I Am Shocked, Shocked that U.S. Gov Abused Blank Check Powers

[KukriKhan]

Frankly I think the minds of most reps will be made up by Jan 1st that he can't, and hasn't. And that will be the theme of '12. So it seems to matter little how much or how little good he'll be able to get done. Balancing what was at that time an enormous deficit didn't earn Clinton much +++ from Republicans. I don't think Obama can do "everything" in one term nor is he claiming so. But I think even at the most cynical level possible, he's going to engage in as much damage control as possible. McCain wants to keep the ship veered full sail in the course that already made us hit three icebergs. His indefinite promise to keep the good wars going till 'victory alone will ensure that the problem is going to get much worse under McCain than it absolutely has to.

So: "No. But mostly - and he'll try hard." Even with a stacked House and Senate? Does he not hold sway with Dems? Maybe he made a few enemies on the way to the top.

Or, will you not be satisfied until he's won in 2012 as well? Will it take that long for him to fix America?

[Koga No Goshi]

So: "No. But mostly - and he'll try hard." Even with a stacked House and Senate? Does he not hold sway with Dems? Maybe he made a few enemies on the way to the top.

Or, will you not be satisfied until he's won in 2012 as well? Will it take that long for him to fix America?

I'm saying these problems are so big that if you believe even with a rubber stamp congress and 100% pure intentions any single person could fix them all in four years then you are setting an impossibly high standard. Do you believe ANYONE could fix a 10 trillion dollar debt and enormous off the budget deficit in four years? Besides internet computer chair experts? :) Perhaps you are underestimating how much the SCALE of these problems is in many ways unprecedented. I mean, we thought Clinton was inheriting a huge deficit. That was peanuts. And people THEN said there was absolutely no way he could get anything done, or balance the deficit.

The difference between the parties right now? You can go youtube Obama speaking at public rallies yesterday. He says, flat out, and this is nothing new, that rough times are coming and America is going to have to sacrifice. He admits that. That's not campaign rhetoric, I believe he means it literally. The difference is, Republicans are going to spend the next four years acting as if we could have continued with our lifestyle choices and foreign and domestic policy as normal with no one being so much as distracted from their American Idol, if we didn't have such a left wing whacko radical in office. And they'll be lying, because there's no way the next four years are going to be a smooth hayride no matter who is leading.

[KukriKhan]

So, if he fails to make progress it'll be the Repub's fault?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you here - your input is actually helping me shape my decision come Election Day.

Rather than raising or lowering 'the bar' of expectations, I just wanna know what you, a trained numbers-guy, and enthusiastic supporter our the Senator, think - how long is it gonna take to "undo" the nastier parts of GW's legacy, and get our finances more manageable? I don't expect a surplus after 4 years, I hope for control, with a visible way through the minefields.

[Koga No Goshi]

So, if he fails to make progress it'll be the Repub's fault?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you here - your input is actually helping me shape my decision come Election Day.

Rather than raising or lowering 'the bar' of expectations, I just wanna know what you, a trained numbers-guy, and enthusiastic supporter our the Senator, think - how long is it gonna take to "undo" the nastier parts of GW's legacy, and get our finances more manageable? I don't expect a surplus after 4 years, I hope for control, with a visible way through the minefields.

No of course not. While plenty of people are happy to call me a blind partisan, I find the people who throw that accusation out the easiest are most often the most guilty of it themselves. People still defending the last 8 years, while simultaneously saying that we need change and such, would be a prime example. We went through that same thing in '04, people sort of...admitting that things weren't going smoothly, but then insisting no change was necessary or desirable. Strange.

As far as time... I don't know what it is you're expecting to see undone, Kukri. If you're talking about "when is the U.S. going to look just like it did before Dubya touched it", who knows. He's entrenched a lot into the justice department and set a lot of bad precedents that may have lasting implications for years. That's just the way judicial stuff works, change is never snapfinger overnight. And why stuffing the courts is always such a priority for both partisanships. (Although of course I would argue that our picks are more moderate.... we don't have a universal litmus of basically goading a judicial pick into admitting he disagrees with standing law and would love to see it overturned, whereas that is a litmus for Republican judicial appointments.) Many are picked just for having a good judicial and civil rights record without particular crusadership on any one particular issue. (I'm sure there are exceptions.)

But, if you want me to go stump and say oh yeah yeah, don't worry, most of the bad stuff will be over with in 4 years... I have no way of knowing that, no matter how kind conditions are. I know only that the plans proposed greatly favor more recovery in the domestic sector and in international affairs under Obama, that economists endorse his plans more, that he seems far more in touch with regular concerns of regular people (he doesn't define middle class as 250k...) and his priorities focus on long-term investments in America (education, college, jobs, industries, infrastructure) as opposed to costly short-term ego points (making sure no one can say we didn't get "victory" before we admit our military role in a political conflict is over) and tax cuts for the rich in a period of huge deficit. Many on these very boards still argue the wisdom of cut taxes, cut taxes. If any of the promises they make about how tax cuts for the upper classes should directly go through a revolving door to benefit the American economy domestically, we should be halfway through a steady growth period, not in virtually our 8th year of economic decline. Even my dad, an almost lifelong conservative, has hopped for Obama because he says if you have 8 years to try your plan, and it doesn't work, change your plan. And it's both vindicating and a little sad to see his eyes opening up as he is in these constant arguments with all his coworkers (mostly Republican) who are ideological and still just argue the same policies, even after 8 years and where we are today with the debt and deficit and tax cuts and the wars.

Obama says he can't know what parts of his plan have to be shelved or implemented only piecemeal until he sees the budget come in, because until then you're just working off imaginary numbers. And McCain in not so many words has expressed the same idea by avoiding going into any details of his plans or proposed budgeting to make them possible. (Although he does rather cavalierly insist that he sees no reason anything would have to be cut or greatly modified from his original plan.... he dodged that question while Obama answered it just like Palin dodged the question about weaknesses while Biden answered it.) It's more or less given that Obama can't implement everything in one term; but this is true of anyone campaigning for the Presidency no? The economic crisis has just cast even more doubt over how exactly the two candidates' plans would manifest, certainly they will have to be modified. But I Think Obama has displayed more flexibility, willingness to look at the situations as they arise and incorporate them, rather than insist on sticking to the talking point right up until the moemnt you are forced to do an abrupt about-face. ("The fundamentals of the economy are strong...")

[drone]

Agreed, but no one here has given that as a reason.

I never said anybody did. You asked how I would vote and why, and I told you. An independent is not a member of a third party, he/she is not affiliated with any party and votes with his/her brain. I don't see how this is any worse than just voting straight party ticket. And that "toilet flush" vote usually determines the winner.



So I will pull a Redleg, and ask again: How does this excuse the Democratic controlled Congress from enabling the administration in this matter? You accuse me of just ranting on this board about how crap both parties are, this is one example of why I do it.

[KukriKhan]

As far as time... I don't know what it is you're expecting to see undone, Kukri. If you're talking about "when is the U.S. going to look just like it did before Dubya touched it", who knows.

Please, give a tiny bit more credit than that. September 11th happened, and it changed everything. Even if we don't understand the depth or all the nuances of that change, yet.

To see 'undone': Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, torture, pre-emptive military strikes to potential threats... for a start. He could undo all that with a single stroke of his Executive Order pen on his first day in office. Will he? If so, then I'd feel like we stood some chance of also fixing the measures that will require Congressional cooperation. FISA, Patriot Act, etc.

[Koga No Goshi]

I never said anybody did. You asked how I would vote and why, and I told you. An independent is not a member of a third party, he/she is not affiliated with any party and votes with his/her brain. I don't see how this is any worse than just voting straight party ticket. And that "toilet flush" vote usually determines the winner.



So I will pull a Redleg, and ask again: How does this excuse the Democratic controlled Congress from enabling the administration in this matter? You accuse me of just ranting on this board about how crap both parties are, this is one example of why I do it.

That's demanding I take up the case for something I've never pretended to defend. I 'm not here to "excuse" the Democrats or be put on the defensive for their 2 year voting record. All I have maintained is that I believe it is far more likely to see change to these laws under Obama and a Dem majority than under McCain and a rep majority.

[Koga No Goshi]

Please, give a tiny bit more credit than that. September 11th happened, and it changed everything.

You're one of the people who believe this? It was just a convenient pretext to flood through a bunch of private and ideological wish list items that were already on people's formal or informal agendas. Nothing seriously changed, we have some token and expensive airport security now, and a lot more curtailments on the civil rights of people who bear no relation whatsoever to what hit us on 9/11.

To see 'undone': Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, torture, pre-emptive military strikes to potential threats... for a start. He could undo all that with a single stroke of his Executive Order pen on his first day in office. Will he? If so, then I'd feel like we stood some chance of also fixing the measures that will require Congressional cooperation. FISA, Patriot Act, etc.

I believe those will all be over in the first term. Yes.

[drone]

That's demanding I take up the case for something I've never pretended to defend. I 'm not here to "excuse" the Democrats or be put on the defensive for their 2 year voting record. All I have maintained is that I believe it is far more likely to see change to these laws under Obama and a Dem majority than under McCain and a rep majority.

Then why did you spend the whole weekend arguing with Redleg about the law and defending the Democrats?

[KukriKhan]

I believe those will all be over in the first term. Yes

*Whew* Thank you.

[Koga No Goshi]

Then why did you spend the whole weekend arguing with Redleg about the law and defending the Democrats?

Read over it again. Never once did I say I was happy about how the Dems voted or that it was good votes.

[Koga No Goshi]

*Whew* Thank you.

Well I had to undersatnd the exact parameters of your question. :) Some people might frame an impossible one, like "oh, so you believe Obama will have the economy totally fixed in one term?" To which the answer would be no, but that we will be less in the hole and spending more on investments which will help us long-term, and less on things that are total and complete wastes than the alternative. :)

[drone]

Hehe, 2 years of Dems in Congress didn't undue roughly 30 years of Reaganomic trickle down and deregulation. The shock! The horror! ::ANGERMAN::

Then refresh my memory. What was the point of this post?

And after I detailed how the Dems screwed up (with the year and links to the law), I get this:

You guys keep lobbing this stat around. Congress is pretty much always unpopular. The rating is not so low just or only because Dems took over two years ago. It's a cumulative disgust after 8 years of policies and laws they don't like. Most of which we have your party to thank for.

And then you blame the GOP for the bill:

If you are independent, stop demanding rationales for Republican legislation that a lot of Dem lemmings got shepherded or scared or cajoled into supporting for national security purposes. I'm not happy about it, nor have I ever made a claim that Every Dem votes in lockstep with my beliefs and how I would like them to vote. But if you think looking down your nose at Congressional approval ratings and unpopular Republican pieces of legislation which haven't been retired by the Democratic Congress, and blaming it all on the Democrats, doesn't come off as markedly one-sided and partisan, you need to work on those Independent credibility ratings.

and this:

I'm not passing anything off on the GOP; it is indeed, their legislation, and a handmedown from the W administration. (Funny how we talk about it in past tense while it's still alive.)

Yes, the Democrats have failed to revolutionize and gutterdump all the legislation of the Bush Administration. Admitted. So let's get over the accusations of talking points and partisanship and discuss the issue at hand.

So finally, you admit that the Dems didn't get things done. But you are still blaming the GOP for the bill. I'm not sure where talking points and partisanship have even come into this discussion. Pretty much everyone at this point thinks both parties screwed up. Except you, who continuously try to pin in on the evil GOP. So when Redleg tries to explain that the Dems are no better, he gets:

My pained eyes can attest to the fact that I do, indeed, read what you say. And for future reference, responding to every sentence with "You did not read what I say, you fail at comprehension" does not further your argument. Especially when it's not true. :) You're just being trollish.

Since your answer was basically "we can't trust either party to do anything", and since the legislation is Republican in origin, and since there is zero chance that a third party will control the government in January, you have no call to label me a partisan for not changing my vote over the Patriot Act and wiretapping. I have more faith in what will probably end up being an even stronger Dem majority to overturn these laws or retire them, than I do in the Republican party to admit their ideas were bad an unlawful, perhaps even requiring investigations and subpoenas, and working to rectify and overturn these laws.

When the legislation, in fact, was introduced by Democrats, voted on by Democrats, and passed by Democrats. You have faith that a stronger Dem majority will overturn the laws, how much more of a majority do they need? 75%?

Not at all, this all came out of you and others calling me a partisan for saying I still felt the best chance was with the Dems, and you all smugly pulled out their recent votes and such... and I failed, and continue to fail, to see why that is an argument that any other viable path in November will likely produce the desired result of overturning these bad laws.

Redleg's argument is that neither party will overturn them. I concur. If the Dems didn't slap the White House (and the much hated W) when they had the chance, they sure won't do it when Obama moves up the street.

People are going to come out and call you blindly partisan when every post you make consistently tries to turn the argument into a GOP bash. This thread is about the illegal use of wiretaps by the Bush administration and the intelligence service. PJ brought up the fact that the Dems failed to properly address the problem once they came to power, and you jumped all over it. If you weren't happy about the way they handled the FISA amendment, why would you throw in such a rhetoric-filled partisan rant?

[Koga No Goshi]

Then refresh my memory. What was the point of this post?

And after I detailed how the Dems screwed up (with the year and links to the law), I get this:

First off, most of what I believed we were discussing did indeed originate in the Republican dominated Congress. The only exception named thus far being the Telcom bill.

Second off, most of these laws were endorsed or ball rolled from the Administration, which fostered this whole hysteria mindset of "we have to curtail civil liberties to fight terrorism" which was often followed up with "people who have nothing to hide, have nothing to worry about." Not to mention the lies that came out first... that they were only spying on international calls between non-citizens, or weren't doing any warrantless wiretapping, etc. etc. It only became clear in retrospect what all had been going on, the Bush Admin covered its rear end every step of the way and denied it was doing anything illegal or illicit over and over.

Third, yes, what you guys are condemning the Dems for is not undoing every single bit of bad legislation passed from the Republican Congress in two years time. That is precisely what you are doing. And then claiming both parties are just as bad to every extent possible. You don't even have grounds to claim that until you look at a six year track record of the Dems in power, preferrably with a President who doesn't veto everything left and right, or kill bills before even going very far because of the threat of veto. And even the Dem voices that wanted to raise large protest under Rep majority were simply threatened with arbitrary changing of the Rules of Congress, and the nuclear option (basically death to any attempted filibuster.)

So, if you want to complain about these bills, look at the whole history. The Dems also do not have a veto proof majority and that has figured into their strategy in terms of "which battles to fight right now" also. Nothing I claimed was untrue... the majority of this crap is just still in effect b.s. from the previous Congress, and yes, in the last 2 years opposition has not been as forcefully vocal as one would hope. However the pitch of this whole argument is skewed, basically that the Bush admin using the hysteria around 9/11 passed and shoved through all these bad laws with a rubberstamp congress for 6 years, and then the Dems have failed to strip the place down to the floors with a veto-vulnerable majority and opposition President. So the declaration is, they both made this mess in equal parts. That's a screwed assessment.

[drone]

First off, most of what I believed we were discussing did indeed originate in the Republican dominated Congress. The only exception named thus far being the Telcom bill.

This was the only bill we were talking about. The Dems had the chance to stop the abuse, and they failed to take it.

Second off, most of these laws were endorsed or ball rolled from the Administration, which fostered this whole hysteria mindset of "we have to curtail civil liberties to fight terrorism" which was often followed up with "people who have nothing to hide, have nothing to worry about." Not to mention the lies that came out first... that they were only spying on international calls between non-citizens, or weren't doing any warrantless wiretapping, etc. etc. It only became clear in retrospect what all had been going on, the Bush Admin covered its rear end every step of the way and denied it was doing anything illegal or illicit over and over.

There were no laws allowing warrantless wiretapping. The Bush administration just did it with no one's knowledge until the NYTimes (?) exposed it. The Protect America Act of 2007 (I forgot about this one) was the first to address the issue, again passed by Congress with a Democratic majority.

Third, yes, what you guys are condemning the Dems for is not undoing every single bit of bad legislation passed from the Republican Congress in two years time. That is precisely what you are doing. And then claiming both parties are just as bad to every extent possible. You don't even have grounds to claim that until you look at a six year track record of the Dems in power, preferrably with a President who doesn't veto everything left and right, or kill bills before even going very far because of the threat of veto. And even the Dem voices that wanted to raise large protest under Rep majority were simply threatened with arbitrary changing of the Rules of Congress, and the nuclear option (basically death to any attempted filibuster.)

No, we are condemning the Dems for caving into the White House and overlooking the illegality of it's actions with respect to the 4th Amendment. There is no legislation to overturn, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed both of them (Protect America and FISA amendment) after it all came to light. Regarding the veto, it doesn't matter. These bills allowed the president powers he didn't have, if he had vetoed them he would still be engaged in unconstitutional acts.

So, if you want to complain about these bills, look at the whole history. The Dems also do not have a veto proof majority and that has figured into their strategy in terms of "which battles to fight right now" also. Nothing I claimed was untrue... the majority of this crap is just still in effect b.s. from the previous Congress, and yes, in the last 2 years opposition has not been as forcefully vocal as one would hope. However the pitch of this whole argument is skewed, basically that the Bush admin using the hysteria around 9/11 passed and shoved through all these bad laws with a rubberstamp congress for 6 years, and then the Dems have failed to strip the place down to the floors with a veto-vulnerable majority and opposition President. So the declaration is, they both made this mess in equal parts. That's a screwed assessment.

Again, a veto has no effect here. Bush didn't have the power in the first place, without the law he would have had to revert back to the original FISA provisions, which would have be fine. Congress didn't have to do anything. Instead they gave even more power to the executive. They should have just impeached him instead.

[Koga No Goshi]

No, we are condemning the Dems for caving into the White House and overlooking the illegality of it's actions

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

[Redleg]

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

Good thing I never said they were complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years. I was solely discussing the failure of the Democratic party in doing the right thing and not pass the new law that they did. I will however say that there are some of the bad republican legislation that was passed that both parties are equally complicit in passing. Some of the measures that have been passed could not have been passed in the last 8 years without both parties being complicit in the act.

All one has to do is review the voting record on the bills to sort out the truth from the partisianship,

[drone]

I agree with this statement. But this statement is not the same t hing as saying the Dems are just as complicit in every inch of every abuse made in the last 8 years in the name of terrorism. They aren't. Saying they caved and gave into the Administration so they are at fault is like saying she didn't leave her husband so don't tell me she's abused. Bad analogy, but you get the point. I just resent the implication being made that both parties have been equally on board about all these bad laws to equal extent-- that is very much revisionism in favor of the Republicans, who held the majority for 6/8 years and played all kinds of sore winner b.s. tactics like nuclear option. I totally agree they've been crap in the last two years and what I hear (this is pure grapevine) is that they are letting the GOP choke itself to death to help out whoever the Dem candidate is. If that's true, it's a political game and I agree it sucks. But I also think with a real majority and/or a President who isn't going to veto anything they want to do in opposition anyhow, or exact retribution by vetoing everything if they refuse to go along with a bill he wants or a funding extension, their balls will descend a bit more.

And I never tried to pin the Dems with complicity of 8 years of Bush. Just the past 2, when they had the power and ability to stop him.

Regarding "all these laws". For someone that hates the Bush administration as much as you do, I'm not sure you really understand how they work. The Bush administration doesn't care about laws, if they get passed in their favor, "yeah!", if not, "national security concerns" or signing statements will get them by. Just hand it off to the OLC, some legal hand-waving occurs, and presto!, the administration gets what they want. They will continue to do this until Congress calls them on it. The concept of the unitary executive and all that. This was one of the main reasons the Dems got all the votes in 2006, to stand up to the abuses. In this, they have failed, but they did slow down the process.

[TevashSzat]

They will continue to do this until Congress calls them on it. The concept of the unitary executive and all that. This was one of the main reasons the Dems got all the votes in 2006, to stand up to the abuses. In this, they have failed, but they did slow down the process.

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

[Koga No Goshi]

And I never tried to pin the Dems with complicity of 8 years of Bush. Just the past 2, when they had the power and ability to stop him.

Understood, it was not clear to me in the beginning that you were speaking specifically about one law. To me issues like the Telcom, Patriot Act, FISA etc. are all basically one issue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In practice, the primary goal of any 1st term administration is....a second term.

It will be interesting to see how much of the powers acreted under the Bush adminstration will be pared back by Obama.

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

I'm not as adamantly opposed to the Patriot act or modified FISA provisions as many here (though neither is a perfect piece of law-making) -- but I'm glad they have sunset provisions and must be renewed as opposed to having become fixed. What may be necessary in extremis is intolerable under more normal circumstances and, unfortunately, The Order of Cincinattus is no longer in vogue for our leaders.

[drone]

The thing is, the Democrats' majority within Congress is not that great. They could try to pass laws that will restrict the president's power and such, but the thing is that even if they get a majority to vote for the bill, the president will simply veto it and there would be no way for the democrats to override the veto. Furthermore, politics will make it even harder for even most democrats to vote for many bills of this type since it will get spun and politicized.

For the Democrats to have really done a ton to oppose the Bush administration, they would have had to have a greater majority than they do now. Since they don't and thus, many votes may be close, all we end up having is a lame duck presidency and congress

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more.

[Koga No Goshi]

The president can't veto articles of impeachment. If the president is breaking the law with his actions and orders to executive branch agencies, the rule of law should apply. If the president tries to introduce a law that is unconstitutional, Congress should reject it. The FISA amendment was not necessary, all Congress had to do was... nothing. The president can't veto nothing. Sometimes, nothing is the best course of action.

I still fail to see what was wrong with the original FISA requirements. A (essentially) rubber-stamp court for national security measures, but where requests to tap politicians and public figures would be frowned upon. At the time of the amendment vote, we already knew about abuses with NSLs and other shenanigans. It was glaringly obvious that the executive could not be entrusted with no-oversight powers. So, of course, we give it more.

I will tell you why I, personally, believe this happened. And this is just a theory from an almost poly sci major, so take it with a grain of salt.

There is this thing, and this is almost never discussed in public discourse, about the "decorum" of high office. The average American who is proud to put his feet up and drink a six pack after work could give a crap about America's "image" or government's image. But Senators, Congressmen and the higher offices do. It's something I think we exist in some state of denial about because of our spoken rejection of the aristocratic overtures of our Eurocentric past and ancestry and our stories we tell ourselves about how we're the country of the little guys.

Awhile back, and I'm operating off memory here, so I may get some of the details wrong. There was a hydro power grid proposed through several states, and it would go right through some Native American land where low income subsidized housing existed. These were people already poor and with little recourse or opportunity to just "move" or make a new start elsewhere. Representatives from this tribe were present at Congressional hearings for the proposal and one of the more outspoken representatives, a woman if I recall, happened to make an offhand remark about how just kicking all these people off their lands and re-removing them elsewhere or giving them "market rate" compensation and telling them to move was just a new chapter in the old genocide.

And the room exploded. Aides and members of Congress were chattering excitedly that they couldn't have "genocide" in the official record, and asked her to retract the statement. She herself was surprised at the reaction. But foreign heads of state read transcripts of what goes on in our Congress. The rich and the rulers and the leaders of the rest of the world pay attention, and it affects our reputation overseas, and makes headlines in places we wouldn't guess or expect. This was explained to her and she was asked to retract her statement. She said that depended on whether or not the proposal was still going to toss all these Indian people off their land, and the plan was modified on the spot, after what looked like a stone wall where no one was going to budge. All over one word and concern for the "decorum" of the official record.

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

[Redleg]

So what's my point here? Bush's administration broke the law, big telecom corporations were complicit it that lawbreaking and probably knew it, even at the time they were doing it. Bush's justice department has been staffed with hacks who arbitrarily changed the definitions of torture and legality when it comes to wiretapping and eavesdropping. Why would Congress want to help them smooth this over? The same reason that such a ridiculous explanation as the "magic bullet theory" was accepted in the Kennedy assasination, and the same reason many people assisted in the coverup for Nixon. Call it what you want.... continuity of government, stability of our democracy, averting riots and revolution, sidestepping years of costly legislation and lawsuits filed by our own citizens against our own government tying up national politics for the next 25 years. Decorum of the official record.

That's why I think Congress went along with it.

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

Btw, I have much disdain for ALL of Congress over their failure to declare war etc. They have been far too willing to let the President shoulder the blame -- and consequently handing him carte blanche to do things without review or prompt oversight. If they supported the Iraq invasion then they should have found the stones to declare war and stand by their vote. If you weren't willing to do that, than have the stones to vote no -- like that lass who voted against BOTH WW1 and WW2. Voting to let the President decide where, when etc. without review? Totally milquetoast response.

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

[KukriKhan]

Term Limits.

Limit Campaign Spending.

^^my new mantra^^

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

[Koga No Goshi]

You do realize that going along with it makes Congress in total, all democratics and republicans complicit in the action. In essence you argued against a point that you seemly now actually agree with.

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.

Goes back to the initial errors of Congress back in 1950, when instead of declaring war against North Korea for its invasion of South Korea the President asked for and recieved approval from Congress to support the UN Resolution. And we compounded that error when congress passed the War Powers Act of 1973. Congress has slowly attempted to remove its own responsiblity away from itself and pass it on to the President for many years. Unfortunately for them they have discovered that the old adage still holds true, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The thing is this slow erosion of responsiblity under the constitution that Congress was to have, is the fault of both parties. Its not a process that just happened over the last 8 years, but one that has been ongoing since the end of WW2. Where politicians have been controlled by the thought of getting more influence through lobbies and special interest groups, then they were in maintaining their constitutional authority.

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.

Presidencies almost always push for more power. Pushing back is what makes the system work. Had Congress done so, there would have been a different tone -- the the Congress could still have placated the national mood.

Btw, I think it's important to remember that our government, ultimately, derives its powers from the governed. On the rare occasions we collectively rear up our normally ostriched heads and take charge via a massively united public opinion, it is the duty of our government to shut up and do as they are told.

[Xiahou]

To which they should have responded by Declaring War and charging the President with the effective prosecution thereof.

I've just got to chime in here- the AUMF is a declaration of war. There is no difference- legal or practical.

Edit: Ok, so as not to just leave that statement hanging on its own, I'll provide some support:

Furthermore, the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) provides the statutory equivalent of a Declaration of War:

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

The relevant section of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 reads (emphasis added):

(b) Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, ...

Per the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a "specific statutory authorization" by Congress grants the same powers as a formal Declaration of War.

And a quote from none other than Joe Biden himself (response to a question asked after the AUMF vote):

Question: Senator, thank you for this broad gauged approach to the problems we face. My question is this, do you foresee the need or the expectation of a Congressional declaration of war, which the Constitution calls for, and if so, against whom?

Biden:The answer is yes, and we did it. I happen to be a professor of Constitutional law. I’m the guy that drafted the Use of Force proposal that we passed. It was in conflict between the President and the House. I was the guy who finally drafted what we did pass. Under the Constitution, there is simply no distinction … Louis Fisher(?) and others can tell you, there is no distinction between a formal declaration of war, and an authorization of use of force. There is none for Constitutional purposes. None whatsoever. And we defined in that Use of Force Act that we passed, what … against whom we were moving, and what authority was granted to the President.

Sorry for the tangent

[Redleg]

-edit-
I thought War Powers Act of 1973 was fairly decent; it recognized that emergencies may arise where POTUS needs to send force somewhere very quickly - and let's him do it for 60 days (while reporting to Congress), after which, if he needs more time, it's not an emergency anymore, it's war, and he follows constitutional procedure.

That was the initial intent of the law, however over the last 20 years it has morphed into the authorization for the use of force, and the failure of congress to call the President on the requirements of the act.

[Redleg]

Here's the difference. I don't think the Dems are really "for wiretapping." But I think when it came to the TelComm immunity, they felt the damage was done. Some have argued it was a big sellout to the telecommunications corporations who abused laws and now want to get out of the liability. This is true but I do not believe it was the reason so many voted for the bill. I think covering up excessive abuses of American civil liberties, and avoiding this chapter in the U.S. History books going down as being as bad as McCarthyism, is in the interests of everyone in government-- even the people who wished a lot of this stuff had never happened in the first place.

The immunity-- the damage was done. You were not going to punish the policymakers by suing Google and Verizon out of orbit with astronomical awards in lawsuits for invasion of privacy. You were just going to wreck the economy.

Mind you, I am speaking in practicality now. I'm not saying "this is what I wish they would have done and am glad they did it this way." I am merely theorizing why things came down the way they did.

I dont necessarily disagree with what you say here, but the end result is that the Democratic Party made themselves complicit in the erosion of a basic right. The path to hell can be paved with good intentions, but it was still the wrong thing to do.

You have no argument from me. Although I will qualify what you said very slightly on one item. When the President demands that "his" war powers act, or "his" force resolution, must be passed for the good of the country, and makes the case directly to the American people, he is, if public opinion swings correctly, in effect blackmailing Congress. Yes, Congress "should", in idealism, stand up to that kind of thing. The reality is in the atmosphere after 9/11 very few people did, public sentiment was overWHELMINGLY in favor of passing the resolution to use force. The public wanted to see someone, anyone, blow up for what happened, preferrably sooner rather than later. So while technically I do agree with you.... we can't excuse the shortsighted unthinking nature of the American public, because temporary representatives will always have to respond to some degree to public sentiment to keep their seat. That's the way our system works. And the President for taking advantage of the mood of chaos and anger to push things through to enable himself with all kinds of war powers.

Yes that explains Afganstan, but they can not use that excuse to support the invasion of Iraq, and then not follow the requirments of the Act themselves. Congress has the ability to review and challenge the use of force after they give the initial approval. Something that my congresswoman refused to do, even though I wrote her concerning the requirements of the Act itself