 |
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.]
#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.
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?
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.
#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.
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.