Posted on 02/11/2008 5:51:28 AM PST by shove_it
The Senate takes up wiretapping of foreign terrorists this week, and the stakes couldn't be higher. Not only for the ability of our spooks to eavesdrop on al Qaeda, but also regarding Congressional and judicial intrusion into Presidential war powers. Some damage seems certain, but the issue is how much damage President Bush will accept.
The debate concerns an effort to revise the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to bless spying without a court order on terrorist communications that originate overseas but move through U.S. switching networks. We believe -- and appellate courts have stated -- that the President already has such authority under the Constitution. But the political left claims this is "illegal" under FISA, and Mr. Bush has agreed to work with Congress on a compromise...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Why bother at all.. Obama is going to shut the program down next year anyway...... Its time for Change... Change we can Believe in... Change for Change’s sake... Its time for Obama and if you think otherwise you will be labled as intolerant and hate filled, the reason for the division in politics because.. you will be assimilated.... Obama has the cures for all your ills, Obama has the answers for what ailes the world.. Oh glorious Obama you were sent to mend this great nation... Now is your time... Take your rightful place in the White House and change the landscape of America forever...
Obama... Obama... Obama... Osama... Osama... Osama...
hmmmm the uneducated, uninformed and youth fall for this crap? Amazing how Obama is allowed to use Civil rights era victim rhetoric to advance his campaign....
On all issues coming up before the senate, how will McCaine vote?
We need to wiretap Congress to find out who they are selling their votes to.
There should be no more concessions whatsoever. It’s appalling to me, however, that Republicans who are the party of strength in national security matters are so squishy on who and how many are allowed into this country. If we were more discriminatory to begin with, we wouldn’t need to be wiretapping anyone.
Able Danger.
Electing either of these Dems ensures we will neither be ready nor respond.
Considering that is was the Dems who insisted that the Iraqi documents be taken off the internet, I think your question answers itself.
It might be nice to get rid of all surveillance legislation before the Democrats take over. Once they are in power it will all be enhanced but refocused. They won’t bother the lovable muzzies with it any more. Rather all that good electronics stuff will be put to keeping track of conservative terrorists and Christian terrorists and NRA terrorists and CATO Foundation terrorists, etc. Actually, whether there is a law or not, once the stuff is available and cheap enough to hide in a little 3 trillion dollar budget the government will use it. The legal status will only affect whether or not they tell us a wee bit about it.
Amen! When it comes to Big Brother-esque activities, I always ask myself “What if the Dems did it/had this power?” And the thought of a Clinton with the PATRIOT Act, especially after the wiretapping and BATF fiascos of the 90s, sends shivers up my spine. I still believe in the old motif “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Welcome to FR.
Don’t get me wrong. I am FOR the Patriot Act, as long as it is reviewed and voted on every few years.
This “power” existed prior the the 1978 FISA act. FISA put a straightjacket on collection whenever a US citizen was thought to be, um, involved.
The exemption clears the way for collection to proceed against terrorist targets regardless if one or more parties involved are US citizens.
In other words FISA says we cannot legal eavesdrop on Osama Bin Laden if he’s talking to Dominos ordering a pizza. The exemption would allow us to do so.
Dems are still in 9/10/01 mode. Nothing short of another massive or devastating attack is going to wake these people up. Maybe that won’t even shock them. Maybe the attack has to be in their district where big donors live.
And what is more concerning is the threat by some republicans that they’ll vote for a democrat to get even with McCain. Another attack could easily negate the need for concern about all the other issues facing our nation.
The administration should forget about immunity — they should stick to their position that nothing illegal was done (and immunity is therefore not necessary). Insisting on immunity simply creates the impression of guilt.
Excellent point. We certainly can't allow the telecoms to have immunity for doing illegal surveillance -- that guarantees that President Hillary can build Purple Files that make her current FBI folders look as harmless a kid's baseball card collection. Without immunity, telecom execs will be forced to sabotage her inevitable steps in that direction so they don't end up going down with her.
I read in a few places over the years that the Patriot Act was basically dropped on the desks in Congress and voted on 15 minutes later. Of course, this was roughly a month after 9/11 so most Congressmen and women would’ve voted for anything with “terror” or “patriot” in it.
The way I look at it, if terrorism is the threat they tell us, the borders would’ve been locked down on 9/12/01 and they wouldn’t be screwing around with this “religion of peace” garbage. Name your enemy, and protect this nation. I’ve been to too many airports where Granny is getting frisked while certain other people you’d think would be higher risk strut right past security. It seems the PC Police have put this effort in incredible danger.
“Name your enemy, and protect this nation.”
Agree.
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.