Dems Expand Domestic Spying

Published on June 21st, 2008

Posted by KD Martin in General, Politics

Breaking months of acrimonious deadlock, House and Senate leaders from both parties have agreed to a bill that gives the nation’s spy agencies the power to turn a wide swath of domestic communication companies into intelligence-gathering operations, and that puts an end to court challenges to telecoms such as AT&T that aided the government’s secret, five-year warrantless wiretapping program.

Civil liberties proponents quickly blasted the deal.

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation,” said Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, the only senator who voted against the Patriot Act in 2001. “The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home.”

Despite that desire for expanded spying powers, the president threatened to veto any bill that did not give amnesty to the telecoms that helped with program, which has been declared illegal by a secretive U.S. surveillance court.

Under the proposal, the intelligence community will be able to issue broad orders to U.S. ISPs, phone companies and online communications services like Hotmail and Skype to turn over all communications that are reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country. The spy agencies will not have to name their targets or get prior court approval for the surveillance.

To be fair, many Repubs approved as well. How much more damage can this President and his (Dem majority) Congress do to the U.S. Constitution before it’s time to leave? [The article has the bill in .pdf format.]

64 users responded in " Dems Expand Domestic Spying "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 KD Martin said, on June 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Marc Perkel, our sysadmin has an interesting take on this in his blog.

# 2 Eric said, on June 21st, 2008 at 1:13 pm

This just goes to show, if the Dems were really interested in civil liberties, justice, and the Constitution they could have done something to keep this from happening. However, now that they seem to feel that Barack is simply the President in waiting, with the election itself merely a formality, they’re already trying to shore up their power.

Different parties, same agenda. And as long as we, the people, continue to put up with this crap and keep them in office, nothing is going to change. We need a viable third party option now more than any time in our history.

# 3 Li said, on June 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I have a hard time squaring this circle; why exactly did we give the Dems this mandate? So that they could fritter away our freedoms with even more reckless abandon than their Republican predicessors? So that they could capitulate again and again to a failure of a president and his bloodthirsty, anti-American allies? Obama and Dodd’s capitulation is particularly galling.

At this point I am hoping that the congress is being forced to comply by some sort of threat on their lives or liberty, because otherwise this behavior is inexcusable. Even if that is the case, everyone who voted for this piece of trash has violted their oath of office.

If you are as offended by this as I am, contribute to the ActBlue fund to oppose everyone who did this, D and R.

http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa

# 4 Jägermeister said, on June 21st, 2008 at 1:25 pm

The Swedish government did something similar earlier this week. Welcome to our democratic overlords.

# 5 zefyr said, on June 21st, 2008 at 2:11 pm

What a ridiculous headline. Heres the vote tally:
Yea Ney
D 105 128
R 188 1

# 6 Noel said, on June 21st, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Anyone else think that this is a greater invasion of privacy to us non-Americans?

# 7 MikeN said, on June 21st, 2008 at 2:42 pm

#5, the Dems are in charge, so this doesn’t even come to a vote without their leadership’s say so.

# 8 it's just an expression said, on June 21st, 2008 at 3:14 pm

It’s the President’s ALLEGED illegal program. Why do they always forget to put in the ALLEGED when they have nothing productive to do but bash the ALLEGED president. All the drama kings & queens keep babbling on about this ruining our country, our freedom, our constitution, and movie rating system, and none of it holds any bottled water, not one drop. Recycle.

# 9 BubbaRay said, on June 21st, 2008 at 3:25 pm

#5, The bill could be voted on as soon as Friday in the House, given its backing by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer D. MD.

# 10 Uncle Patso said, on June 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm

The Dems may have a slight numerical majority, but the Republicans are obviously still in charge. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown theorized that key Democratic party leaders were shown horrific classified terrorist info of some kind. This tactic has often worked before, and the current administration will never abandon such an old favorite.

How many days until the inauguration?

(Too many!)

# 11 Shin said, on June 21st, 2008 at 5:11 pm

Better headline:

“Republican Senators Unanimously* Vote to Expand Domestic Spying”

*With the exception of one sane party member, and with the aid of 108 Democratic traitors. Majority of Dems overridden by turncoat minority.

That wouldn’t be considered trolling would it? The headlines here just get worse and worse.

# 12 deowll said, on June 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Every memember of both parties who voted for this bill should be tarred, feathered, and kicked out of the country with their citizenship revoked.

They have no more respect for the bill of rights than used toilet paper not that any of them seem to have ever read it.

# 13 Mister Mustard said, on June 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm

>>To be fair, many Repubs approved as well.

Well, to be even fairer, the bill was sponsored by Dumbya’s puppeteers henchmen. The sliver-thin majority of Dems just didn’t have the backbone to stand up for American freedom.

>>How much more damage can this President
>>and his (Dem majority)

His “Dem majority” is, as I pointed out above, sliver thin.

Let’s not build this up into anything more than it really is, our fascist POTUS Repug puppeteers seeking to shred the Constitution and the Bill of Rights into CostCo toilet paper.

OK, so the Dems should be stronger. But wtf, they’re politicians.

Just wait until we have a Dem POTUS (Obama) and a Dem Congress. Maybe things can get back to the same quality as when Bill was president. In retrospect, man, that guy was good.

# 14 KD Martin said, on June 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm

The headlines here just get worse and worse.

Not only was the headline quoted from the orginal article, it seems to fit. Welcome to your new Dem majority Congress. Did you vote? If so, how did your Sen. vote? Or, like those campaigning for Pres. who are absent, did s/he even vote at all?

# 15 Mister Mustard said, on June 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm

>>Not only was the headline quoted from
>>the orginal article,

Well, not quite. The headline was PARAPHRASED from the original article. Your head line was

“Dems Expand Domestic Spying”

with the clear implication that the expansion of domestic spying was their intitative.

The ACTUAL headline was

“Dems Agree to Expand Domestic Spying”

Which is closer to the truth; the Dems were pussywhipped into agreeing with Dumbya’s shredding of that “Goddamned Piece of Paper” (aka the Constitution).

But hey. Who ever claimed that dvorak dot org slash blog has accurate headline?

Must be the fucking Xhristians responsible, right?

# 16 Shin said, on June 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm

Point taken KD. It’s still a troll, just not your troll.

It was still meant to mislead, to garner clickthoughs, to raise traffic. Not to inform..except peripherally. However, I note that they also failed to post the actual vote tally. I stand behind my headline. Also a troll, but with a lot more honesty.

# 17 lou said, on June 21st, 2008 at 6:07 pm

Congress is a buch of balless fucks.
You would expect this shit from Dummy U.
I’m going to save you but first I will fuck you.

# 18 bobbo said, on June 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm

1. Well the headline is misleading. The Dem Leadership and the Repuglikan Cabal voted for this. The Dems gave a strong majority vote against it. Sure wish I could vote against Hoyer. Would it be worth moving?

2. In the Link, note in the right bar that Obama voted for this bill. Change you can believe in.

3. I note the “threat level” on all the stories is the same–low level. I thought meters were supposed to move?

# 19 MikeN said, on June 21st, 2008 at 6:36 pm

This ’sliver thin’ majority is the same size or larger than what Republicans have had the last twelve years.

# 20 MikeN said, on June 21st, 2008 at 6:45 pm

What was Barack Obama’s position? Did he flip-flop again?

# 21 Jägermeister said, on June 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm

#20 – MikeN

# 22 pedro said, on June 21st, 2008 at 7:13 pm

It took only 12 posts for a Dem apologist.

# 23 Glenn E. said, on June 21st, 2008 at 7:27 pm

#3 Li – Yeah, you can bet they were all threatened. With something like, welding their revolving door careers shut. IOW, not having any lucrative well pain jobs with big corporations or lobbying firms, after leaving Congress. And probably a shorter stay in office, to boot. Besides the DOJ probably has enough filth on all of them to blackmail a vote out of politicians, from time to time. You don’t think they’re going to let any squeeky-clean guys obtain high office?

# 24 KD Martin said, on June 21st, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Headline quoted, lifted, paraphrased, doesn’t matter to me. It got your attention, you read the article and at the very least we’re arguing about something worth arguing about, our wonderful Congress and this BS bill.

Mr. Mustard, you get the points. Especially for blaming the Christians for the whole deal, although I know that was sarcasm.

I admire your faith, but I have little admiration for the politicians involved and their “faith.”

# 25 MikeN said, on June 21st, 2008 at 8:02 pm

#21, you didn’t answer my question. What was Barack Obama’s position on this bill? How did he vote?

# 26 pedro said, on June 21st, 2008 at 8:33 pm

#25 whatever the answer you get, rest assured that it will be the other way around in little time

# 27 MikeN said, on June 21st, 2008 at 8:52 pm

Pedro how right you are:

“Given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as president, I will carefully monitor the program,” Obama said in a statement hours after the House approved the legislation 293-129.

And now Mustard on June 6,
”
And one thing I’ll guarantee you on, he will NEVER change his tune on the illegal wiretapping issue. Only a true douche bag would follow Dumbya’s befouled path to that latrine.

I was never going to vote for McCain anyway, but I lost a lot of respoect for him over the wiretapping flip-flop.
“

# 28 Mister Mustard said, on June 21st, 2008 at 10:37 pm

#27 – Lyin’ MikeN

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future.

# 29 Nimby said, on June 21st, 2008 at 10:52 pm

# 10 Uncle Patso said, “How many days until the inauguration? (Too many!)”

Why “Too many”? As far as the Constitution goes, no matter who gets elected it looks like the Bill of Rights will continue to take a beating.

# 30 KD Martin said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 am

#11, Shin said, “Better headline:

“Republican Senators Unanimously* Vote to Expand Domestic Spying”

That’s fine, no disagreement here. But in a supposedly dem controlled congress, it still passed.

Seems most people like their “own” senators and reps, but all the others are evil jerks. How else did Ted Kennedy get to be where he is today?

# 31 Mister Mustard said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 3:51 am

>>But in a supposedly dem controlled
>>congress, it still passed.

A 51% to 49% majority isn’t enough to undo every toxic effect and anti-freedom bill that the Repugs can come up with.

>>How else did Ted Kennedy get to be where
>>he is today?

Ted Kennedy got to where he is today by supporting the people of Massachusetts, freedom, and the American way. And by voting “nay” on dog-shit legislation like this.

And here’s the vote tally in both the HoR and the Senate, so folk will know whom to vote out of office the next time around.

http://tinyurl.com/68ke5n

http://cryptome.org/hr6304-vote.htm

# 32 MikeN said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 4:56 am

It’s closer to 54-46% majority, the most the Republicans ever had.

# 33 MikeN said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 4:57 am

Well if there’s no flip-flop by Obama, then why the objections to this bill?

# 34 TomB said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 5:14 am

Just wait until we have a Dem POTUS (Obama) and a Dem Congress. Maybe things can get back to the same quality as when Bill was president. In retrospect, man, that guy was good.

ROTFLMAO

# 35 Dallas said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 5:27 am

It’s clearly time to position the Democrats to suck as much as the Republicans. The GOP has set the low point – the strategy now is to position themselves as sucking less.

# 36 Mister Mustard said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 am

#34 – TomB

>>ROTFLMAO

If you laugh your ass off, will there be anything left of you?

# 37 TomB said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 5:54 am

36-> Dignity.

# 38 Cinaedh said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 6:21 am

I don’t get it.

I apologize for my ignorance but of what use is this so-called ‘majority’ if the President can veto anything and everything sent to him?

Along the same lines, of what use is this ‘majority’ if it can’t override that veto?

I feel I’m missing something here.

How is it even possible for the Democrats to effect change, if they can’t override a veto? Isn’t it a stalemate?

Thanks in advance for any civics lessons offered.

# 39 Mister Mustard said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 6:26 am

#37 – TommieB

>>Dignity.

You better grow a new organ before you laugh your ass off then.

Any “dignity” that can be salvaged by supporting the Repugs is going to be a pretty rare commodity.

Haw!

# 40 TomB said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 6:36 am

38->

They don’t want change. They want to keep things exactly the way they are.

That’s why you are confused.

Visit the following for more information:

http://www.libertarianparty.org/
http://www.bobbarr2008.org/
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/
http://www.ronpaul2008.org/

# 41 TomB said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 6:38 am

39->

Now I’m really laughing. You think I support the repugs? You sheep.

# 42 Mister Mustard said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 am

>>You sheep.

That’s “sheeple” to you, son.

# 43 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 am

#24–KD==you say: “Headline quoted, lifted, paraphrased, doesn’t matter to me. It got your attention…..” /// Well, I hope you just answered too quickly and really meant to say “It was close enough especially given the Dem Leadership had to agree.”

Otherwise you are just a whore.

# 44 Shin said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 7:38 am

#24 KD

Yes, it got my attention..at least long enough to see it was a flat out lie. What is the old marketing saying? “It’s easy to get people to try something once, but if the product doesn’t live up to it’s promise, they won’t be back.”

I suggest that even in the short time I’ve been around, the headlines here are getting more trolly all the time…equal opportunity trolly mind you…bound to upset right/left/believer/atheist alike, but trolly. Does this blog really need to do that? Does the headline really have to lie about the essence of the content in order to get views here? Don’t you think that people coming here would have looked anyway and the right would have been happy to make that distortion for you in the comments? There seem no small number of them around quite willing to twist anything without editorial help and assistance. I tend to look at everything…and only comment if it matters to me and if someone hasn’t already made any point I might have, but better..^_^

# 45 James Hill said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 7:44 am

You’d be better off invoking my name in your post titles than lying. Just look at the hit counts.

# 46 Cinaedh said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:05 am

# 40 – TomB

Thanks for all the vague links, I guess. Oh well, it’s Sunday and obviously I don’t have anything else to do.

I’m well aware the Dems are pretty much the exact same Party as the Repugs, only with a different name. I’m strictly apolitical.

To clarify my question:

If they wanted to, how do the Dems make changes when apparently the system is set up to make it impossible for them to do so and how can anyone (or, in this case everyone) criticize them for therefore not accomplishing the impossible?

# 47 MikeN said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 am

James Hill hehe. What was your hit count again?

#46 They can’t make every change they want, but that doesn’t mean they have to provide the changes the other side wants. George Bush’s veto means nothing if the Democrats don’t pass telecom immunity. I haven’t followed the particulars of this bill, but most likely there is some new powers that did not formally exist in law before.

# 48 Mr. Catshit said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am

I am truly saddened that the Democrats have caved in to the Republican threat on this. There is no excuse.

# 49 MikeN said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:22 am

Would someone clarify for me, why is this a bad thing for the Democrats to do? Mustard is saying Obama hasn’t flip-flopped on the issue. So was Obama always wrong about this, since I thought he had taken the party line here?

# 50 Mr. Catshit said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 am

#45, James,

Just look at the hit counts.

Mother after you to take the garbage out again? Geeze, if you would just get out of the basement without being repeatedly told she would hit you so much.

# 51 Li said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am

If the democratic leadership (Reid, Pelosi, and that snake Rockefeller) had not allowed this stupid, unconstitutional, post-facto bill to hit the floor, it would not have been voted on and approved.

This is clearly their fault. I’m not going to blame the D’s that voted against it, and they have a long go to match the R’s in this matter; after all, wasn’t it Specter that complained that the MCA evicerated the bill of rights, then proceeded to vote for it? But still, this is clearly the fault of the D leadership.

# 52 Cinaedh said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 8:36 am

# 47- MikeN

They can’t make every change they want, but that doesn’t mean they have to provide the changes the other side wants.

Apparently they can’t make any changes unless the President agrees. So, no change is their fault?

George Bush’s veto means nothing if the Democrats don’t pass telecom immunity.

True but that’s another issue entirely. Since they expect the next President will be one of their own, of course they aren’t going to obstruct any new powers or harm any corporate financial donors.

# 53 pedro said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am

#38 So what, the Dem majority voted in favor to avoid a veto? Is that it?

#41 More like lamb

# 54 Thomas said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am

You would think that if the House and Senate Democrats felt that Obama’s election was imminent, that they would have forced a stronger bill or publicly trounced this one. Wouldn’t implicating telecoms complicit with the current administration do more to solidify their position than to agree to such a bill? The timing of this concession is incredibly odd. Are that many of the House and Senate Democrats really at risk of losing their re-election campaign that they would change their tune so close to an apparent Democratic President? It makes you wonder how many of the Congressional Democrats actually believe that obama will win.

# 55 Patrick said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am

#54 – “It makes you wonder how many of the Congressional Democrats actually believe that obama will win.”

Privately, not many do.

# 56 KD Martin said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 11:16 am

#43 bobbo said,

“#24–KD==you say: “Headline quoted, lifted, paraphrased, doesn’t matter to me. It got your attention…..” /// Well, I hope you just answered too quickly and really meant to say “It was close enough especially given the Dem Leadership had to agree.”

Otherwise you are just a whore”

My initial response was, “And you’re a customer. Thanks for p(l)aying.”

But hey, it’s a DU ephemeral post and the goal was to get people to read the article. Does calling me a “whore” make you feel better? I thought you to be more erudite.

Seriously, if you’d like to offer a better headline to get this crowd arguing, submit it here. All serious suggestions are welcome.

# 57 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm

#56–KD==yes, I felt proud of myself, but only for a few minutes. I insulted whores which was not my intent. I should have said dishonest lazy whore. I think that would have caught more of my displeasure.

Now, I think I’ve done it again, and a few minutes after I post this comment, I will figure out some other modifier that should have been used? So, I’ll wait a few minutes and read this again.

Meanwhile, speaking of erudition, Thanks. Its what I also look to you for, so we have disappointed each other. Why pimp your audience just because we are whore mongers? Why not elevate us? You have the skills to do both-to interest and inform.

“Dem Leaders violate Party’s Faithful”==catchy and true?????

Hey–most negative comments have a grain of truth. We could, and can in the future, both be better at what we do, in all aspects of our lives. What hope is there otherwise-become Republican?

Darn–I guess I have to post to find out what I could’ve said better. Keep the good stuff coming==and vote all incumbents OUT, OUT, OUT!!!!!!

# 58 Mister Mustard said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm

#57 – Bobbo

http://tinyurl.com/584xde

# 59 KD Martin said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Bobbo,

““Dem Leaders violate Party’s Faithful”==catchy and true?????”

Not bad, but would you read it? Where’s the tie to the Spook Alert? Nothing about the article content, just a headline about some dems and the party faithful.

And calling me a whore and then implying you insulted whores certainly shows me your talents. You’ll have to do better than that. Geez, even James Hill and Rodney Dangerfield can do better than that.

Your insults, by the way, are against comment guidelines, but I’ll let ‘em stand.

Arguing about a headline, I’m not wasting another second of my life on this one.

# 60 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 2:07 pm

#59–KD==I do read everything here. Not all the linked articles, and not all the comments, but all the OT’s.

I did think of the better line, but it is actually just a restatement of what I originally said. Perfection is not expected, its only the highest goal. Your real error is not in faltering in the first place, but in posting that you didn’t care, or worse implying that you did it on purpose and will continue to do so just to get people to read it?

At #18 all I said was the headline was misleading. That actually is bad as I have found myself having to reread articles to make sure I didn’t miss something to make it consistent with the setup. I didn’t get aggravated until your justification at #24 and even then I asked if it was a misstatement==so I tried to meet you half way.

Lazy dishonest Whore may be on the strong side, what is the blog worthy term for someone who intentionally misleads and when questioned about it, justifies it?

While the truth and the import of our positions may be subject to interpretation and reflection, I detect some humor in your response, as I hope you do in mine.

How about I take your position? I did the same thing to you that you did to me? Just to get your attention?

# 61 MikeN said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 2:10 pm

#52, sure they can make changes. Not everything is permanent. They didn’t have to fund the Iraq War. They didn’t have to pass any changes to the law. Let’s take net neutrality as an example. Here, to have net neutrality you would have to pass a law to implement it, and the President would have to sign it. So for that, they can’t force the change. Now consider telecom immunity. If they had just not passed this bill, there would be no telecom immunity. So here the Democrats are at fault for having telecom immunity.

# 62 TomB said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Seriously, it may be too late. Both sides have so many different pet projects dependent on each other, it is going to take someone without ties to either party to get any real changes through.

If Obama wins, the craps are going to have to deal with the pugs — which means keeping the war going if they want their social programs. If the craps don’t deal, no spending bill will make it to him to sign that has enough money in it support said projects.

If McCain wins, the craps are STILL going to have deal with the pugs if they want to look like heroes to their constituents. “See, we’re getting things done for you. We’re the Compromisers! Just wait until 2012!”

In either case, both sides have too many pet projects that need funding. I don’t see any change happening if a Republicrat wins.

What we need is someone in who can look both parties in the eye and say, “So what if you don’t like it. Override me.” And then the poo-poo will really hit the fan. Pugs and Craps, Cats and Dogs, all living together. And I am curious how many laws the Supreme Court will overturn from a combined Republicrat Congress.

# 63 bobbo said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 2:37 pm

#61–Mike==the democrats are not at fault. See the vote total at #5. “The Democrats” as a party voted against this proposal that was allowed by the Democratic Leadership and passed by a minority of the Regpugs and ALL the Republicans except one.

House leadership who are democrats and the republican party, and Bush, are responsible for this law.===and the Sup Ct 3 years from now if a suit is brought which I don’t expect.

Substantively, I don’t even care, I’m fine with warrantless monitoring, until they come to take me away. Just parsing the language.

# 64 MikeN said, on June 22nd, 2008 at 7:11 pm

The Dem leadership comes from a vote of the Democrat Party. For them to act against the wishes of the majority of their members also reflects on the party. At least in the Senate, the minority has some power to force votes.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!