Democrats re-establish FISA oversight of Bush Administration's domestic surveillance

[Zandor]

...Senate Democrats successfully pressed for a requirement that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court review the government's procedures for deciding who is to be the subject of warrantless surveillance. They also insisted that the legislation be renewed in six years, Democratic congressional officials said. The Bush administration had sought less stringent oversight by the court and wanted the law to be permanent...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/17/AR2007101702438.html?hpid=topnews

[cali]

1. good. Too bad they're letting the telecom's skate. n/t

[Zandor]

2. Compromise

I agree, but you give to get. Important to remeber who is pushing for what here.

[ProSense]

5. Tell it to Patrick Leahy

Leahy condemns FISA compromise, says admin knew program was illegal

[cali]

14. Yep. Patrick Leahy thinks it's a sucky idea. How do you respond

to that?

[Zandor]

18. You can't have everything. n/t

[cali]

20. Gee, why would I value Leahy's opinion over yours?

I wouldn't of course.

[Zandor]

21. Gee, why would I value _____'s opinion over yours?

Silly retort.

[cali]

22. It's not at all silly. Leahy is a Senator I trust. You're an anonymous

poster. See the difference?

[Zandor]

23. I can always find someone more knowledgeable than you,

and that I respect more, that disagrees with your position.

[Lerkfish]

28. riiiight. and the dems have to give?

compromise is not always the best solution.

[JackORoses]

32. so we give them immunity for innumerable untold crimes, and we get what, exactly?

I guess Hillary supports the Telecoms, so you do too.

[Botany]

3. after giving both bush & the communication companies a pass

damn spineless shits aka Jay Rockefeller

[Zandor]

4. FISA oversight doesn't matter to you? n/t

[Botany]

12. I want them both ... FISA oversight and the rule of law

This like letting a person rob banks for years and then
saying, "I will watch you from now on but go ahead and keep
all the money you have stolen."

In a nutshell
U.S. Attorneys were the "button men."
NSA let "them" spy on political opponents aka Kerry in 2004.

[Hydra]

6. I'm waiting to see Bush's reaction on this

He can still veto or sign the oversight away.

I hate having this bastard at the helm.

[Zandor]

7. Me too

and many DUers are crying third party. Go figure.

[librechik]

9. or just openly break the law like he has all along

he doesn't give a shit, and apparently the folks who have the power to stop him don't give a shit either.

[Hydra]

15. True

as long as nobody at the NSA leaks the program(and they won't, having no protection as whistleblowers, and it doesn't do any good anyway), the program will continue and those morons will use the system to stalk their ex's or spy on people in the shower.

:argh:

[acmavm]

8. And who oversees the spying program?

Judge Judicial district Date appointed Term expiry
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (presiding) District of Columbia May 19, 2002 May 18, 2009
John D. Bates District of Columbia February 22, 2006 May 18, 2013
Dee Benson District of Utah April 8, 2004 May 18, 2011
Robert C. Broomfield District of Arizona October 1, 2002 May 18, 2009
James G. Carr Northern District of Ohio May 19, 2002 May 18, 2008
Nathaniel M. Gorton District of Massachusetts May 18, 2001 May 18, 2008
Reggie B. Walton District of Columbia May 19, 2007 May 18, 2014
Malcolm Howard Eastern District of North Carolina May 19, 2005 May 18, 2012
George P. Kazen Southern District of Texas July 15, 2003 May 18, 2010
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. Northern District of New York May 19, 2004 May 18, 2011
Roger Vinson Northern District of Florida May 4, 2006 May 18, 2013

[tom_paine]

13. Surprise suprise, mostly Bushie Mafia Buttons masquerading as judges

(although I don't think you can include Walton in that group anymore...he is that rarest of breeds, an Honest Republican and no Bushie, at least partly...but who knows, the whole Libby thing could have just been a Commie-style dumbshow in which the outcome was always known)

Crminals in robes, just like the Nazi Judges, only less violent and more subtle in their allegiences.

PS. being a little more subtle thanthe Nazis but with many of the saqme aims is NOT a compliment.

[acmavm]

17. Of friggin' course it's bush**Bot bootlickers that sit on that court.

You surely don't think that anyone impartial would or could get on there do you?

And this is bullshit. Our reps know what kind of partisan shits sit on that court. So not only did they give the telecom companies immunity, THEY DIDN'T STOP OR PREVENT THIS CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION FROM SPYING ON WHOEVER THEY WANT, WHENEVER THEY WANT!!

We got sold down the river, again.

[acmavm]

10. Compromise my ass. They caved like the whiney shits they are.

I want to be granted immunity for breaking the law. Think if I change my party affiliation to the Dark Side I'll get it????

[Spike from MN]

25. Sorry but I have to disagree with you on this one.

They didn't cave. They're complicit. Hell, they don't even bother to pretend they represent us anymore. Why should they? Their corporate masters are all that matter.

I agree with you about the "whiney shits" part though. And I want immunity too. And a refund for all the speeding and parking tickets I've paid. Plus interest.

[endarkenment]

11. Immunity, blanket warrants, constitutional disgrace.

The actual headline:

Senate and Bush Agree On Terms of Spying Bill
Some Telecom Companies Would Receive Immunity

"It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.

Such a demonstration, which the bill says could be made in secret, would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants. Bush had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision."

Left out of the WP article is the fact that this bill permits blanket warrants in direct violation of the clear language in the constitution's 4th amendment.

[tom_paine]

16. Well said. Just those two aspects alone more than nullify anything "good" in the bill

not there there is really anything like that in there, but those who will defend the German Social Democrats to the end for their capitulations, cannot hear you or I.

Too busy convicning themselves that light coming up the tunnel isn't a 600-ton freight train ready to smear them over the tracks. Too busy convincing themselves that the mountains of evidence do not add up to the formation of a new type of totalitarianism, one whichpreserves bits of the old freedoms as window dressing for the marks.

[leftchick]

30. thank you for the clarification

some people seem to want to read this the exact opposite of what it is, Treachery!

[lonestarnot]

19. Ack!

[T.Ruth2power]

24. Another victory?

yawn...

Boy oh boy those Dems are really puttin' the brakes on BushCo. huh? What a feisty bunch.

Is FISA off the table?

Senate caves to Bush on telecom immunity John Byrne
Published: Thursday October 18, 2007

Despite an intense lobbying effort from privacy groups, the Senate sealed an expected deal this week with President Bush to grant major telecommunications companies -- including Verizon, Comcast and AT&T -- immunity from prosecution for their role in the President's warrantless eavesdropping program if they can "demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States."

<snip>


http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senate_caves_to_Bush_on_telecom_1018.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. And it expires in only six years!

:sarcasm:

What good is having a Dem majority in Congress if they can't block bad legislation?

They may not be able to override a veto, but if they all voted "no," it wouldn't pass.

[Lerkfish]

27. complete mischaracterization of the story and headline.

here's there salient point from the article:

It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage.

[Zandor]

29. That passage is all conclusions of the writer

It is not a statement of what actually happened.

[Lerkfish]

31. no, of course not.

giving the resident exactly what he wanted is not a victory for him, not at all.

:rolleyes: