Bush Presses House on Surveillance Bill

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush pressured the House on Wednesday to pass new rules for monitoring terrorists' communications, saying 'terrorists are planning new attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison.' Bush said he would not agree to giving the House more time to debate a measure the Senate passed Tuesday governing the government's ability to work with telecommunications companies to eavesdrop on phone calls and e-mails between suspected terrorists. The bill gives phone companies retroactive protection from lawsuits filed on the basis of cooperation they gave the government without court permission — something Bush insisted was included in the bill. About 40 lawsuits have been filed against telecom companies by people alleging violations of wiretapping and privacy laws. The House did not include the immunity provision in a similar bill it passed last year. 'In order to be able to discover ... the enemy's plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies,' Bush said. 'If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won't participate. They won't help us. They won't help protect America.' The 68-29 Senate vote Tuesday to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [emphasis added] belied the nearly two months of stops and starts and bitter political wrangling that preceded it. The two sides had battled to balance civil liberties with the need to conduct surveillance on potential adversaries. Bush said the Senate bill was passed with wide, bipartisan support, and the House should pass it too — before the current law expires at midnight on Saturday."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hJKgeE0Z-SivATjok-utYBdh9wDwD8UPHO580

Yep.

2/13/2008 1:27:24 PM

Quote :

"The bill gives phone companies retroactive protection from lawsuits filed on the basis of cooperation they gave the government without court permission "

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

*cough*

2/13/2008 1:30:00 PM

Scope and limits

Quote :

"For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, 'foreign powers' means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2) and (3)). The statute limits its application to US persons. A US person includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the US. The code defines 'foreign intelligence information' to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism [emphasis added]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

AND

Quote :

"The 68-29 Senate vote Tuesday to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. . . ."

Quote :

"110th Congress (2007-2009) Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats) Minority Party: Republican (49 seats) Other Parties: 1 Independent; 1 Independent Democrat Total Seats: 100"

*cough*

PS:

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---68

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)

NAYs ---29

Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3

Clinton (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Obama (D-IL)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00020



[Edited on February 13, 2008 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2008 1:38:22 PM

Why is party relevant to this situation?

2/13/2008 1:50:18 PM

^ On NPR, here, and elsewhere, I haven't heard or seen anyone blaming Democrats for "fear-mongering"--and you know it.

Bush legacy: Setting a standard in fear-mongering

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080201_Bush_legacy__Setting_a_standard_in_fear-mongering.html

Olbermann: FISA & Fear Mongering/Bush Domestic Surveillance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uil__ldr9uY

Aaaaaand so on.

[Edited on February 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/13/2008 1:58:51 PM

Bush is setting a standard of fear-mongering. That being said, the Democrats are spineless for not standing up to it, but that is presuming that Democrats are true civil-libertarians and not simply power hungry hacks who pander to a different demographic than Republicans.

So, is the issue your distaste for the coverage of the issue, or the marginal consitutionality of the bill?

2/13/2008 2:08:52 PM

Bush is setting the agenda and the Democrats aren't stepping up and trying to stop him. Same old, same old. What's your point?

2/13/2008 2:19:09 PM

^^

I think his feelings are hurt because it paints his party in a bad light.

2/13/2008 2:45:30 PM

Quote :

" Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "

sounds more like the American People Surveillance Act.

At least i know I can go to bed every night knowing that I am safe from the turrrists now that the gov't has increased powers to eavesdrop on my emails and phone calls

Perhaps I should learn from Marlo Stanfield in from the Wire and keep my shady business off the phone.

[Edited on February 13, 2008 at 2:53 PM. Reason : aa]

2/13/2008 2:52:57 PM

Notice that 29 democrats voted against it, 2 didn't vote, (as opposed to 1 repub not voting).

That makes your 49/49 majority

18 for, 31 against.

I know thinking is your weak point, but this is simple arithmetic.

2/13/2008 2:59:12 PM

why do well respected GOP senators find that they need to "follow the party" on every issue regardless if its in the better interests of their constituents. I somehow doubt all 47 GOP senators truely embraced this bill

2/13/2008 4:52:23 PM

because, at some point, it became better to follow along with the party line, rather than vote the ways that your constituents actually want you to vote.

2/13/2008 4:56:15 PM

Quote :

"I think his feelings are hurt because it paints his party in a bad light."

BobbyDigital

You don't know shit about me or my "party," which is "unaffiliated"--FYI. Stop riding my nuts, man--or maybe you'll just send me some more PMs about how intelligent you think you and your friends are.

^^^ You have a firm grasp of the obvious, dumbass. Wow! You can count. GG.

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 12:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/14/2008 12:33:39 AM

So hooksaw as TSBs outspoken Bush supporter how do you feel about this bill. Are you going to sleep better tonight knowing that this legislation will get dem turrrists or do you ponder that this may be leading America down the wrong path and undermine the civil rights of your avg american.

2/14/2008 1:35:10 AM

^ Yes.

2/14/2008 1:38:29 AM

Quote :

"Not Voting - 3 Clinton (D-NY) Graham (R-SC) Obama (D-IL)"

Nice to know your high-and-mighty democratic candidates are too chicken-shitted to stop their campaigns and get their asses in session to stop a bill they say they are opposed to. I wonder how proactive they are going to be about rocking the boat if hell freezes over and one of them actually gets in office.

2/14/2008 9:11:31 AM

^i'd assume they were out, i don't know, say, campaigning during that time maybe?

but thats just me.

2/14/2008 9:55:36 AM

they should've come back for the vote.

mccain did

2/14/2008 10:01:48 AM

mccain has the nomination more or less locked, and its not imperative for him to stay out and spend every moment campaigning.

2/14/2008 10:10:35 AM

true, but they should still come back.

and the potomac primaries were on tuesday, same day as the vote, they were obviously in town...

well maybe not HRC cause she decided to Guiliani the potomac primaries

2/14/2008 10:21:40 AM

Quote :

"Nice to know your high-and-mighty democratic candidates are too chicken-shitted to stop their campaigns and get their asses in session to stop a bill they say they are opposed to. I wonder how proactive they are going to be about rocking the boat if hell freezes over and one of them actually gets in office. "

not that i support either as i'm more of a McCain but it was party of the strategic political plan.

Had they come to DC and voted "for" you'd have the liberals outraged over their support with a bill that pretty much takes a giant shit on civil rights and personal privacy. Meanwhile the conservatives would be yelling that they are hypocrits or flip-floppers.

Yet had they voted against the bill all the conservatives, military backed, and brainwashed terrorist scare people would have hounded them on being "soft" on terror, will decrease national security, etc.

Also, as someone else mentioned McCain has pretty much clinched the nomination where as Obama/Hillary are still neck-neck

Quote :

"^ Yes."

yes to what part?

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason : a]

2/14/2008 11:14:25 AM

Maybe Hooksaw's point was that Democrats are feeding you a spoonful of lies with one hand and voting for the legislation they promise to deny with the other.

Maybe he was just trying to illustrate that all politicians are similar.

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 11:30 AM. Reason : a]

2/14/2008 11:23:39 AM

Quote :

"Maybe Hooksaw's point was that Democrats are feeding you a spoonful full of lies with one hand and voting for the legislation they promise to deny with the other."

Obviously it wasn't because when I pointed out that the majority of democrats voted against the legislation he dismissed it as a non-issue.

2/14/2008 11:25:04 AM

^^ well a logical rational comment like that to support his right-wing position would defeat his whole goal of serving as TSB ann coulter inspired right-wing troll

2/14/2008 12:02:21 PM

Quote :

"true, but they should still come back. and the potomac primaries were on tuesday, same day as the vote, they were obviously in town... well maybe not HRC cause she decided to Guiliani the potomac primaries"

Clinton and Obama were in Texas and Wisconsin, respectively, on that day.

2/14/2008 12:07:10 PM

Rush is talking about this today and also yesterday. He said Obama voted against it. I am confused is this a different FISA bill? Apparently the House of Representatives is dragging its feet in bringing the Bill to the floor. They may recess before considering it from what Rush said.

Hmm that link certainly suggests Rush misunderstood the vote. I'm confused.

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2008 12:39:04 PM

Quote :

"Rush is talking"

Thats where you went wrong

2/14/2008 12:51:04 PM

rush is an egocentric moron. you should know this after listening to him.

2/14/2008 12:54:51 PM

In fairness, I was a committed Ditto-head in high school. TheDuke went to Enloe with me and might have remembered that I had one of those old WPTF "Rush is RIGHT" license plates on my backpack.

Then I went to college and futher developed my critical thinking skills.

2/14/2008 12:57:16 PM

when it comes to the GOP and its conservative base i am highly confused.

a avg joe "conservative" American supports hypothetically economic freedom, fiscal responsibility, and hell Christian "values".

How did the whole pro-patriot act, expansion of the executive branch with powers to wiretap w/o judicial review, water boarding, suspension of habeas corpus for the "terrorists", and all the other Big Brother policies become this partisan issue. It has been increasing since the 80's but really took off since 9/11. I disagree with many of the stances of liberal on political issue but how exactly are they the bad guy for actually being concerned about civil rights, privacy, and making sure the gov't is not abusing its executive authority. I am not saying we are a future Nazi germany but looking at history hitler did not just magically become fuhrer, nor did Julius Caeser just roll into the roman senate and tell them he was dictator for life.

Every american should be outraged over the extent to wish the bush administration has wiped its ass with the constitution. Yes, national security is a concern but where do you draw the line?? if the current trend continues are we any better than some of those middle eastern countries if the bill of rights mentioned in our constitution are eroded. Every day i am at risk of being shot by some random felon, being in a fatal car accident, etc. I think i could endure a marginally increased chance of dying via terrorist versus having my government turn into a police state.

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 1:16 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2008 1:09:06 PM

maybe i'm naive but i just don't think Homeland Security or the FBI or anybody really cares about what most of us are saying on the phone as long as its not about committing a terrorist attack or sneaking some Afghanis in the country

2/14/2008 1:16:13 PM

^ Yeah, the haters can't seem to comprehend the facts:

[quote]For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, 'foreign powers' means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of US persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations.[quote]

2/14/2008 1:20:48 PM

thats not the point.

i highly doubt the terrorist are gonna pick up the phone....

osama: " jihad allah, are we still on for tomorrow"
Ayman al-Zawahiri: "yes, our sinister terrorist plot is awesome; i'll be in the yellow van parked outside the market"
osama: "good those infidels will suffer. did you buy all the explosives and the detonator
Ayman al-Zawahiri: "yeah bro must def, JIHAD!!!"
osama: "that is what i like to hear i'll see you at 9am"


^ well that's all nice and dandy on paper. but who's going to supervise to ensure they do not abuse this power. I have heard reports on how the powers granted via the Patriot Act have been used to spy on suspected drug dealers. I do not think Marlo selling an eightball to some punk college kid as a terrorist.
I really must be speaking to deaf ears as hooksaw obviously has no qualms with the US transition into a more Big Brother attitude and the erosion of civil rights as long as he can sleep warmly at night knowing those sneaky terrorists are not going to blow up his random townhouse in raleigh.

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 1:27 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2008 1:22:07 PM

Quote :

"but who's going to supervise to ensure they do not abuse this power"

whats to stop them from doing any type of surveillance and eavesdropping if they dont have permission? i figure the govt has been tapping phones, etc, for as long as the technology has been out...i've honestly been somewhat amused by some of these bills over the last 5 or 6 years which pretty much publicize what i think they've been doing for decades

btw speaking of the wire, havent the feds said they cant put any more money into marlo because all they focus on is terrorism now? thats not to say that police dont get warrants and tap phones but i dont know if the feds are involved

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

2/14/2008 1:29:23 PM

Quote :

"i figure the govt has been tapping phones, etc, for as long as the technology has been out...i've honestly been somewhat amused by some of these bills over the last 5 or 6 years which pretty much publicize what i think they've been doing for decades btw speaking of the wire, havent the feds said they cant put any more money into marlo because all they focus on is terrorism now? thats not to say that police dont get warrants and tap phones but i dont know if the feds are involved"

thats true this doesn't mean that we should just give them the green light to wire tap away. its kinda like the honor code candy box. I may still a few piece every now and again without throwing in my quarter when no one is looking. If one day they candy box was changed to "Free" i would just take a big handful

Quote :

"btw speaking of the wire, havent the feds said they cant put any more money into marlo because all they focus on is terrorism now? thats not to say that police dont get warrants and tap phones but i dont know if the feds are involved"

i could be wrong but i thought the War on Drugs was still in full swing. I actually never thought about it but you bring up a very good point. We are wasting billions trying to get those evil drugs like marijuana when we could allocated those resources to get a REAL threat to america of terrorist attacks (using of course legal means).

At least we'll catch Spicoli sitting on the couch eating cheetos

[Edited on February 14, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : a]

2/14/2008 1:34:07 PM

i just dont think the government has the manpower or time to listen in to every conversation that 300,000,000 people make and therefore they are legitimately going to focus their time and people on what they believe to be legitimate threats

2/14/2008 1:35:36 PM

of course they don't, but put a server farm like Google has behind it, add some voice recognition software (i'm sure they use it already), and you could easily record and automatically analyze every phone call made. Even if they weren't analyzed immediately, they could be recorded and data-mined later by a huge server cluster.
Even if "you have nothing to hide", i doubt you want all your calls recorded and stored by the government.

2/14/2008 1:39:37 PM

This also opens avenues of potential corruption.

I am sure IBM might give me a sizable "birthday gift" to my offshore account being a NSA agent and just happened to drop a few papers i had from a "investigative" phone call i recorded between two Apple high level exec over confidential material.

2/14/2008 1:44:31 PM

i'd argue that those avenues have always been there

changing laws doesn't necessarily affect whether or not people with criminal intentions will carry out their crimes...they might have to break 9 laws now instead of 10

2/14/2008 1:46:41 PM

Quote :

"rush is an egocentric moron. you should know this after listening to him."

Egocentric, yeah kinda hard to miss. But, probably not in the sense most folks think.

He's no moron. Anyway, I don't take my marching orders from anybody so relax, I like his show because it always has a wide swath of news some of which doesn't show up elsewhere. And I love the way he takes political correctness and jams it right back into the eye of the left.

2/14/2008 1:47:34 PM

I think HUR 's analogy of the candy box was perfect.

2/14/2008 4:48:17 PM

House Republicans walked out...

Quote :

"House Republicans staged a walkout Thursday afternoon to protest the Democratic leadership's decision to vote on a contempt motion citing White House Chief Of Staff Josh Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers. The two have refused to comply with subpoenas in an investigation into the firings of U.S. attorneys in 2006. The Republicans think the House should be focused on passing an extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Florida, said Democrats are "more interested in a political witch hunt" than protecting the country. The surveillance bill expires over the weekend. Republicans and Democrats in the House are hung up over a provision in the legislation that would grant telecommunication companies retroactive immunity for the help they provided to the Bush administration in investigating terrorism after the September 11 attacks."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

God forbid we don't put the Republican's agenda first...

2/14/2008 4:50:10 PM

fucking liberals don't they know the executive branch operates Above the law; unless it involves oral sex then congressional investigation is essential to protect the moral fiber from america from breaking down.

2/14/2008 4:55:31 PM

More interested in a political witch hunt you say... hmm, sounds familiar.

It saddens me that our country is being run by children.

2/14/2008 5:04:29 PM

Quote :

"It saddens me that our country is being run by children."

its like the fucking student council elections in elementary and middle school...just a popularity contest by power hungry people...nothing different except the candidates are a little older and wear nicer clothes

2/14/2008 5:07:27 PM

I'm of the opinion that if you want to be president you should immediately be excluded from consideration.

2/14/2008 5:45:16 PM

McCain is the security candidate and he voted for this bill.

His silence in renouncing the democrat house's failure to deal with this bill is deafening.

He is supposed to convince us he is going to be the leader on security and he can't even bring himself to take a stand now and show that he is willing to stand up to democrats when it's needed.

This is the one issue that allegedly he owns,

reporter: "so what you gonna do on X"
McCain:" (changes subject) I'll be a strong leader against global terror"

How long have we heard this non-answer from McCain?

Here is your chance McCain, convince us you can work with democrats when it counts. When you are not compromising to give them what they want. Rather, get them to yield in our direction.

I'm waiting.

[Edited on February 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2008 11:13:46 PM

In a rare show of political savvy, the Democrats cornered not only Bush, but McCain on this issue as well. They've already attempted to pass a version of the bill extending the powers to spy without granting retroactive telecom immunity, but the Republicans balked on it.

This makes the issue about bald faced corporatism and not your security.

The GOP has already said clearly that it will not support reimbursing corporations for losses incurred as a result of lawsuits. Companies aren't going to want to keep letting Uncle Sam listen to your phone calls for no reason if they start getting sued for it.

Considering the impact Sen. McCain's already feeling for violating Reagan's 11th commandment years back, he can't afford to violate it right now.

2/15/2008 11:35:48 PM

Quote :

"This makes the issue about bald faced corporatism and not your security."

But, if the companies will not hand over the data w/o the threat of frivolous lawsuits eliminates then it is a security issue (by your own admission "Companies aren't going to want to keep letting Uncle Sam listen to your phone calls for no reason if they start getting sued for it.")

Lets be honest though, this has more to do with the dems contributions from trial lawyers. The only group which really stands to profit by the failure of this measure.

If as you say they have already "already attempted to pass a version of the bill extending the powers to spy without granting retroactive telecom immunity," then that goes to prove that it is not about abuse of powers but rather about their unholy collusion with the trial lawyers.

2/16/2008 10:06:15 AM

What part of "No ex post facto law shall be passed." does Bush not understand?

2/16/2008 12:22:34 PM