Dem Congress Yields Pressure, Direct and Indirect

[All_Around_Brown]

In a four-paragraph letter on Wednesday announcing that the Bush administration had reversed its position and would submit its domestic surveillance program to judicial supervision, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales used one phrase three times. A secret court, he said, had fashioned a way to allow the program to be monitored by the judiciary without compromising the need for “speed and agility.”
That phrase also captures, some critics say, the administration’s moving-target litigation strategy, one that often seeks to change the terms of the debate just as a claim of executive authority is about to be tested in the courts or in Congress.
On Wednesday, the administration announced that an unnamed judge on the secret court, in a nonadversarial proceeding that apparently cannot be appealed, had issued orders that apparently both granted surveillance requests and set out some ground rules for how such requests would be handled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/wa...rtner=homepage


Seems to me that we'll see a number of "reversals" as there is now oversight in Congress. The threat of investigation alone appears to be enough to get these traitors to begin to come clean on the steady stream of constitutional assaults they've been unleashing in the name of TWOT. Gonzales knows what he's advised Bush on doing has been unconstitutional. Its only now, after the election, that their policy of going around the FISA court is being recalled.

[BelichickFan]

I was kind of happy knowing they were doing what they could to catch the bad guys. Oh well.

[Harry Boy]

The Muslim Terrorists love these people, Liberals love to make believe that 9/11 never happened, they want us all to forget it and so do the Muslims.

[Real World]

Oversight is good. Checks and balances are necessary. Pissing on laws or the constituiton is unacceptable. I'm all for it so long as it's not done for political purposes. Catching the bad guys is extremely important, but blank checks to do so are a no go. Like I said, I'm cautiosly optomistic about what happened in November.

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

I was kind of happy knowing they were doing what they could to catch the bad guys. Oh well.

Not a big fan of the US constitution apparently. Wow, who woulda thunk it?

Since this info first came to the public eye, Bush said (paraphrased) "when we are talking about wiretap, we are talking about getting a warrant". Then, of course, it came out that no warrants were issued and the admin was simply ignoring THE LAW, specifically the FISA act. When they were caught red handed doing so, they justified it using lame excuses about why it was necessary for them to ignore FISA. Now that we have a branch finally representing the people and shining a microscope on the illegalities of the administration, they are back to following the law as it was intended.

The exact same process is occurring with detainees, and its only a matter of time before they are reeled in from their irresponsible ignorance of DUE PROCESS. Thats the gist of this story and one any true american should be very concerned about.

Its called checks and balances people. Bush swore to uphold the constitution, and by circumventing it as he has, he has set dangerous precedents for future presidencies who may try the same thing. Of course, I wouldn't expect Bush butt swabs to be in favor of such things. They apparently would prefer to live in a dictatorship.

Perhaps when Dems win the presidency in 08, we could suggest a few nice authoritarian nations where we can send these traitors and their followers, so they'll be nice and "safe".

[All_Around_Brown]

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[Real World]

This wiretapping stuff isn't new you know.

The anti-terrorism bill that Clinton signed earlier this year applied the death penalty to convicted terrorists and provided $1 billion in special assistance for law enforcement.

But a provision to allow the FBI to wiretap all telephones used by a suspected terrorist was dropped and one requiring explosives manufacturers to insert chemical tracers in their products was weakened to cover only plastic explosives.

A rare grouping of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats succeeded in killing the wiretap provision on the grounds that it would encroach further on personal liberties.

Clinton said he wanted increased wiretap authority "for terrorists who are moving from place to place," adding: "Where they are flexible, so must we be."

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/29/clinto...ism/index.html



Of course, then the government was recently caught spying on Princess Diana. Anyone ever wonder why? Some feel it may have been because she knew a guy named Theodore Forstmann. Who's he? Well, he was a billionaire republican financer. Hmmm...of course, they are allegations and assumptions, so take them for what they are worth. All I'm saying is that this stuff is nothing new.

As for Ben Franklins quote, it's nice and all, and generally correct. The only problem is, Good 'ole Benny never knew what phone was, who a terrorist might be, or had to deal with the distint possibility that he'd die from a uclear blast miles away. I totally understand the principle though.

[All_Around_Brown]

Originally Posted by Real World

As for Ben Franklins quote, it's nice and all, and generally correct. The only problem is, Good 'ole Benny never knew what phone was, who a terrorist might be, or had to deal with the distint possibility that he'd die from a uclear blast miles away. I totally understand the principle though.

Of course wiretapping isn't new. Whats new is the blatant disregard for the FISA law. Why is it that every time its pointed out that Bush broke the law, you come back with a defense for him and then couch your answers in your thin veil of "objectivity"?

Franklin never dreamed of those things. True. Neither did any of our forefathers. Does that mean we should destroy the system of government they established because you are now scared of Iran? Tommorow it might be Pakistan. Or you name it...who knows how many threats there are. Iraq sure as hell wasn't one, but they are now. (Thanks Bush voters.)

If you say our liberties are worth sacrificing for a little (false sense of) security, then maybe you need to take a close look at how many great societies before us sacrificed everything they had for that "sense of security".

I still dont see how you can take a position of wanting freedom for people the world over at the point of a gun which you've made clear, and yet are too afraid to defend lost liberty right here at home.

If that is truly your position, then the terrorists won already, by making us a less free, open, and just society.

[Real World]

Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown

Of course wiretapping isn't new. Whats new is the blatant disregard for the FISA law. Why is it that every time its pointed out that Bush broke the law, you come back with a defense for him and then couch your answers in your thin veil of "objectivity"?

Franklin never dreamed of those things. True. Neither did any of our forefathers. Does that mean we should destroy the system of government they established because you are now scared of Iran? Tommorow it might be Pakistan. Or you name it...who knows how many threats there are. Iraq sure as hell wasn't one, but they are now. (Thanks Bush voters.)

If you say our liberties are worth sacrificing for a little (false sense of) security, then maybe you need to take a close look at how many great societies before us sacrificed everything they had for that "sense of security".

I still dont see how you can take a position of wanting freedom for people the world over at the point of a gun which you've made clear, and yet are too afraid to defend lost liberty right here at home.

If that is truly your position, then the terrorists won already, by making us a less free, open, and just society.

I'll ask you what most people have asked me. What freedoms have you lost since 9/11? What in your life has changed for the sake of security? I totally understand your point, and am by no means advocating a zig hail, papers please society. All I am trying to point out is that quoting Benjamin Franklin, like so many Libertarians i know do (Thomas Jefferson is quotee #1), is kinda silly in todays world. They are nice quotes, the principles are obvious, but the reality is what it is. I think you have to concede something to gain somewhere else. The only question is how much is conceded, for how much of a gain, and how to ensure transparency.

[Harry Boy]

Please Do Not Offend The Enemy
Can You Imagine Telling Harry Truman Not To Wiretap A Nazi