Presidential Veto Threatened for Surveillance Bills...

[katty]

more:http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Veto_threat_for_proposed_spy_laws_02052008.html

Presidential Veto Threatened for Surveillance Bills That Don't Protect Telecom Providers

LARA JAKES JORDAN
AP News

Feb 05, 2008 15:49 EST

President Bush threatened a veto Tuesday in the debate to update terrorist surveillance laws, assailing Democratic plans to deny protection from lawsuits for telecommunications providers that let the government spy on U.S. residents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The threat came in a 12-page letter to Senate leaders from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. It was issued as lawmakers prepare to vote on legislation seeking to update a 1978 surveillance law without violating privacy rights.

"If the president is sent a bill that does not provide the U.S. intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect the nation, the president will veto the bill," wrote Mukasey and McConnell.

[ixion]

1. bring it on, pissypants... DON'T BACK DOWN DEMS

:argh:

[katty]

2. hearin' that!

[DCKit]

3. So fucking what?

If he insists on operating under the original FISA law, so be it. Unfortunately, everything they're currently doing would have to stop, since it's all illegal.

In either case, it's win-win for the American people.

[annabanana]

4. let him...Obviously the phone companies are MORE IMPORTANT

than the "national security" he's so interested in. .

[MaineYooper]

5. it's not really the telcos that he's protecting...

It's him and the rest of his criminal mis-administration. If the telcos don't have immunity then they have to talk, and if they have to talk then a nice bright spotlight shows up on all the things that *co have asked the telcos to do.

I have no doubt at all that if he could throw the telcos under the bus without hanging himself, he'd do it in an instant.

[katty]

8. yup-got that right

[MasonJar]

6. This is exactly what the dems in Congress should want. Why is it so hard to get them to

stop this act?

[Loftlore]

7. How to Destroy Right and Wrong

HOW TO DESTROY WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG



The Senate has voted a fifteen day extension to the "Protect America Act". This bill is widely known as the Telecom Amnesty bill. The bill is a favorite of Dick Cheney's. The President has expressed his wish that the bill be passed. He gave special emphasis to the bill in his final State of the Union address. You'll recall that the Republican side of the House chambers gave the President's demand for passage a standing ovation. Representative Miller (R, MI's 10th Congressional District) was one of those standing to applaud this bill. You may also recall that President Bush has threatened to VETO the bill if it does not include retroactive immunity for crimes telecom companies may have committed by spying on Americans.

The body of this bill extends changes the Bush Administration has made to the FISA court. This court used to control warrantless wiretaps on Americans. Under Bush there are no controls on warrantless spying upon Americans, none, except those that the President might deem to exercise. There is no evidence that Bush has exercised ANY discretion whatsoever when spying on Americans.

Amongst the provisions of the bill is one giving amnesty to telecom (phone) companies for any crimes they may have committed by cooperating with the Bush Administration while they spied on Americans.

Retroactive forgiveness used to be the purview of God. Now the Bush Administration wants a piece of that.

It occurs to me that if wrong can be made retroactively-right by legislation, cannot the opposite also be made so? If the Senate of the United States and the President of the United States can, by law, retroactively make legal what is illegal, who's to say they cannot retroactively make illegal what is legal!

Think of the possibilities! Think of all the acts one might commit with a clear conscious, in utter innocence, that could be retroactively be turned into crimes! If the President chooses to do so, any behavior, however innocuous, could retroactively be made criminal. Example: say one checked out a perfectly legal book from a county library. If that book should come into disfavor with George W. Bush, or perhaps more ominously, with Dick Cheney, they could have the Senate declare possession of the book RETROACTIVELY to be a felony! Why not? They can retroactively make spying on Americans legal! Why not make having read or even possessed a book retroactively illegal? All the President would need to suggest is that the once innocent act of having possessed that book is now a threat to the safety of America.

Hell, perhaps someday the writing of this opinion, or any opinion, could be made a crime.

Can you see the problem? By retroactively making a crime not a crime the President and the Senate would destroy the line between what is right and wrong. You'll never know, and laws will not delineate, what is criminal and what is not.

Long ago the Bush Administration crossed the line between what is right and what is wrong, what is legal and what is criminal, now they want to destroy the line itself.

[e-mail]
by the author and from
http://www.loftlore.com/blog

[Prophet 451]

10. Not to mention, it's a legal nightmare

Doing this is a BFD to the rule of law. One of Dicey's (A. V. Dicey = massively influential legal theorist) three principles was that the law should never be used retroactively for all the reasons mentioned above.

[bemildred]

9. Bring it on! nt