WP: House Approves Wiretap Measure

[AsburySkinsFan]

Ok, boys and girls next time you pick up the phone be sure and say hello to our good ol' nosey uncle. Oh, yeah, and BRAVO to the Dems for caving, feckless wimps.

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401744.html?hpid=topnews

House Approves Wiretap Measure

White House Bill Boosts Warrantless Surveillance

By Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, August 5, 2007; Page A01

The Democratic-controlled House last night approved and sent to President Bush for his signature legislation written by his intelligence advisers to enhance their ability to intercept the electronic communications of foreigners without a court order.

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded weak on terrorism and on a general congressional desire to act on the measure before an August recess.

The Senate had passed the legislation Friday night after House Democrats failed to win enough votes to pass a narrower revision of a statute known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The original statute was enacted after the revelation of CIA abuses in the 1970s, and it required judicial oversight for most federal wiretapping conducted in the United States.

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers, complained that the Bush administration's revisions of the law could breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attacks.

Democrats facing reelection next year in conservative districts helped propel the bill to a quick approval. Adding to the pressures they felt were recent intelligence reports about threatening new al-Qaeda activity in Pakistan and the disclosure by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) of a secret court ruling earlier this year that complicated the wiretapping of purely foreign communications that happen to pass through a communications node on U.S. soil.

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" without a court's order or oversight.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto emphasized that the bill is not meant to increase eavesdropping on Americans or "to affect in any way the legitimate privacy rights" of U.S. citizens. Data related to Americans in communications with foreigners who are the targets of a U.S. terrorism investigation could be monitored only if intelligence officials have a reasonable expectation of learning information relevant to that probe, a senior U.S. official said.

"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one angry Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being railroaded."

In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in six months.

Some House Democrats were still upset by what they saw as a deliberate scuttling by the White House of negotiations on a compromise bill. On Thursday, Democratic leaders reached what they believed was a deal with the government's chief intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, only to be presented with a new list of conditions at the last minute. The White House and McConnell have denied that a deal had been reached.

"I think the White House didn't want to take 'yes' for an answer from the Democrats," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), an intelligence committee member.

The administration said that its bill is aimed at bringing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 into step with advances in technology, primarily by restoring the government's power to gather without a warrant foreign intelligence on targets located overseas.

Read the rest here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401744_2.html?hpid=topnews

[Koolblue13]

Data related to Americans in communications with foreigners who are the targets of a U.S. terrorism investigation could be monitored only if intelligence officials have a reasonable expectation of learning information relevant to that probe, a senior U.S. official said.

Havn't they been doing much more than this for a while anyway, at least it's more legallish now.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Havn't they been doing much more than this for a while anyway, at least it's more legallish now.

Yeah, I love it when they do things that are illegal and then change the laws to allow them. Where is that quote about America and the guise of a foreign enemy, I know its in someone's sig.

edit: here it is; "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"

--James Madison

[IONTOP]

This is so AWESOME!!!! I cannot WAIT!!!!

[twa]

How does it feel to the left to be sold out?

Between this and Fienstein flipping on the judge it almost looks like ya'll are getting marginalized simply to protect seats...Or they could simply be recognizing reality for a change.

[Burgold]

Who was the guy who said last week that the reason for illegal warrantless wiretaps by the Bush Adminstration was because it would have been impossible to get Congress to change the laws? I think he was adamanent that the White House had the duty to break the law because the then Republican controlled Congress wouldn't ammend these laws. If they got it out of the Dems, the breaking of the law earlier is even worse. Don't you think?

As to the actually change, I'm wary of it and feel disappointed, although I'll need to know more before I can actually make a real judgement.

[PokerPacker]

my disappointment in our government grows everyday. :doh:

[twa]

Burgold they only pushed for new rules as a result of a recent FISA ruling making it needful.

It was easier and imo better for the spying to be operating in the gray area of the law,rather than to be explicitly sanctioned and enshrined into law.

Though this should quiet some of the "illegal spying" rhetoric from the partisan crowd since it is now clearly lawful.

[Teller]

This is going to be one of those rare occasions where Ken comes into a thread and posts a conspiracy theory about the potential for government abuse, that I'll whole-heartedly agree with.

I was listening to the House debate on this bill on C-SPAN on the way to work this morning. Apparently (though I couldn't find it in the bill myself) there is a section that makes it legal to perform electronic surveillance on two people within the United States without a warrant, so long as their interaction CONCERNS someone outside the United States. If that's not absolutely unconstitutional, nothing is.

Think about it. Say your daughter is going to school at Oxford. If you call from your home in Virginia to talk to Aunt Nellie in Alabama about your daughter's studies, the feds can listen in. Scary ****.

I fully expect Vladimir Putin to do **** like this. I expect George Bush to occasionally do **** like this. I do NOT expect 535 alleged representatives of the people of this great country to do **** like this.

Where in the hell are we going as a country. Nevermind. Don't tell me. I don't want to know. :doh:

[Burgold]

Burgold they only pushed for new rules as a result of a recent FISA ruling making it needful.

Though this should quiet some of the "illegal spying" rhetoric from the partisan crowd since it is now clearly lawful.

Part A shows that part b was not a partisan reaction, but a correct one.

But in a practical way you're correct, going forward we can't complain that they are continuing to do this illegally. Of course that may just mean that we have to wait a few more minutes to find out the next law that they've been breaking.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Though this should quiet some of the "illegal spying" rhetoric from the partisan crowd since it is now clearly lawful.

I may not be able to say its illegal now, but I can still throw a fit because it unconstitutional; for now anyways...but with Bush's SCOTUS that too may change and what a sad day that will be.

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"

--James Madison

[ACW]

I actually agree w/ HH. And let me repeat that quote:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"

--James Madison

[AsburySkinsFan]

It was the stupidest, most southern-fried, lamebrained decision I ever made in my life," Luttrell writes. "I must have been out of my mind. I had actually cast a vote which I knew could sign our death warrant. I'd turned into a (expletive) liberal, a half-assed, no-logic nitwit, all heart, no brain, and the judgment of a jack rabbit.

Hey TWA, I know this is off topic, but I read the article in your sig, it seems that you left one important part out of the piece:

"On the other hand, he felt the promptings of "another soul. My Christian soul."

"Something kept whispering in the back of my mind, it would be wrong to execute these unarmed men in cold blood."

Righteousness, is not cheap either my friend, and it is often paid for in blood, its just a shame that he regrets making the right choice now.

*edit*

"'People make mistakes and bad things happen' Luttrell said, summing up the events of two summers ago."

Hmmm, too bad he feels this way, because as I see it "People do the right thing and bad things happen."

[Burgold]

I actually agree w/ HH. And let me repeat that quote:

HH is one of the good guys here at ES and by that I mean that he generally believes what he says and he's a fair conservative... even though that's often a oxymoron

[Teller]

HH is one of the good guys here at ES and by that I mean that he generally believes what he says and he's a fair conservative... even though that's often a oxymoron

Who you callin' a moron?

Look, as you guys well know, it took me longer to "see the light" with this administration than it did most of you. (However, I'd argue that I probably saw Bill Clinton for who he was a lot sooner than most of my liberal friends.) But once I saw what was really going on, I became more than a little concerned.

Now, I'm borderline terrified. It was one thing when we had a president who believed he could spy on Americans without a warrant; and open our mail without one too. But now, when the congress is led by the opposition party and checks and balances should be at their best, we get a rubber stamp for an unconstitutional procedure. I thought this was exactly what the democrats were there to prevent.

I'm genuinely concerned about the state of our federal government right now. The president says he doesn't need warrants to spy on me. The congress agrees with him. Will the Supreme Court step in and uphold my rights, or will they cave under pressure too? (I'd like to think the former, but I also thought the former about the dems in congress.)

The NSA wiretaps were the first step down the slippery slope. The post office signing statement was the second. This is the third. How about Ken's post about surveillance cameras on our streets? Is that the fourth? Where does it stop? Maybe it's when those of us who took an oath to "protect the Constitution against all enemies -- foreign and domestic" say it does. I don't know. But I'll tell you this. I'm GRAVELY concerned.

[twa]

ASF, glad you took the time to read it the main reason for that quote was to draw interest

I wish more would so they can better understand the choices these guys face and the consequences they live with because of their righteousness.( and I truly believe most are righteous)

I agree it's a shame he now regrets it,but all our choices have consequences.

Some more painful than others.

Added...another teaser

he expresses frequent disdain for the "liberal media" and "liberals" in general, whom he blames for imposing naive rules of engagement that jeopardize American lives, and for second-guessing difficult, split-second decisions soldiers in combat must make.

[Burgold]

TWA isn't bad either, but he has admitted that he's a Bush apologist, so while you have to give him some honesty points for the admission... he just loses so many in the ethics and morality department that it's nearly impossible to catch up

[twa]

:laugh: Talk about damning with faint praise...Thanks.. I guess

Do you really expect ethics and morality and politics to mix?

I admit I've learned to settle for the lesser of evils in my voting. :puke:

[Burgold]

:laugh: Talk about damning with faint praise...Thanks.. I guess

Do you really expect ethics and morality and politics to mix?

I admit I've learned to settle for the lesser of evils in my voting. :puke:

:laugh:

I've actually learned quite a few facts from you over the years which I appreciate.

When forced to label myself I've always considered myself an optimistic cynic. I get the sense that you are a cynical optimist. I think you do carefully think out your positions and the compromises that are required to make them. This issue is a great example of that. Do we compromise our liberty for the hope of better security and to what degree? I like that you admit that it is a compromise. There are a number of posters who seem to think that it is a black and white issue. It has to be done and it's a good thing. You at least seem to say, It should be done even though it's a dangerous thing.

And that's a position I can appreciate.

[Ken]

Yeah, I love it when they do things that are illegal and then change the laws to allow them. Where is that quote about America and the guise of a foreign enemy, I know its in someone's sig.

edit: here it is; "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"

--James Madison

Exactly.

This is how EVERYTHING is done.

[Ken]

This is going to be one of those rare occasions where Ken comes into a thread and posts a conspiracy theory about the potential for government abuse, that I'll whole-heartedly agree with.

I was listening to the House debate on this bill on C-SPAN on the way to work this morning. Apparently (though I couldn't find it in the bill myself) there is a section that makes it legal to perform electronic surveillance on two people within the United States without a warrant, so long as their interaction CONCERNS someone outside the United States. If that's not absolutely unconstitutional, nothing is.

Think about it. Say your daughter is going to school at Oxford. If you call from your home in Virginia to talk to Aunt Nellie in Alabama about your daughter's studies, the feds can listen in. Scary ****.

I fully expect Vladimir Putin to do **** like this. I expect George Bush to occasionally do **** like this. I do NOT expect 535 alleged representatives of the people of this great country to do **** like this.

Where in the hell are we going as a country. Nevermind. Don't tell me. I don't want to know. :doh:

Hey, I can't help it if I know things and accept things that others aren't ready to accept yet. I can assure you that I have spent countless hours researching anything that I post, at least in regards to liberties and them being taken away.

I will say that they are becoming increasingly brazen in how they do whatever the hell they want regardless of what the American people want.

[Ken]

Who you callin' a moron?

Look, as you guys well know, it took me longer to "see the light" with this administration than it did most of you. (However, I'd argue that I probably saw Bill Clinton for who he was a lot sooner than most of my liberal friends.) But once I saw what was really going on, I became more than a little concerned.

Now, I'm borderline terrified. It was one thing when we had a president who believed he could spy on Americans without a warrant; and open our mail without one too. But now, when the congress is led by the opposition party and checks and balances should be at their best, we get a rubber stamp for an unconstitutional procedure. I thought this was exactly what the democrats were there to prevent.

I'm genuinely concerned about the state of our federal government right now. The president says he doesn't need warrants to spy on me. The congress agrees with him. Will the Supreme Court step in and uphold my rights, or will they cave under pressure too? (I'd like to think the former, but I also thought the former about the dems in congress.)

The NSA wiretaps were the first step down the slippery slope. The post office signing statement was the second. This is the third. How about Ken's post about surveillance cameras on our streets? Is that the fourth? Where does it stop? Maybe it's when those of us who took an oath to "protect the Constitution against all enemies -- foreign and domestic" say it does. I don't know. But I'll tell you this. I'm GRAVELY concerned.

HH,

I'm proud that your red blooded Patriot genes are kicking in!

I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court for anything. They have been castrated by the Miliary Commissions Act 2006, the Patriot Act, and numerous other laws.

It is the Executive Branch, then everything else. Checks and balances doesn't exist anymore. This is not a conspiracy theory either, it is fact.

[PeterMP]

HH,

I'm proud that your red blooded Patriot genes are kicking in!

I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court for anything. They have been castrated by the Miliary Commissions Act 2006, the Patriot Act, and numerous other laws.

It is the Executive Branch, then everything else. Checks and balances doesn't exist anymore. This is not a conspiracy theory either, it is fact.

Ken, these laws can't castrate the Supreme Court. The Supreme Courst simply has the ability to find them unconstitutional. Why do you have such a hard time understanding the role of the Supreme Court?

[PeterMP]

This is going to be one of those rare occasions where Ken comes into a thread and posts a conspiracy theory about the potential for government abuse, that I'll whole-heartedly agree with.

I was listening to the House debate on this bill on C-SPAN on the way to work this morning. Apparently (though I couldn't find it in the bill myself) there is a section that makes it legal to perform electronic surveillance on two people within the United States without a warrant, so long as their interaction CONCERNS someone outside the United States. If that's not absolutely unconstitutional, nothing is.

Think about it. Say your daughter is going to school at Oxford. If you call from your home in Virginia to talk to Aunt Nellie in Alabama about your daughter's studies, the feds can listen in. Scary ****.

I've read a couple different sources stories on this. None of them seeme to suggest this is true. This would be worrisome. All of them point to the fact that you can have conversation between two people not in this country that passes through this country. They seemed to manage to get them to throw in the ability to listen into conversations involving one person in America and one somewhere else, but that is still along way from what you are describing.

Do you know said this?

[Chief skin]

The dems and gop are a crock of BS. We need a viable 3rd party, I am sick of both of them