View Full Version : Who are you, and what have you done with the House of Representatives?
Well, it appears that the Democratic congresscritters have discovered their backbones, and told El Presidente to suck eggs (at least for the moment). After the Senate approved the new FISA bill complete with telco immunity, the House decided to let the temporary measure expire and will continue debate after a week recess. The Dems don't want the telco immunity provision, and the GOP congressmen walked out in a huff. This had the added bonus of allowing the Dems to vote on and easily pass contempt charges for Josh Bolton and Harriet Miers. ~D
I'm not happy at all about the Senate approval, McCain voted for it, as well as my new Senator, Webb. I may have to fire off a letter expressing my displeasure...
Bush tried his best fear-mongering this week to get his way, but apparently the House Democrats are wise finally. So, any bets on how long they hold out, or will they be able to pull it off? I'm mainly surprised the telcos haven't bought them off yet, maybe they are as surprised as I am at this recent development.
(and yes, I know nothing will happen to Bolton and Miers, executive privilege and all that ~:rolleyes: )
Vladimir
02-15-2008, 01:32
It's pretty sad. 68 votes in the Senate and the House wants to play games. Just more of the you let this happen/you hate freedom pendulum.
They really pasted it to Darth Bolton huh? I'll sleep better tonight.
Fear mongering? Did he scare you?
So, you thinks it's OK for corporations to break the law and infringe on civil liberties? :inquisitive:
If Congress is going to pretend that it's a co-equal branch of a tripartite government, I don't know what will happen.
If Congress is going to pretend that it's a co-equal branch of a tripartite government, I don't know what will happen.
Maybe the government will function the way the founding fathers imaged - a novel concept that hasnt happened for the last 160 odd years. except at unique times of crisis.
It's pretty sad. 68 votes in the Senate and the House wants to play games. Just more of the you let this happen/you hate freedom pendulum.
They really pasted it to Darth Bolton huh? I'll sleep better tonight.
Fear mongering? Did he scare you?Yup, it's pretty sad. This version of the bill reigned in many surveillance powers while allowing others. Instead, now all of it is left in legal limbo. Why? Because of the trial lawyer special interests. Think of the class action lawsuits they would have missed out on.
At least they're on top of the steroids problem in MLB- we should all feel safer knowing that.
Because of the trial lawyer special interests. Think of the class action lawsuits they would have missed out on.
Didn't quite get that angle yesterday, but I noticed it today. And I don't particularly care. If the telcos broke they law, they should get hammered. And those lawsuits are the only way we will find out what's been going on with this program. For all we know, this program has been used to listen in on political rivals, and without proper oversight, it definitely will happen. Can you imagine Hillary with this power? The abuse potential is off the charts.
Bush and Co can go on and on about not getting cooperation from the telcos without immunity, but if they get the proper warrants, it just doesn't matter. Show the papers, get the tap.
At least they're on top of the steroids problem in MLB- we should all feel safer knowing that.
Don't even get me started on that waste of time. ~:rolleyes:
drone, I'm starting to think a Democratic president would be a good thing, and for one reason only: Nothing less will convince Xiahou and Vladimir to stop advocating granting the executive branch more power. Once it's President Hillary, they will lose their appetite for ubiquitous, unchecked surveillance.
drone, I'm starting to think a Democratic president would be a good thing, and for one reason only: Nothing less will convince Xiahou and Vladimir to stop advocating granting the executive branch more power. Once it's President Hillary, they will lose their appetite for ubiquitous, unchecked surveillance.
That's cute. :rolleyes:
Have you read anything that's in the bill? The only thing that the House leadership is holding this up over is appeasing their lobbyists. A bipartisan majority in both the House and Senate support the bill as is. Pelosi won't pass it only because of the immunity provision.
Tell me how it feels to be far to the right of the Cato Institute (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/14/congress-ignores-fear-mongering-world-doesnt-end/) on an issue. Is that where you go so far to the right that it's indistinguishable from the far left?
The Bush administration can initiate new terrorist monitoring activities after the PAA expires. It just has to get a FISA warrant, the same way it did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
After recent deliberations, including a "classified" Republican-requested, closed session, the House passed (213-197) their version without the immunity. I thought for sure they would cave (especially when I heard about the closed session), wonders never cease. The lower house grew some balls.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/14/AR2008031400803.html?hpid=moreheadlines
A deeply divided House approved its latest version of terrorist surveillance legislation today, rebuffing President Bush's demand for a bill that would grant telecommunications firms retroactive immunity for cooperation in past warrantless wiretapping and deepening the impasse on a fundamental national security issue.
Congress then defiantly left Washington for a two-week spring break.
The legislation, approved 213-197, would update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to expand the powers of intelligence agencies and keep pace with ever-changing communications technologies.
But it challenges the Bush administration on a number of fronts, by restoring the power of the federal courts to approve wiretapping warrants, authorizing federal inspectors general to investigate the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance efforts, and establishing a bipartisan commission to examine the activities of intelligence agencies in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Most provocatively, the House legislation offers no legal protections to the telecommunications companies that participated in warrantless wiretapping and now face about 40 lawsuits alleging they had breached customers' privacy rights.
Back to the Senate, hopefully they remember their oaths.
Vladimir
03-14-2008, 20:11
Hopefully the President won't forget his. :juggle:
Hopefully the President won't forget his. :juggle:
If he remembered his oath, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
KukriKhan
03-15-2008, 01:40
I don't like telco immunity. But with the passage of all these sure-to-be-vetoed-and-not-overridden bills, the cynic in me (looking at the timing) thinks it's dem election '08 strategy for Sep-Nov this year.
Whichever 'guy' they select will need fresh ammo going into the fall campaign, and I can just see the TV ads now: "Immigration Reform: Vetoed", "Social Security Reform: Vetoed", "FISA Reform: Vetoed." "And how did Sen McCain vote?" "The Republicans have thwarted all efforts at bi-partisan blah-blah-blah"... etc.
I'd like to think the Legi's have found their cajones, but I doubt it. More likely this is positioning for 6 months from now. In my humble opinion.
We do better 'deals' here in org mafia games.:laugh4:
Reminds me of an amusing billboard hack (http://billboardliberation.com/HQ.html):
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ATT_NSA.jpg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062000986.html?hpid=topnews
So the House showed their true colors and caved. The precedent is set, a company can do whatever it wants as long as it shows it's "get out of jail free" card from the president.
In 7 months, we will have a significant Democratic majority in both houses, and probably a Democratic president, who now has all these new-found powers. Think on that carefully before you say it will keep us safe from terrorists. First scandal involving wiretapping rival political opponents: 3.5 years. :yes:
And yes, I hate freedom.
Crazed Rabbit
06-20-2008, 20:39
Geez, what a bunch of useless sods. A great year to be a democrat running for election, a super unpopular president, and they can't find the spine to do anything about what they complained so much about.
CR
PanzerJaeger
06-20-2008, 21:35
They were going to end the war in 2006 too... :laugh4:
They were going to end the war in 2006 too... :laugh4:
And then they realized that most of them were complicit in putting the troops there in the first place, and to pull funding from the military would be an actual stab-in-the-back that would be used against them for years.
This is just too good:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) gave a lengthy floor speech that included a litany of reasons to oppose the legislation. She said the telecommunication companies "come out of this with a taint" for their actions and should not receive immunity.
But, Pelosi argued, the bill also firmly rejects President Bush's argument that a war-time chief executive has the "inherent authority" on some surveillance activity necessary to fight terrorists. It restores the legal notion that the FISA law is the exclusive rule on surveillance.
"There is no inherent authority of the president to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy," Pelosi said, announcing her support for the bill.
Which is countered by the fact that Bush has already ignored the "exclusive rule" clause on the previous FISA, saying it's an unconstitutional limit on his duty.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/06/20/super-duper-exclusive.aspx
What really scares me is that Pelosi is currently third in line. Someone so clueless and naive should not be that close to the White House (even if it's not really that "close").
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.