law, the courts should rule on that.


DavidM
"Just tell me what he will do to violate your liberties."

I don't know. That's what scares me.

Misleading title, FISA is unaffected....
The Protect America Act expires. The FISA court will still be in operation and all currently open cases remain open for the next year.

The Protect America Act:
-allows the Attorney General (AG) to issue program warrants for international calls without court review. The secret intelligence court that has been overseeing such activities for the last thirty years (FISA court)is cut out of the process, leaving the executive branch unchecked.
-allows the government to pick up all international communications where one party is in the United States, so long as no one particular person in the U.S. is being “targeted.” Who ever holds the administration is allowed to decide how to collect, store, datamine and use Americans’ private communications swept up in this; — it does not require the AG to explain how it treats Americans’ calls or emails when they are intercepted. The court (FISA court) will have no information about how extensive the breach of American privacy is, nor the authority to remedy it.
-requires the AG to report to the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees twice a year. But those reports will only contain information about activity in violation of the AG’s (i.e.Administration policy)own secret guidelines about targeting foreigners over seas.

It is not about giving telcoms immunity (i.e. excessive litigation as some seem to think). It is a blatant attempt to consolidate power at the expense of separation of powers.

Hey, there's Annie the hypocrite
Hi Annie. Still spewing your hatred, I see.

Tea Baloney
Yeah, you christo-fascists have sung the same tune for a while now. Too bad that you're just trying to grab power for yourselves. Rather transparent, too.

Now then: the muslims are not coming to kill you. They just don't want us messing with their countries. You don't go around beating on hornets' nests, do you? Oh wait, you do. That explains things.

Lolo1
Please go and take your meds immediately then get back to me with some proof of that grand conspiracy theory you got going there.

Thanks
Knight, you have proven my point.

Not coming to kill me, well I happen to be a native of southern Mass. A very fine man and a young mother were natives or married to a native of my County seat, a mere 7 miles from myhome town. They died in those planes on 9-11. And
a cousin survived one of the Towers. And guess what? The killers were MUSLIMS..got that?

call me names all you want. I feel sorry for
someone who is so bitter and angry that you have to resort to childish names calling. Grow up.
I will not apologize for my Christian belief,
Christ spoke of scoffers. The scripture also says professing themselve wise they have become fools..shoe fit?

Misleading
This article is misleading. FISA is not about to expire. What is about to expire is the Protect America Act of 2007, which amended FISA to allow warrantless eavesdropping on American citizens. If you need evidence of this, refer to the last sentence of the article: "The law will automatically revert to a previous version that requires the government to prove probable cause of terrorist communication before communications may be monitored."

But even that is misleading, because it implies (by omission) that under the previous version of FISA, the government will need to obtain a warrant to eavesdrop on foreign-to-foreign communications. This is not true. FISA -- a tool that for decades has served well the surveillance needs of four presidents -- has always allowed warrantless eavesdropping of foreign-to-foreign communications. When the PAA expires, the "new-old" FISA will only require a warrant when eavesdropping on Americans, which is as it should be.

Do Dems care about national security?
Why does this country need any type of Surveillance program at all? It's Bush's war right. Once President Bush is out of office, the terrorist around the world will cease to attack us. The message is bound to get out that the Democrats are totally against protecting companies that aid in the defense of this country. With the Survelliance program expiring on the 15, lawyers can once again place their phones calls abroad, to their terrorist clients without being monitored. Did American's think that it was just foreigners who didn't like the Surveillance program. We have many American's who hate this country, not only because they were born here, but seeks to help those who wants to kill American's. We have one Democrat who wants to be President who voted against the FISA law. Does Obama right a bell. Hillary on the other hand didn't even bother to show up to vote. I guess national security isn't big on the Democrats campaign pladges to protect this country from terrorist abroad.

You Dems crack me up
So we CAN'T trust the government to eavesdrop on calls made from/to foreign citizens because we might accidentally listen in on a citizen.

On the other hand we CAN trust the government with our health care, kids education and our retirement.

The irony is staggering.

Lolo1
What I'm talking about is the fact that these people came in on a conservative wagon and jumped off as soon as the compassionate conservative showed his colors. What they were doing, in effect is keeping their job security.
What I believe conservatism is, is a set of values and principles that cannot be swayed.
What really caused the wagon to lose it's wheels was the stupid big tent whoop de doo, inviting everyone and their uncle to come in and then
what we have are a bunch of demonRats who switched, not because they have the same philosophy as conservatives but because they saw it as a way to keep the job, and the percs and money flowing. So now we have a bunch of arrogant RINO's and CINO's whose mascot is a
ninnyhammer stealing what we fought so hard to attain.

King Liberal wants YOU to protect these
people...

http://videogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/Video.aspx?s=5&vid=2107

I can only hope KL are being taped and monitored by Home security...

I will enjoy serving as witness to your ececution :)

What if something happens
A case can be made that Clinton is not responsible for his action that contributed to 9-11.

If anything happens because of Pelosi's inaction, there will be nothing that could be said in Congress's defense.

http://theotherside.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/15/did_i_mean_ it.thtml

For Jack
"Then why did Bush refuse to sign the billl if it did NOT protect the phone companies?"

Without immunity from civil suits the phone companies could cooperate with the surveillance program. Without the phone companies the program can't function.

The legal/financial protection of the phone companies is necessary tot eh physical protection of the people.

The way the program works
Foreign intelligence surveilance is screened by computers that monitor phone calls to and from phone numbers that are suspected to belong to terrorists.

If a domestic number is in contact with a suspect number more than a few times the domestic number is targeted for eavesdropping. If it turns out to be nothing to do with terrorism the number is dropped from the program.

There are no instances of agents choosing phone numbersat at random until they find a suspicious conversation.

We would not have these kinds of mass misunderstandings of the program if we had an objective media. Instead we have a leftist media that is quite content to let the public wrongly think Big Brother is watching/listening as long as Big Brother is a Republican.

Can anyone direct me to some stats
On Al Quaeda et. al.? I'm curious to learn their estimated membership, financial resources, weapons and sister organizations.

Seems like much ado over an enemy that boasts neither navy nor air force.

Please also walk me through the logic of proclaiming a state of war against a mobile foe like "terror" while not securing one's one ports and borders.

Do You GWB Supporters Realize
Fear is exactly how Adolph Hitler became a Sociopathic Dictator. He convinced the German People that they were in danger and piece by piece he removed their Civil Liberties all in the Name of Security From an Enemy. Now are we Americans the Fathers of Freedom going to allow the fear of "Maybe" another attack be the catalyst that errodes our Constitution which will lead to abuse of power(always does Its Human Nature) and loss of our Freedoms protected by the Constitution!!!!!!!! Forget the rhetoric, Read the history books and then decide if giving up this protection is really what we should do!!!

Thanks Tea Party: you proved my point
Guess what: the muslims aren't trying to kill you. If the US government would just stop whacking the hornet's nest, there would be far fewer attacks.

I know that it's hard for you to believe that the federal government actually can do something wrong, but that's reality.

And hate the muslims all you want. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love you enemy as yourself. Or did you forget about that? Yeah, you did. Some christian you are.

Does anyboyd remember
All of the "terror alerts" that the bush
Administration issued in the final days before the election?

Does anybody remember that there was never another one in the days that followed his election to the throne?

uh oh
Countdown...1 hour and thirty minutes until the end of the world- i.e., when the FISA bill expires and the terrorists will begin attacking us. I've already taken all my money out of the bank, and I've got my looting shoes ready to go- after a massive terrorist attack there will be a whole lot of good stuff to loot.

cheers to the end of the world

Boo!
Happy Halloween!


DavidM
"You Dems crack me up.

So we CAN'T trust the government to eavesdrop on calls made from/to foreign citizens because we might accidentally listen in on a citizen.

On the other hand we CAN trust the government with our health care, kids education and our retirement.

The irony is staggering."

You raise an excellent point, but I expect inconsistency from liberals. You, however, are being just as inconsistent yourself.

And there is a reason for this. The neocons are actually liberals in sheeps clothing. They love big government, but they only care about foreign policy. And for some reason, people who are in every other way conservative have fallen for their bait.

The only truly consistent postition is to be wary of any government period -- particularly when the executive tries to avoid a judicial check by pushing for a law to allow someone to break the law.

If the phone companies are breaking the law, the courts should rule on that.

It will stop
The terrorist attacks will stop once Bush is out of office. There were none before he came in, except for a few mere sticks here and there mainly against the military, but that's no big deal. It would be a complete waste of time and money spying on Al Qaeda, they wouldn't harm anyone. They were prodded into the attacks. If we leave them alone or at least give them whatever they want they will go away. If anything don't spy on them and let's see what they do, then we will find out if we can trust them.

Blake
Excellent point. On this issue, it's the progressives that think the government should be limited, and the conservatives that trust it to do what's right.

Was that Bizarro that just flew by?

Protect America Act
The bottom line on this bill is to protect the interests of huge telecommunication corporations -and that is what Bush is actually good at, making sure that these corporations do not have any legal trouble. Because it won't happen now, but it will happen when congressional oversight is looking into the possibility of abuse of civil liberties that this bill fostered and the telecoms corps. want their butts covered.

To sell it so the public gets on board, it is linked directly to terrorism and 9/11 causing fear which essentially will result in people towing the line for whatever tactic is laid in front of them, i.e., Protect America Act.

Maverick
So anything the President says he has to do to protect the country is OK with you, right? That's like the old Nixon rationale-if the President does something it is not illegal.

I want the telecoms to help protect the country as long as they do it legally. If the President asks them to do something that is illegal or unconstitutional, they have a duty to say no. That's what Qwest did and they have lost out on government contracts ever since. Why would Bush make such a big deal about telecom immunity if they did nothing wrong? He knows that he asked them to provide illegal information and he does not want any of the lawsuits against them to go to trial where the truth will come out.

The conservatives on this board have proven themselves to be just as hypocritical as Bush. You talk about being patriots and your great love of this country but you really only care about your party and your ideology.

Don't forget Moussaoui
If you want to know how much Bush cares about FISA, look into the case of the Moussaoui laptop.

I will remind you, and all of this is very well documented by testimony (not covered in the report) before the 9-11 commission: FBI field agents were screaming at their superiors to allow them to look into Moussaoui's laptop. David Frasca, from the OBL unit and later promoted by Bush, refused to allow them to use FISA to investigate the computer. They applied anyway, and Frasca pulled the application and had them reprimanded.

The application was a slam-dunk because intel from France, literally, implicated Moussaoui as a foreign agent.

This has been very widely discussed, because Colleen Rowley was named by Time magazine as Woman of the year, because of her "whistle-blowing". But why did orders come, repeatedly, from the highest levels in Washington to NOT investigate that computer? And why was that man promoted for allowing the 9-11 operation to continue, essentially?

I am only asking because I am skeptical of the Bush administrations claim they want to protect us.

Bush double talk & fear mongering
Bush would rather protect the TelComs for their illegal actions at the behest of the Gov than protect the American Citizens?

Bush says the evil doers are plotting RIGHT now to GET US, get us GOOD, with their evil doing. We need this bill (with TelCom immunity, amnesty and protection for breaking the law) to save Americans.

Than BUSH says I'll veto it if you don't pass it just Like I want. Not passing it will endanger America. Really? So Bush will veto it to protect the TelComs and throw the people's safety under the bus?

WELL BUSH IS NOT THAT DUMB!!!! You heard it hear first. The fact is the FISA bill expiring has NO REAL AFFECT on surveillance near term, except for the TelComs Legal stones are hanging out. Many features of the bill go on for a YEAR. Current CIA and former CIA chiefs say their ability to do surveillance, the most important and needed surveillance (not reading our emails and tapping our phone calls to our wife or kids) is NOT AFFECTED. Bush knows this and why he can be such a JERK. That is why the GOP is making political hey with it.

Bush uses signing statements and veto to throw his little temper tantrums and strong arm the Congress.

The BIG NEWS was NOT the GOP'ers doing their staged walk out with lapdog Boehner in the front of the pack, lock stepping with noses firmly planted in each others ***. THE BIG NEWS IS THE DEMS, WE'RE NOT Bullied.

AT&T tapped ALL communications, domestic and international. Verizon also broak the law. They need to pay, be made an example of. The other TelComs held their ground (or their lawyers did) and told the Gov to GET the proper legal paper work. GOOD FOR THEM. We'er a contry of laws, not an Imperial King President, even during the "WAR ON TERROR". Bush is the biggest terrorist of all.

Why would they want to spy?
Every despot wants to know what his people are doing and saying behind his backs. Don't forget that it was the Bolshevik politburo that gave over to Stalin, what they thought was the meaningless drudgery of managing the information collection and the police. Soon they were finding out that they had to side with Stalin, because he knew a little fact about them, which could prove embarrassing. Soon, they had to side with him because they were implicated in the murder of the one of their old friends. And next they were accused. Simple story.

Yet, the amazing thing is, our Founding Fathers knew that exactly that would happen, if you allow spying to go on without oversight.

It is only half-truths that are needed to control a human being. And control him absolutely.

I have just one more thing to say:
This fake FISA reauthorization (it has already been pointed out that FISA remains intact without the immunity protection and I have further pointed out that FISA, alone, could have prevented 9-11, through the deliberately stiffling of the investigation into Moussaoui's laptop) this new, unprecedented immunity law, has a secret provision:

I have confirmed this with my elected representative in the House of Representatives, there is a secret provision in this new law that states that in the event of a new terrorist attack......well, nobody knows what that provision is....it is TOP SECRET.

There is a top secret provision which nobody in the House of Representatives even knows what powers are given the President, if there is a serious "attack". I am not kidding about this.

Find out for yourselves, I would be happy to be proved wrong.

Is that something you "conservatives" are happy about?

Blake
No I am not being inconsistent. Limited government does not mean handcuffed and ineffectual.

Protection of its citizenry is THE primary function of government. The fact of life is you will have to give up absolute freedom to enjoy protections from your government.

THe point here however is that the government CANNOT use this to spy on you. No matter how myou spin it this law is still about foreign citizens and not ours.

Conservatism has to do with government's role for OUR citizens.

It's Over Folks.
The Bush Admin is a lame duck outfit. I really don't understand why so many leftisits just continue their obsession with Bush et al. It's over folks, they will be gone in less than a year and, even now, have very little ability to continue any of their dastardly deeds. The most difficult problem will be firing all of those thousands of people required to listen to and read each and every one of our telephone calls and e-mails that they have evidently been up to. But, we can be assured that when Mrs. Clinton assumes office she will set everything right and get that wicked CIA back on the right track; remember she has all of those FBI files tucked away, so what else is necessary. Hey, maybe the trial lawyers can even sue ATT and Verizon right out of business. Yep, that's the ticket. We'll show those capitalist SOB's a thing or two.

I like the Gov't to have to ask
permission for spying on me. Don't forget that the president also wants immunity for the ILLEGAL spying that's already taken place. Ths government is filled with criminals, sadists, and demons of the worst description. I am ashamed to be a Republican if people associate me with this gang of thugs.

Luckily ther are still some reputable names in the party. Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and Fred Thompson to name a few.

These losers in the current administration should have to follow the rules for a change!


Did anyone bother to notice
FISA didn't expire, and won't expire. It wasn't even an issue. The whole issue was the Protect America Act (PAA) that extended FISA to allow for wiretapping without a warrant.

The only thing that changed at midnight is that our intelligence agencies must get a warrant within 72 hours after they start a wiretap. If they aren't willing to go to even that much trouble then it's probably too weak a case to deserve their attention.

Pelosi a Disgrace
That Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House is testament to the sad state of affairs in Congress. This woman couldn't muster 90 IQ points on her best day--she's a political hack and a disgrace to the US. However, if we could harness her eye blinks and valley girl chatter to a generator we might have a renewable source of energy for a mid-sized US city.

A Question
Can somebody explain to me why the Dems in Congress are so totally dedicated to attacking Bush, a lameduck president, at the exclusion of any meaningful legislative activities. I agree that Pelosi is probably the dumbest speaker this country has ever endured, and there have been a lot of stupid politicians in our history. But, that alone does not explain the nearly psychotic dedication the Dems have to destroy Bush before his departure. There must be a hidden agenda here that is not obvious because, these contempt citations and all of the continued focus on destroying Bush appears very irrational.

Maybe hate is just too strong an emotion to overcome with logic!

President G W BULLY
davidm: You're absolutely right. All that transpired at midnight (& LOOK! all you cons out there didn't turn into pumpkins!) is that now the administration must get warrants after they begin wiretapping.

Of course when the Bully President played to the television cameras he tried to pretend he would not have access to wiretapping at all.

Please cons, wake up: If this were a competent president this would not even be an issue. Meaning it's not strictly about "legal" & "illegal" wiretapping in total. It's about a president who rushed us into war with no plan & no sense of the people whose country we were to invade & occupy. It's about a president that indulged personalities like Don Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney & Alberto Gonzales.

I think you get it: Were this a president that demonstrated competancy on a yearly basis, then the warrant/warrentless wiretapping issue would be much less an issue. The fact is, most of the country doesn't trust this guy (look at the polls).

The dem congress was correct to smack him down & make him play by the rules.

To Those Accusing Bush of Fearmongering:
As has been pointed out time and time again, the same whack-job lefties who scream about Bush engaging in "fear-mongering" over the FISA debate are the same "usual suspects" who themselves (from Al Gore on down) have been engaging in fear-mongering over the whole "global warming" baloney, to scare the American public into surrendering control over their lives and becoming slaves to socialism. Notice how some of these libs (i.e. Sheryl Crow and Laurie David) are saying that "for the environment," we should all be essentially living like primitive, unhygienic, anti-social slobs - or, in other words, like dirty, smelly hippies.

Plus quite a few of these Dems, notably Keith Ellison, being essentially out-and-out terror sympathizers (remember which side he took in the "flying imams" case, folks).

retroactive taxes
One of the first actions Bill Clinton did was to retroactively increase taxes back to Jan. 1st. The law clearly states no taxes can be retroactive. If you recall he laughed while doing so.

President Bush should issue an emergency executive order making the FISA change. The democrats will howl like a stuck banshee.
These demn liberals are all to willing to sell the United States out.

Presidential executive order is legal. All of the presidents have used it. Some more than others. If you will recall Clinton would use it when congress would not pass legislation he wanted.

DavidM
So Bush has had information on all of our phone calls compiled by AT&T and others, he refuses to show Congress what the telecoms have done and why they should get immunity and the Protect America Act has no real oversight from anybody. How can you possibly say that this can not be used to spy on Americans?

They admitted sometime last year that mistakes were made and that there were hundreds of instances in which Americans were "accidentally" spied on. But they would not provide any information on exactly what they did and what they were going to do to remedy the problem.

And, Old Progrmmer, I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand. It's not just that Bush is the worst President that this country has ever had. It's that he has repeatedly lied, broken the law and trampled on the Constitution. True Americans should not blindly accept those things because we are fighting a "war on terror". They have more to do with Bush and the other neocons attempts to amass unprecedented amounts of power and subvert our system of checks and balances. Isn't that a big enough issue for you?

Barbie
All I can say is that you truly are disgusting.

If you really want a dictator, then I can understand why you like Bush, but you are still living in the wrong country.

Barbie
All I can say is that you truly are disgusting.

If you really want a dictator, then I can understand why you like Bush, but you are still living in the wrong country.

will
Your whole post is nonsense and you have no idea what your talking about.

Perhaps you should start doing some homework and understand how FISA works up to and including the courts.

Lolo
You can explain to me how I'm wrong.

But I know your posts going back some time now. You can be a nice person (nothing personal), but intellectually, you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Read this and weep, Libs!
All you liberals are infected with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome)! So...how many lawyers does it take to find a kidnapped soldier (i.e. Jimenez in Oct of 2007)? The answer is 0...they can't!

It took 10 hours to obtain a 'warrant' to tap Al Queda after they kidnapped jimenez and three other soldiers! Guess what...they are now dead because of it!

FISA and Patriot Act= McCarthyism
During the 1950s, Senator Joe McCarthy correctly identified dozens of Soviet spies working in sensitive government posts, including several high-ranking Truman Administration officials. So the Democrats went berserk and declared that he was on a "witch-hunt" and was a threat to our liberty, despite the fact that (1) he was right, and (2) he did not attack innocent people (contrary to what the movies tell you).

Once again we face a ruthless and deadly enemy, and once again the Democrats seek to undermine efforts to defend this great nation. They want you to be more afraid of George Bush than you are of al Qaeda, because it benefits them politically, and because they have no clue as to how serious the threat is that we face.

If FISA were really a threat...
Robert Robert would have been assassinated by now.

Jack
Much as I would love for this issue to be actually understood by the public, the president asking us, "Is it OK with you if I wiretap using procedures X, Y, and Z?" would be exactly the same as his announcing the following to terrorists: "You may evade surveillance by arranging to evade measures X, Y, and Z."

The precedent of spelling out surveillance methods to the public is not a wise one to set. The purpose of using the federal warrant procedure in FISA was to provide a means of cross-branch supervision and accountability, WITHOUT laying sources and methods before the public. FISA asks us instead to trust a rotating pool of federal judges to act on our behalf.

Under our technological conditions, phone connections involving parties on US soil may be of interest even though it’s not possible, even afterward, to demonstrate that there was PRIOR probable cause for monitoring them. (Poster wiseone is knowledgeable on this topic, but not fully so, from what I can tell.) Obtaining a warrant post hoc therefore does not apply.

The reason we’re not addressing this in an intelligent manner in public forums is that secrecy is important for the actual intel collection -- the president's perspective -- and his opponents in Congress find that requirement politically convenient. Republicans in Congress share the blame, having either been silent, or having merely reverted to counter-name-calling.

There's also a contingent of people who swear, as John Acton does, that since existing law doesn't constrain the president in this regard (arguable both ways), Congress is acting out of turn anyway, by trying to. I differ from these folks in that, while I don't assume everything the president does must be suspect, I wouldn't be satisfied to let presidents wiretap as modern technology demands, UNSUPERVISED. There must be a check, or outside review of some kind. If existing law doesn't cover that requirement, then make new law, for crying out loud.

Badgerboy, I Still Don't Understand
I agree that I don't understand how anybody could hire and rehire the likes of the incompetent Rumsfield and the "strange" Dick Cheney. But, I still don't understand the importance of dedicating all the time and effort to "punish" a regime that is all but over. What good is amassing power when theose dreadful neocons will be "out on the street" in 10 months time. Just think the evil Rumsfield was fired and we don't hear a thing from the senile old incompetent. What good did all that power do him?

That's why this form of government is so great. Just look at Russia, ol' Putin just steps down from President to Prime Minister where he will hold power for decades. Our Republic is pretty resilient.

However, remember, all of those career diplomats, attornies, Generals and CIA operatives that were there when Bush gained the Presidency and evidently helped operate all thos listening posts and "trample" the Constitution will still be there when Mrs. Clinton assumes office. The Washington establishment changes very little when a new administration arrives. Maybe that's where the real power lies.

cleverness
What freaking planet are you inhabiting?

Joe McCarthy was ANTI-american. He abused power in the worst way. STOP PROPPING UP HIS DEAD ROTTED CORPSE. You people are going to be giving equally repulsive Jerry Falwell a makeover next.

just another good reason
This latest Liberal insanity in weakening the defense of the Republic is just another in a long list driving me to do EVERYTHING I can to assure that my Congressional district is taken back from the Democrats via the election of a true conservative Republican.
I'm not supporting or voting for McVain in Nov 2008, but I'll be even more active than in the past supporting true conservatives for the US House and US Senate!

B.S.
You are full of Republican B.S. They can continue to monitor every American's, Phone Calls, Financial Transactions, Medical Information, Credit Card Purchases, Air Travel, Train Travel, Bus Travel, Express Mail, and soon where and when we go to the Bathroom.
There no longer is PRIVACY in America and you can bet a lot of the information is being used for POLITICAL PURPOSES not National Security.

old progrmr
I understand what you are saying but, unlike many of the Democrats in Congress, I think people should be punished when they do things that are illegal and attempt to undermine our Constitution and government, if only as an attempt to deter others from doing the same things. Future Presidents may be able to look back at the Bush regime and say that he was able to amass a lot of power and pretty much get his way on everything because no one stood up and stopped him. Believe me, I don't want any future Presidents, either Republican or Democrat, to use signing statements to subvert laws passed by Congress or ignore the Hatch Act to solidify their power or anything else Bush is guilty of. But why would any President not look at what is happening now and think that they could do the same things and not get caught?

Charlie
You are a piece of work! The evidence is out there, on this board and others, to show that what Bush is saying about our security being weakened because the House did not pass this reauthorization, is a load of crap. But you blissfully continue along on your way and think that anything Bush does or says is good and true and anything Democrats do and say are are bad and false. WAKE UP!! This doesn't do anything to weaken our defenses-Bush is just lying again! And if you think Bush has done anything to improve the security of this country since he's been in office, you're delusional. He's done more to put us in harm's way than any other President in history.

Waterboarding and Moral Authority
"Moral authority" is just a politically-charged phrase, words that symbolize an attitude or opinion held by a few "intellectual" elitists, UN lovers, and their fawning fellow travelers.

In contrast, deliberately crashing airplanes into buildings filled with thousands of innocent men, women, and children, and slashing throats and burning people alive are REAL!

The Islamo Fascist terrorists are sworn to kill Americans everywhere, and to thrust the world back into the dark ages.

Where's THEIR "moral authority"? What right do THEY have to torture and kill in the name of their god or prophet, or the innocent virgins apparently anxiously waiting for these murderous souls to arrive in their grossly distorted notion of heaven?

Waterboarding is NOT torture. Terrorists walk away with no bruises from waterboarding, no blood spilt, not even limping or feeling pain. Ask any of our prisoners of war, they can tell you what torture really is.

And even if it was torture, the grossest torture, it's much more moral if one murdering terrorist is tortured and thus reveals information that saves even one innocent life!

Our President would be acting IMMORALLY if he did not uphold his sworn duty to protect the American people from international enemies regardless of political pressure from the unthinking extreme left.

If it wasn't for the brave Americans who are willing to stand up to the terrorists, the muddled elitists too would be dead or forever stilled from uttering or writing another word of "moral" protest.

We must FIGHT for our freedoms! The alternative is death, or a living hell.

President Bush and those who work under him kept us safe from terrorism in our homeland for seven years.

Now THAT'S moral authority...

http://mittromney.townhall.com



Fisa law expiration
Everyone's missing the point. The Democrats in the House are now actively aiding terrorists. They need a spectacular attack here before the election to show Bush as a failure. They now actively abet the mass murder of Americans to embarrass Bush. They are traitors.
I have read the intel on Beslan-the school in Russia where schoolchildren were impaled, raped and slaughtered for islamic fun...
If any harm comes to an american because a telecom tech or worker hesitated to pass on info from a terrorist to a colleague here for fear of a lawsuit, I think the House members responsible should be tried and executed for abetting war crimes. Pelosi can rest assured that should harm befall american children due to her inexcusable posturing, no power will save her and her insane appeasing cowardly colleagues from a hangman's noose.

Hello, Big Brutha!
"The House of Representatives left for a full week of President’s Day recess without authorizing a law that permits the government to monitor terrorist communications that will expire Friday night."

It permits the government to monitor EVERYONE'S communications.

Bill NY
I'm afraid the prez has been up to his old lying tricks again.

"It might have something to do with the fact that the lapsing of the Protect America Act (PAA) won't substantially affect things at all. The old FISA law will kick back into effect. And authorizations granted under the PAA in the last six months to wiretap entire terrorist groups will stick for an entire year. In the words of House intelligence committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX), "Things will be fine.""

What the P wants is for Verizon to be able spy on americans when told to by the President with out a warrant and to be immune from prosecution. The Dems have always given the p everything he wanted on spying, they just want warrants.

Now, to be serious, would you want , say a President Hillery to be able to spy on anyone she wanted with no warrants? Not hardly.

COURT OVERSIGHT ? YES!

I thought the republican party was for keeping the government out of your personal life? At least that’s the party I used to be a member of until Evangelicals ran every one else out!

This new FISA bill simply eliminates court oversight when it comes to communications emanating from a foreign country? YEAH RIGHT!

We have all seen how the Bush administration simply destroys documents to cover their tracks. Let’s not forget all of the torture tapes.

Do you really trust big government not to spy on on you or their political opponents?

Kiss confidential communications goodbye!

I, for one, am glad somebody on the Hill has the guts to protect our privacy in the face of this administrations fear mongering.

You want to protect America from terrorists? Get the F’ out of the Middle East! I for one, don’t want my children to have to deal with this for their entire lives too.

FISA non-vote
I'm so glad the Congress has seen fit to investigate baseball players who may, or may not, have used steroids instead of a little thing like reauthorization of FISA! Doesn't it give you a warm feeling about our legislative branch of government that they have their priorities straight?

Disgusted in Michigan,
Richard Brown

PELOSI SHOULD BE IN JAIL
REP. NANCY PELOSI, (D) SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: "The president and the House Republicans refuse to support the extension, and therefore I think should bear the responsibility of any adverse national security consequences."

Her admission that the law is important enough that, if not in effect, will cause "adverse national security consequences" means that she is intentionally allowing her perverse partisan attitudes to put this Nation at risk in direct violation of her oath of office. She is intentionally allowing this country to be exposed to terrorist threat when, with the death of a prominent Hezbollah leader, an imminent attack has been threatened. She placed her party above the United States, so she is unfit for office. Every democrat, including Obama & Clinton, should be questioned as to where they stand, so we all know where the democrats true allegiance lies. Is their quest and retention of power more important than the safety and security of this country?
As far as I am concerned, she should be found wherever she is vacationing, and then put in jail for treason.

Andrew1218 should be in jail
For treason against individual rights. He supports Big Brother spying on everyone.

2 + 2 = 4, Andrew, despite what the Ministry of Love has broken you to believe. And we haven't always been at war with mideastasia, despite what the Ministry of Truth tells you.

Andrew1218: You're spot on!
.

so much lies about this
1. FISA is AND HAS ALWAYS been under judicial review. Period.

2. The government STILL has to get a court order when the wiretap happens within the United States. They simply do not have to get one for foreign sources.

3. Congress can subpeona ANY telecom at any time they wish, badgerboy. The immunity is from LAWSUITS.

4. Calling the previous wiretapping 'illegal' implies Bush and the DOJ were out to break the law. They interpreted the law one way, and it was interpreted differently by a Federal court.

You BDS sufferers can stop making these points, they are all FALSE.

David
How are we to know if they came from foreign or domestic sources? They can just claim that all surveillance was done on foreign sources, and destroy the evidence as they go.

Worked for them with the torture tapes and they simply waited and destroyed them en masse.

DavidM
You do not seem to want to address why the phone companies need immunity.

I have no idea what your earlier response had to do with my post.

I did not argue for absolute freedom or to handcuff the executive.

I addressed a single issue, the immunity provision -- a law to allow others to break the law.

If the courts agree with your analysis regarding the phone companies so be it.

If the phone companies are breaking the law, the courts should rule on that.

I agree with you that Conservatives are for a strong national defense, but I find it hard to envision Madison whooping it up over an immunity law, a law to nullify judicial oversight of private companies (and for all practical purposes the executive.) It is not clear, for example, that it is illegal for the executive to ask a company for cooperation even tough it may be illegal for the company to cooperate. So the judicial oversight of the company prevents the executive from using a loophole to avoid judicial oversight.

I am open to persuasion on this matter because it was the Democrats who blocked it.

However, in the area of foreign affairs, so many Republicans have been chugging down the neocon cocktail juice lately that I trust very little of what they say anymore.

And David
Bush hasn't interpreted Jack squat. I'm pretty sure the guy can't even read. Uncle Dick knowingly broke the law. He knew it all too well as a member of the Nixon administration. It was because of crooks like him the law was written.


FISA wil not expire at midnight!
Thank god! It will remain in tact as it was intended. To prevent people like Nixon and Cheney from spying on political foes.

Can't wait to hear the indictments come down against these crooks in '09.

Then we can resume democracy as the founders intended.








Knight of Babble--I loved 1984, too!!
I will try this again. Babble, I enjoyed "1984" as well, but after I was done reading it, I went back to the real world. I suggest you do the same. ("Brave New World" was good as well)

Pelosi admitted that this legislation has a direct impact on National security. Rather than allowing this to come to a debate or vote, congress chose to harass a baseball player, who may have made a mistake in judgment. Then they decided to go on vacation. We have drugs pouring over the border going straight to our schools, and they are worried about a baseball player who may have taken a hormone to extend his career. if they are unwilling to act in a timely manner to issues of National security, then what is the point of congress?
It's like Nero playing the violin as Rome burned.
The lesson of "1984" is to question everything, especially the left because they gave us communism, Stalin and the USSR.
Pelosi inadvertently admitted her tru agenda. Sacrifice the country for her own political gain.

DavidM
So if I interpret the property line as meaning I own my neighbor's house, and run him out, is that OK too? When the cops show up, should I tell them, "Hey, the courts interpret it one way, I interpret it another. Now please leave, you're on my property."?

Will
I live on the panet where facts trump slander. According to declassified documents on both side of the Iron Curtain, the people McCarthy identified as spies WERE spies, from Annie Lee Moss to Harry Dexter White to Lauchlan Curry. He did not ruin the career of a single innocent person, despite the protestations of the left.

Please note that McCarthy had nothing to do with the Hollywood Blacklist (that was HUAC and the movie moguls). If you are so sure McCarthy was evil, produce the name of ONE innocent victim whose career was ruined by McCarthy, the way I produced the names of the Soviet spies that were shielded by the liberal establishment.

Frey
I believe DavidM was attempting to use a "mens rea" defense for the wiretaps. In cases where the law is very complex, if you made a good faith effort to understand and obey the law, you cannot be found to have criminal intent, even if it turns out you were wrong. As such, you cannot be convicted, since you did not intend to violate the law.

This is a very rare defense, but it is important to protect people from being convicted because the law is unclear. I know that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", but if the person consulted a lawyer and made a good-faith effort to obey the law, you cannot hold that they intended to commit a crime.

C.O.M.
men rea or not. It is exactly the legal parsing that neo cons decry when they are yammering on about tort reform. Very convenient when it suits them. I have read FISA and it is very clear.

They are crooks and they will be brought to justice in one way or another. It will be a pleasure to watch them squirm.

Unfortunately, digging this country out of the economic and diplomatic quagmire they have created will be painful for at least a generation.

Neither side is right
The Dem's are putting the country at risk, showing preference to the opportunity for their trial lawyer donors - over the safety of the public.

The Bush administration should have fought for the law they wanted/needed so as not to put the telephone companies at risk - if possible in private with full support of the Dem's - if not, by taking their case to the people. The sneaky under the radar stuff is what gives the slippery slope theorists so much ammunition.

Retroactive immunity is a bad precedent, but at this stage it appears the lesser of two evils.

Their Real Objective
All of the posts claiming that the Dems are not harming our security since FISA is still in effect and surveillance will indeed continue are probably correct. But the real issue is the Dems dedication to rewarding their Trial Lawyer friends with a law that will allow endless court cases against ATT and Verizon. The Dems do not wish to harm this country, they just want to reward one of their most powerful special interest groups. The dems are bought and paid for by the Trial Lawyers, the Teacher's Unions, etc. My concern is that sometimes they make decisions based on supporting their Special Interest allies rather than for the good of the country.

Trial Lawyers are the most despicable group in our society and a threat to our economy and free market system. These people are the most selfish among us; they create nothing of value, they only destroy and then pocket huge sums of money by stealing from productive members of our society. Indeed, the trial lawyers may destroy this country from within before Islamic terrorism does. At last Lerach and a few others in this criminal class are being brought to justice. One reason for voting-in a GOP dominated government is the selection of judges who are not "in the pocket" of these crooks, and a government not beholding to this very rich special interest.

If you don't believe me, join me in Charleston, SC and Hilton Head Island and I will provide a guided tour of all of those muti-million dollar beach-front homes owned by Trial Lawyers - not many Corporate CEO's can afford those properties.

Reyes Letter to Hing George
Please read the Letter from Congressman Reyes to King George and identify any FALSEHOODS. That Lies in Bush Speak.

Old P.
When are you guys going to wake up and realize most republican members of Congress are lawyers too? Most politicians in general receive huge amounts of money from these "trial lawyers".


Check it out for yourself:


McCain
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00006424&cy cle=2008

Huckabee
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indus.asp?id=N00007539&cy cle=2008

Where did that term come from anyway, trial lawyer? that's like calling someone who reads a "book reader".

Like gays in the military or gay marriage this is a classic red herring invented by Karl Rove to divide Americans. I can't believe people are still buying it.

That is exactly the reason I am a registered independent today. I like to research the facts and think for myself.

Old P.
Who are you kidding? Most corporate CEO's couldn't afford those homes on the coast?

Your stretching it a bit to make your point. Do your homework and I'll bet their are plenty of CEO's living in those homes.

I live in the Northwest and I can tell you most of the beautiful homes up here are owned by CORPORATE "TRIAL LAWYERS" and Tech CEOs. I know, because many of my friends are those guys.




Think about this...
You guys really want to get pissed off about some industry, what about these stock brokers and investment advisors? They sell you some bogus stocks that may cost you your retirement savings and they still make money on it. what a racket!


But I digress
I think we all know, the only reason Bush/Cheney want this law revised and immunity doled out is they see the writing on the wall. There will be house cleaning next year when a new Democratic Congress and President are sworn in.

They are hoping to get some precedence set on immunity so we can't nail their arses to the cross for all of the spying they did on political opponents with there flagrant disregard for FISA.
Just like old "tricky Dick"

Why do you think so many Republicans are "retiring" this year, just before the elections? They are VERY worried about indictments. I wonder if some of them even made secret deals for immunity with dems in return for their quiet departures.

Just a thought.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.