Skip to comments.
Senate Coverage -- (February '06)
Thomas ^
| 2-1-06
| US Congress
Posted on 02/01/2006 6:09:12 AM PST by OXENinFLA
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 561-563 next last
To: Cboldt
Thank you Cboldt....you are the best!!
To: Txsleuth
I see however, that I doubled up on some of FEINGOLD's statements.
Personally, I'd rather have his proposed amendments submitted, debated and voted on. I'm surprised there couldn't be an agreement on the number of amendments. Seems it would have been a fair trade in exchange for no objection to taking the matter up, etc.
462
posted on
02/16/2006 6:40:44 AM PST
by
Cboldt
S.2271 : A bill to clarify that individuals who receive FISA orders can challenge nondisclosure requirements, that individuals who receive national security letters are not required to disclose the name of their attorney, that libraries are not wire or electronic communication service providers unless they provide specific services, and for other purposes.
The specifics include:
- "Ability to challenge the gag order attached to a Section 215 order." The possibility only is available after one year and the FISA judge may only overturn the gag if the government does not certify and the judge finds that there is no reason to believe that the disclosure "may endanger the national security of the U.S., interfere with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life of physical safety of any person." The certification of the government to these possibilities is to be taken as conclusive.
- Removal of the requirement that a recipient of an NSL inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was made or will be made to obtain legal advice or legal assistance with respect to the order. The proposal still requires the recipient to, upon the request of the Director of the FBI, identify anyone else to whom a disclosure is made (or to whom the recipient is intending to disclose).
- Language asserting that libraries, when functioning in their traditional roles - including providing Internet access, are not subject to NSLs. However, the language states that libraries are subject if the library "is providing the services defined under" Section 2510(15) of title 18, which says " "electronic communication service" means any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." The FBI has repeatedly asserted that all libraries that provide Internet access come under this definition. So, it is very unclear whether this section as now written provides any real protection to libraries.
Google cache of ALA | The USA Patriot Act & Libraries Page
463
posted on
02/16/2006 6:56:59 AM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Mo1; Bahbah; Txsleuth; OXENinFLA
Check Cynthia McKinny on the House floor. She undid her braid! Now she has a total disaster on her head!
464
posted on
02/16/2006 10:25:05 AM PST
by
tiredoflaundry
(I'll admit it , I'm a Snow Flake !(Snoq) The rest of my tagline redacted by court order.)
To: tiredoflaundry
LOL....I saw that --- her head reminds me of the brush that I use to clean my dryer vent!!!
To: Bahbah; tiredoflaundry; Mo1; OXENinFLA; Cboldt; ken5050; defconw
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/021606/news4.html
Check this article out...remember the Miranda case?
He was Frist's aide, that found the e-mail on the computer by Durbin and Kennedy that had their strategy for holding up Bush's judicial nominees...
This article is about the investigation....but, even after reading it...I can't believe that it is the DEMS that feel betrayed...not the GOP Senators...
To: Txsleuth; OXENinFLA; Howlin; hipaatwo
from your link
But while the Senate legal counsel is conducting negotiations, lawmakers will make the final decision about what is shared.
So the Senate claims final authority on what of their documents can be handed over ... but they think the President doesn't have that authority??
Bleeping Hypocrites !
467
posted on
02/16/2006 12:20:02 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: Mo1
Exactly....thought you all would be interested in that..
To: Mo1; Bahbah; OXENinFLA; tiredoflaundry; Howlin; Peach; ken5050; defconw; MNJohnnie; Carolinamom; ...
To: Txsleuth
I'm not happy with that one.
470
posted on
02/16/2006 1:25:28 PM PST
by
Howlin
("Quick, he's bleeding! Is there a <strike>doctor</strike> reporter in the house?")
To: Txsleuth
The "sale of port security" has already been rebutted. Nothing to see ... move along.
My understanding is that these companies are the freight handlers, who don't have security as their primary responsibility. They are more like the "port equivalent" of UPS and FedEx. They handle the freight, and submit as required to customs and other agents of the law.
471
posted on
02/16/2006 1:26:13 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Txsleuth
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, run by the Treasury Department, reviewed an assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies. The committee's 12 members agreed unanimously the sale did not present any problems, the department said Who are the 12 members?
472
posted on
02/16/2006 1:34:21 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: Txsleuth
Are you watching the president on FNC? It's a tape and he's asked about Cheney and although he's remaining calm and dignified, it is OBVIOUS that he is ticked off.
Re the ports, Txsleuth, I'm not happy that Arabs will be put in charge of some port security.
473
posted on
02/16/2006 1:38:59 PM PST
by
Peach
(Hillary ran over a cop and didn't even stop.)
To: Cboldt
Yeah...but, doesn't it make you nervous that these freight handlers could handle freight filled with WMDS..or even terrorists smuggling into the USA???
I don't know...it just doesn't sound good to me...when I saw that Schumer was heading the group wanting this reviewed...I automatically told myself that it must not be BAD..if Schumer is against it...LOL..
However, I am just very nervous having any of those countries have ANY reason to be hanging around our ports..
Maybe we should get Halliburton to handle it??? (ducking)
To: Peach
No....my TV seems to be stuck on Noggin..lol
Thanks for the update on the prez, though.
I bet he is furious at the White House press corps...and from people like Chrissy Matthews, who was saying last night that Cheney shot Mr. Whittington in the HEART...and that this has caused problems personally between Cheney and Bush...
BLech!!
To: Txsleuth
Sessions is up about the wiretapping
476
posted on
02/16/2006 1:48:26 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: Mo1
Who are the 12 members [of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States]?
In 1993, in response to a sense of Congress resolution, CFIUS membership was expanded by Executive Order 12860 to include the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy. In February 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was added to CFIUS. This brought the membership of CFIUS to twelve under the chairmanship of the Secretary of Treasury. The other members are the Secretaries of State, Defense, and Commerce, the Attorney General, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.http://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/exon-florio/
477
posted on
02/16/2006 1:51:28 PM PST
by
Cboldt
To: Mo1
Thanks for the heads up!!
To: Cboldt
Thanks
Now ... maybe I missed it ... but did this committee give a reason to ok this stunt?
479
posted on
02/16/2006 1:54:18 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: Howlin
480
posted on
02/16/2006 2:07:56 PM PST
by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460, 461-480, 481-500 ... 561-563 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson