here's the article i read, but i was curious as to what the bill actually said http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13fisa.html?pagewanted=2&hp so i looked it up, the bill itself can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02248:@@@L&summ2=m& my question is, what does this mean? i don't see where is specifically states where and when the FISA bill can be applied, and to who it can be used on. foreign intelligence information about what? terror suspects? drug smugglers? kidnappers? murderers? i don't see where it is limited. it certainly sounds alarming to say the least.
This was a huge win for the White House, as well as our efforts to fight terrorism. Barack Obama was one of the 31 hard core lefties against this bill, in fact he wanted to punish private companies, who a bi-partisan committee previously declared had 'acted in good faith' for compliance with legal wiretapping of terrorist activity. Makes you wonder... www.wsj.com Obama's Wiretap Votes February 13, 2008; Page A26 Now and then sanity prevails, even in Washington. So it did yesterday as the Senate passed a warrantless wiretap bill for overseas terrorists while killing most of the Lilliputian attempts to tie down our war fighters. "We lost every single battle we had on this bill," conceded Chris Dodd, which ought to tell the Connecticut Senator something about the logic of what he was proposing. His own amendment -- to deny immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that cooperated with the government after 9/11 -- didn't even get a third of the Senate. It lost 67-31, though notably among the 31 was possible Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama. (Hillary Clinton was absent, while John McCain voted in favor.) It says something about his national security world view, or his callowness, that Mr. Obama would vote to punish private companies that even the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee said had "acted in good faith." Had Senator Obama prevailed, a President Obama might well have been told "no way" when he asked private Americans to help his Administration fight terrorists. Mr. Obama also voted against the overall bill, putting him in MoveOn.org territory. The defeat of these antiwar amendments means the legislation now moves to the House in a strong position. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in the Dodd-Obama camp, but 21 Blue Dog Democrats have sent her a letter saying they are happy with the Senate bill. She may try to pass the restrictions that failed in the Senate, and Republicans should tell her to make their day. This is a fight Senator McCain should want to have right up through Election Day, with Democrats having to explain why they want to hamstring the best weapon -- real-time surveillance -- we have against al Qaeda.
Hey T_J, if I start a thread about Ford Broncos, can you turn it into a "Obama is a scary scary whacky liberal!!1111!1" thread? That's a rhetorical question.
B-Bob, I posted a commentary on the topic at hand, with relevant information on where the presumptive democratic nominee stands on the issue. You sir, went astray and off-topic. Or is this a harbinger of things to come? Is any linkage of Obama to actual issues off limits? Is it off limits to talk about his policy stances? Let me guess, he's above issues. Or issues are attacking him based on race. Got it, thanks.
Come to think of it, this is oh so topical to McCain's frequent opposition to the Administration's positions on torture and wire-tapping when it comes to the War on Terror. I wonder how John voted on this update?
What this means is that the old historical process is confirmed - once a government gets new powers over its people (regardless of whether it acquires those powers through legal or illegal means), it never gives them back again. Democrat and Republican are both guilty of jealously hoarding power over the people who they're both supposed to be working for. I bet every ****head in congress gets a boner when they think of how much power over the people they have.
From Wiki: The government must believe that the party they are spying on (or at least one of them) is either an agent of a foreign government, or an agent of a known terrorist organization (the PATRIOT Act added this provision).
but the suspected person can either be located on US soil or foreign land correct? this would also include US citizens who are suspected of aiding the "enemy"? i need to read up on joe mccarthy, but it sounds like we could be headed there again.
Yes. There is a distinction though. If the suspected person is located on foreign land, the Administration can authorize the spying without FISA court approval. (Although there is some review process.) If the suspected person is located on US soil, the FISA court must issue a warrant. Forget the fact that this is all shady. Here's the truly scary part: The Bush Administration authorized spying without a warrant on calls originating on foreign land coming into the US. It was upheld as legal, by the FISA review court. Supposedly the update actually puts some oversight by the FISA court back into the system, but I doubt it does much.
Hooray. For the first time, america is planning to use it's own spy satellites to spy on its own citizenry.
Perhaps less unindicted co-conspirators and more indicted? My God! What will the left do now to aid and protect?...
i know we had a thread about our worst subjects, and i didn't list grammar class as one of them, but perhaps i lack reading comprehension.... so in response to what you posted, what? anyway, the house came through... for now. does writing out representatives do any good? i wrote cornyn a couple of years ago (handwritten because it apparently has a bigger impact than email or a typed letter) but only received a generic form letter response. so what did the house do? took a vacation! the usual suspects are using fear as their argument. it's too bad today's neo-repubs no longer resemble the limited government goldwater republicans. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/washington/15fisa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
