Senate Committee Votes to Authorize Warrentless Wiretapping

LividBlivet writes, "The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that not only authorizes, but extends, US warrentless wiretapping. No accountability. No oversight. No definition of 'terrorist.' No record of who voted for what. Great way to devolve a democratic republic into a fascist theocracy. Me worried? Yea." Here is the text of SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act (PDF). Confusingly, the committee also voted out two other bills, one of which "all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal," according to Wired.

Comments

Vote!

[BWJones]

I don't know who is more dangerous, the "Islamofascists" who are behind terrorism or the Neocons who are willing and able to give away all of our Constitutional rights and freedoms. The thing that gets me is that I cannot see an endgame to the Neocon strategy as it is based on a continued fear and principals of isolationism. What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Your first chance, should you disagree with these strategies (rights erosion, elimination of civil liberties, etc...etc...etc...) is to exercise your Constitutionally given rights (for now) and vote this November for a change. Elect those individuals that will best represent the people, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights at home and abroad. Make these people responsible for what they say and do by linking their jobs to their implemented law and take back your country.

Re:Vote!

[tgd]

I don't know who is more dangerous

When is the last time you were directly threatened by a "islamofacist"?

Yup, me neither.

Gues we know the answer to that question, then.

Re:Vote!

[daigu]

What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

Easy question to answer. More money and more power.

Make these people responsible for what they say and do...

The problem with American-style "democracy" is that it is all too easy to control the tyranny of the majority. It is easy to move from tyranny of the majority to simply tyranny. The major problem is not the people in power - they simply exploited the flaws in the system to their advantage. The major problem is that the system can be gamed by profiling voters, media control (did you see that extended ad by the president that he did from the Oval Office a few days ago?) and so forth.

The sad fact is that despite this administration's incompetence on everything from Iraq to Katrina, it is still going to be a tight race. If the Democrats happen to take back a piece of Congress, they might become a minor thorn - but these guys will never see the jail terms they so richly deserve. Further, they have set the precedent where this will happen again a few presidents from now - and it will likely be even worse.

So, let's not pretend that voting this November is anything major shall we? Yes, people should vote and we should do what we can to deal with the immediate problem - but it does not solve the bigger issue.

Re:Vote!

[GogglesPisano]

> What are they getting out of the deal by giving away our rights?

To quote Orwell's 1984:

'The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

Re:Vote!

[Cheeze]

Can we declare war against an intangible target?

War on Terror is hardly a war in the definition of the word. War on Drugs is the same way.

Who and what are we at war with right now?

Afghanistan? Didn't we win and pull most of our troops to Iraq?
Iraq? I thought Bush declared "Mission Accomplished"
Terror? Terror comes in all forms, including saying things like "if we pull out of Iraq, we will be attacked again."

Re:Vote!

[gr8_phk]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.

There are a couple problems with that. 1) Only congress can declare war - and hence enable the wartime powers of the president (see that constitution thing). Foreign governments (or anyone else) can not invoke an escalation of the presidents power - duh. 2) Even if I concede that we are at war, who is the enemy? How do we decide when it's over? A war on "terrorism" is not well defined - you can always say there may be someone plotting something that falls under that term. We have not had a "terrorist" atrack on the US in 5 years. Where is this war you speak of? Iraq? That's "peace keeping", not war any more.

Yes, the modern world has problems that were not anticipated when the constitution was written. However, the behavior of the current administration IS the type of thing the constitution was designed to protect us from, and those protections are getting thrown out. OK, as far as I know, bush is not an evil dictator and probably has good intentions. But how do we know the next guy won't be? Or the one after that? What about behind the scenes abuse of a system challenged only in "secret" courts? WTF? New laws enacted without record of who voted for them? WTF? Now that I think of it, your post must just be an attempt to stir the pot. I guess that makes me a sucker for responding.

Re:Vote!

[The AtomicPunk]

I wasn't aware exit polls showed Libertarians winning ...

Surely you aren't so blind as to think this is a republicrat vs. demopublican issue. They both approved the war, they both approved the patriot act. There's no real dissent, except for a handful of folks -- like Ron Paul (Libertarian in Republican clothing)

As long as YOU keep voting for either one of the two halves of the dominant party, we're all screwed.

The "football team" voters that root for "their" team regardless of what they stand for, and rationalize everything their team does, are the real cause of all our problems.

Re:Vote!

[BWJones]

I plan to vote this November.

Thank you. It is your right.

...because I'm convinced that the "good guys" (and we ARE them, by & large) cannot win against an insidious, merciless, and determined enemy by being Dudley Do-Right and playing with one hand tied behind their back.

If you are not willing to do what is *right*, then you have already lost any moral high ground. There are times that one needs to stand up for what is good and reject efforts to take from others what we have written into our governing documents. Conflicts can be resolved and yes, sometimes fought much more effectively with creativity, thought and carefully planned action. However, with a culture of doing what we are told and not questioning or thinking, we appear to be willing to cede power to those who appease us with thoughts of fear and shiny things.

I couldn't care LESS if the government is reading my emails, listening to my telephone calls, or keeping me under direct surveillance, aside from being annoyed that they're wasting their time. Yawn.

This is a fundamental problem. What happens when you get caught up in this because one of your co-workers does something unacceptable to whomever might be in power. The thing to realize is that this government as it currently stands, may represent you and your beliefs, but individuals change and governments slowly morph and the constituency changes (and the US is changing). So, if you are willing to give your government so much power, what happens in 50 years when they do not represent you or your beliefs? Think down the road just a little more...

No, I don't believe the sky is falling, EITHER.

While the sky is not falling, the US is only a couple hundred years old. There have been stable governments in history that have persisted for much longer than we have been around because of principals of government. When their principals changed or altered beyond a critical tipping point, those governments failed.

Re:Vote!

[smilindog2000]

We exported freedom during Bush Seniors term, and continued it through Clinton's term. The Berlin Wall fell during Bush Senior, and we ended the Cold War. Bloodless revolutions for freedom and democracy happened throughout the world.

This happened not because we rattled our sabers and conquered the oppressors. It happened because we made a shining example of what democracy can be, and because we convinced the world of our sincerity for a united world in peace. We earned the world's respect, and that made all the difference.

Bush Junior has destroyed all that. Now the world arms itself to defend against us. We are no longer trusted. We no longer exemplify freedom, democracy, and human rights. Hopefully the EU can continue the cause while we figure out how to fix our broken democracy.

There is exactly one person in Washington who represents your district in the House of Representatives. If he's a Democrat, his vote does not count. If he's a Republican, his vote will be whatever Bush wants, so again, his vote does not count. Is this a working democracy?

Re:Vote!

[sethg]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit

Bzzt! Thanks for playing.

The Congress shall have power... To declare war,... make rules concerning captures on land and water;... raise and support armies,... provide and maintain a navy;... make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;...

Even in wartime, if Congress passes a law saying that the President needs a warrant to conduct a wiretap, or saying that torturing prisoners is not allowed, or saying that every Master Sargeant in the army needs to wear a hat with a flashing blue light on top, the President has to suck it up and deal.

Re:Vote!

[Tim C]

But yeah, al-q is real, and so were the London, India, USS Cole (sp?), etc. bombings - so not taking threats seriously - and personally - is pretty damned stupid.

I've lived, studied and worked in London for 13 years now. I was on my way in to work when the bombs went off last year; I walked past police officers leading some rather shocked looking people away from (I assume) a bus. I was here when the IRA were still actively targetting the main land, I was here when some nutter was detonating nail bombs (one in a pub just round the corner from where I worked), I was here when a bus blew up outside the BBC building, etc.

I guess I must be stupid though, as I certainly don't take the threat personally. Nor do I support some of the more egregious measures that are being taken in the name of the so-called war on terror. I refuse to allow myself to be cowed by the vague threat of being involved in an attack. I have far, far more chance of being killed crossing the road than I do of being blown up.

Sure, the threat is real, and should be taken seriously. However, it seems to me that a lot of the things that are being done are knee-jerk overreactions that we'll be lucky not to regret in the future. I worry about the sort of world my daughter is going to end up living in, as much for the direction my country seems to be heading in as for the threat of terrorism.

Re:Vote!

[fotbr]

Can't speak for anyone else, but I refuse to talk to exit poll people. My vote is my own damned business. And I've seen many, many people tell the exit pollers to go jump off a cliff (or other not-so-polite words to that effect).

Maybe I just never understood why, when the exit polls said one thing, and the actual counted results show something else, it MUST be the counted results that were wrong, and not the exit polls that had incomplete data in the first place.

That said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both sides in 2000 and 2004 -- but taking exit polls as fact is fundamentally flawed.

Re:Vote!

[Gulthek]

Mathematically infeasible. Socially infeasible. Logically tenuous.

Your position seems based on ideals rather than rationality.

The "football team" voters that root for "their" team regardless of what they stand for, and rationalize everything their team does, are the real cause of all our problems.

Retort: the idealistic voters who ignore the fact that we have a two party political system and, instead of choosing the better of the two candidates available, choose to throw their votes away and allow the conservative side to gain a numeric advantage are the real cause of all our (political) problems.

Note: Neo-Con takeover of the republican party. Salient point: existing parties can be almost completely reformed to new goals and ideals. Conclusion: possible to work within the system to achieve a goal.

Re:Vote!

[EllisDees]

The only way to keep the government from becoming a police state is to never give it the power to do so in the first place. You have to be insane to give this much authority over your life to the government. Will you trust it so much when Hillary is in control?

You are a coward. You can't deal with the fact that freedom means that danger is sometimes unavoidable.

Re:Vote!

[mrchaotica]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the parent poster's point is that until 2000, exit polling did jive with the actual result of the election. After 2000, it did not. Regardless of how flawed exit polls are, the dichotomy indicates a problem unless public behavior radically changed (and I don't think it has).

Re:Vote!

[Faylone]

Excuse me while I climb up off the floor from laughing. "when the war is over"? Your thinking is great, as long as you assume the 'war' will end, and that they'd be willing to give up power if it did.

Re:Vote!

[Catbeller]

"That said, I'm convinced there were shennanigans from both sides in 2000 and 2004 -- but taking exit polls as fact is fundamentally flawed."

Statistically, no. They were never flawed. The polls match the vote results, as statisticians know what they are doing, and history backs me up. Not to mention that the elections in Chechnya were anulled and redone because the exit polls didn't match the counts -- and the polls were right, and the votes WERE manipulated in the first election as the second election (far better monitored) changed the results enormously.

The idea that exit polls are flawed came from the Republicans in 2000 on those talking head shows, trying to explain away the obvious fact that someone rigged the election results in the contested areas, as those were the only places where statistics magically stopped functioning. The networks threw up their hands at their own exit-poll operations, which were fantastically accurate until they hit Florida in 2000, and decided rather than conclude that statistic work and vote counts were fishy, that Republicans were right and statistics somehow didn't work anymore ipso facto. Bullshit, of course. But the Republicans were in power in both the government and their own network boardrooms, and butting heads with them has been shown not to be a good career move.

So now we don't have exit polls. Hooray! Now there is absolutely NO evidence if someone electronically rigs an election, no backup system as we used to have. Exit poll stats don't match outcome, stats therefore are "flawed", therefore get rid exit polls, end of problem. This is magical thinking, and works well in the US which is a magic-based nation, anyway.

Exit polls were never "flawed", as their performance has shown for over a decade. Someone has fucked us in the collective asses, and then used the outcome to remove the assfucking detectors.

Re:Vote!

[legoburner]

Douglas Adams rest in peace.

          "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

          "Odd," said Arthur, "I though you said it was a democracy."

          "I did," said Ford. "It is."

          "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

          "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

          "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

          "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

          "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

          "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

          "What?"

          "I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"

          "I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."

          Ford shrugged again.

          "Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happened to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."

Bedtime for Democracy

[TripMaster Monkey]

(Apologies to Jello Biafra)

Here's a quick rundown of SB 2453:

1) Repeal the core requirement of FISA that its procedures and the criminal Wiretap Act (Title III) "shall be the exlusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance. The bill essentially makes FISA optional overall, by explicitly deferring to the President's "inherent" constitutional authority instead.

2) Authorize (but not require) the President to submit the current NSA surveillance program to review and blessing by the FISA courts. This review effectively would be limited to Fourth Amendment issues. The separation-of-powers issues deriving from FISA itself would not be reviewed, because Congress already would have capitulated in Step 1) above.

3) Refer all third-party court challenges to intelligence-surveillance programs to the FISA courts, instead of the ordinary District Courts such as those of Judge Taylor in Detroit, Judge Lynch in New York or Judge Walker in San Francisco, which now have several cases before them. I am uncertain of what effect this would have on Judge Taylor's case, since she already has ruled against the program and issued an injunction.

4) Make some fundamental changes to the definitions within FISA, most importantly removing the current provision that makes FISA apply to any intelligence surveillance acquired within the United States, regardless of who the target is. This apparently would have the effect of authorizing warrantless surveillance beyond that now reported to take place under the NSA program.

More information can be found at Unclaimed Territory.

Re:Bedtime for Democracy

[kfg]

Stick a fork in the Republic, it's done.

Ave Caesar!

KFG

Please define "no oversight"

[Kainaw]

Going to Thomas - where the REAL text of the bill is located - it clearly requires FISC and Congressional oversight. It does allow for emergency authorization of a wiretap, but not without later Congressional oversight. So, without meeting the narrow definition of an "emergency", these wiretaps have to be authorized by FISC and then go to Congressional oversight. How is that considered "no oversight"?

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[kevin_conaway]

See Thomas for more information.

Section 7 contains the information about Congressional Oversight

Re:Please define "no oversight"

[protohiro1]

Narrow definition? I have read this bill, and it requires the most minimal oversight I could imagine. The president and attorney general can do WHATEVER they want as long as they sign an avidavit that says that it was important and then inform the congress about it after the fact. There is no teeth to the requirements and nowhere does it say when, if ever, the courts or congress could stop this activity. Ok Shaun, think about this for a minute. Do you really want to give the president and future, possibly democratic, presidents this power? How would you feel about Bill Clinton being able to tap your phone without warrent or court order merely by asserting (not proving or demonstrating) that you were talking to a terrorist?

No worries here.

[boyfaceddog]

This is just political tactics. These loosers will tack this brick onto some Democratic feel-good bill, like free Housing for All, or National Health Care, or Puppies are Good.. Then the Dems will be forced to kill their own bill and the GOP will tell the world how the Evil Democratic Party (tm) doesn't like National Health Care or poor people or puppies.

Re:No worries here.

[Anonymous Coward]

These loosers...

As opposed to tighteners?

Re:No worries here.

[QCompson]

This is just political tactics.

No special tactics are required here. By and large, this isn't framed as an issue of civil liberties, this is framed as an issue of national security. The majority of democrats in the House and Senate are too frightened to be called "weak on national security" to come close to opposing this. The republicans have been extremely successful in narrowing election topics to exactly what they want. The only issue that matters in November? War on terror and national security. Other important issues such as health care, the deficit, education, etc. are barely mentioned if mentioned at all. Iraq is often discussed, but the republicans have been very adept at morphing the war in Iraq into some sort of larger world war against terrorism (and thus any criticism of the war in Iraq is a tacit support for terrorism).

The democrats will lose once again in November, because they never learn their lesson. Instead of choosing their own political battles, they willingly march right into the trap set up by the republicans. The campaign slogan of, "Look at me! I'm just as tough as that guy when it comes to terrorism! I'm just like him but I have a "D" next to my name!" isn't going to work.

A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came? I'm not a native english speaker, and this expression makes absolute no sense, except if I'm missing some context-dependent information that is out there. Islamic theocracy (that is, according to the most distorted views on both sides, the ultimate goal of the islamic terrorism) and fascism are so different concepts that "islamofascism" sounds like an oxymoron.

I don't know, I'm guessing here, but it sounds like an attempt to label the "other side" fascist, in order to evoke towards them the anti-fascist feelings that survived after the WWII, and also to avoid to be labeled themselves as fascists.

Anyway, it is a lame expression (meme) and I doubt there is an equivalent for it currently in use in any other country/language.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[BWJones]

From where did this "Islamofascist" expression came?

I put the word in quotes for a reason in that the label "Islamofascist" is a marketing term developed by Rove and company to help define who the enemy is in this "Global War on Terrorism", better defined by General Abizaid as "The Long War".

OT: Abizaid gets it and understands what it is that we are dealing with with radical fundamentalism and is just the sort of person you want in the military.

Re:A little bit OT, but

[elrous0]

a single word meme for End Times Christian Fundamentalist Neo Conservative

Nutball?

Okay, mod me down now.

-Eric

Re:A little bit OT, but

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Just because I was curious about a more exact meaning of "fascit" (wasn't really sure the exact meaning through out time) I ran to wikipedia for a quick read and found this among the descriptions about fascits.

This meant embracing nationalism and mysticism, and advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy, glorifying war as an end in itself and victory as the determinant of truth and worthiness. An affinity to these ideas can be found in Social Darwinism. These ideas are in direct opposition to the ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment, from which liberalism and, later, Marxism would emerge.

and I'm left thinking..... which side of this "war on terror" does this sound like?

Re:A little bit OT, but

[knightmad]

You know what is sad? Being a Brazilian (and consequently a South American), I've studied (and saw the demise of) the exactly same thing that is happenning now on the U.S.: a mix of fascist and populist government, conducted mostly by the militar and industrial elite. It's all the seventies again, but this time, on North America instead of down South, and without the clear military coup. It is a proven working tactic: unite the people against a common enemy (like Argentina against England over Falklands/Maldivas island) so there is a "us vs. them" feeling, leaving no room to internal dissent, stir passionated nationalism (like Brasil with the Football world cups), use the internal GDP growth as a way to create an illusion of prosperity while, in the reality, the only thing that is growing is a concentration of the wealth (on of the Brasilian military slogans was something like "let's first make the cake grow and later, to share it", what, of course, never happen), institucionalize mistreatment of prisoners (you think CIA is not torturing, well, they taught Latin America dictators the joys of the interrogation tactics in the Escuela de las americas, and they used it gladly against the average joe when they got ride of all dissidents), etc.

The saddest part is that, at least down here, people took 30 years even to realize what was happenning, and even if the military regimes came down, people in politics are still the same, only changed the party names.

Text of the Fourth Amendment

[$RANDOMLUSER]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In case you'd forgotten.

Filibuster

[RyanFenton]

Consider encouraging Democratic (and Republican - though that's unlikely) senators to filibuster this.

Senator contact list

It looks like filibusteris the only realistic option on this one.

Oh, and vote however you prefer to end this destruction of personal and public liberties in November. I'd HIGHLY suggest Democratic in most cases this election.

Ryan Fenton

In the good old days

[MECC]

Actually, by declaring 'war on terror' (the pretense for invading Iraq and his mad rush for 'war powers'), GWB has done something that hasn't happened since King Charles I of England started a war with Scotland in 1637 without consulting Parliament. Parliament later didn't give him an army when the Irish rebelled, and in 1649 beheaded Charles.

GWB is trying to take the country in the direction of Caesar-like rule, in that a leader under the pretense of fighting defending the empire/country could act with total impunity and a complete lack of accountability. He's actively fighting the constitution itself, even though he twice swore to defend it. Separation of powers in a standing government isn't just a hallmark of democracy - its a sign of being a civilized society.

Also, its one thing to temporarily alter the separation and balance of powers laid out in the US constitution during a time of war - but in this case war has not been declared, and it also a 'war' with absolutely no end in site. As long as there is one terrorist group "plotting and planning", the undeclared war will continue. This is clearly a grab for permanent power, and he's using the pain of 9/11 to do it.

To War, Or Not To War

[dereference]

The President is tasked in a time of war to protect the country as he/she sees fit, and guess what we are at war. Our enemy has said that they are at war with us.

Oh, I see. So I guess Congress no longer needs to declare war, what with all the bureacratic trivialities of debate and voting; as long as our "enemy" says we're at war, we are. Ah, that should be a real time-saver. I sure hope that's a troll, but I fear you were serious (albeit terribly misguided).

Yes, Congress grants special power to the President in a time of declared war, but only when Congress agrees indeed there is a war. The "war" on terror, the "war" on drugs, and the "war" on child pornography are all marketing campaigns at best, not actual legally-declared wars.

The real problem

[segfault_0]

The problem is that Americans are a bunch of pussies now who arent willing to die for real liberty anymore. To keep my freedoms I would be willing to die in a terrorist attack if chance put me in that position and I wouldnt look at it any different than a car wreck or an earthquake. It appears that we've been subdued with digital cable, SUVs and 70$ jeans to the point where we have completely lost our perspective on whats worth something in this life - like fostering a free and fair society for our children. I just hope those of us who agree or sit silent while this occurs realizes its our children that will pay the price - not us.

Wake up Americans please!

[slashbart]

Hi all

I am Dutch, used to like the U.S., used to admire the core values that it stood for. I've spent more than a year in the States (in the late eighties), travelled through 35 states, and generally loved it, and its people. There is (used to be?) some kind of optimism, and absence of cynism with Americans, that you don't find in the Netherlands.

I don't go to the States much anymore, so the only thing I see is the news and sites such as this, but it seems to me that the U.S. has changed terribly for the worse. It seems to be a fear based society by now.

• The terrorist attacks on 9/11 seem to have given the Bush government the excuse they needed (lets not talk about the conspiracies), but you Americans let Bush get away with it!
• You have no more job security it seems, which is why you are working way more than pretty much everyone else in the first world.
• The lawsuit mania makes people scared about taking any risk whatsoever.
• The corporations get away with breaking the law, and f**ing over their customers.

The U.S. used to be some kind of example to a lot of Europeans, but these days, not many think that way anymore. Anyway, I'm just rambling all over the place, but I really do hope that Americans change the course their society is heading, because right now the direction seems scary (Heinlein, "if this goes on?")

good luck, you'll need it

P.S. I hope Bush leaves at the next elections, but the way he's amending the Constitution, I'm not even sure about that :-(

Nixon/Bush Legacy

[Doc Ruby]

More precise headline: "Senate Committee Republicans Vote to Authorize Warrantless Wiretapping".

More accurate headline: "Senate Committee Republicans Vote Bush as Emperor Nixon II"

The FISA law that Bush broke, that his Republican Congress is now scrambling to drop from the laws, was written to outlaw the warrantless wiretapping that Nixon's CIA/NSA abused. Now that Bush is obviously incompetent/malevolent/dangerous, the Republican Party is handing him even more power than Nixon had.

I note that Bush's father was the chair of the Republican Party during Watergate, then the 1st ambassador to China, then head of the CIA while the Church Committee was detailing Nixon's CIA's abuses. After Bush Sr left the CIA, Congress passed the FISA to stop it from spying on Americans without due process. Now Bush Jr has admitted doing exactly that for the last 5 years.

What, do you think warrants are "quaint"?

[doublem]

What part of Needing a Warrant do you NOT understand? Why is the need for a warrant something you're so eager to piss away? DO you understand that warrantless searches were one of the things the Revolutionaries were pissed off about when they started the Revolution in the first place??? Do you know ANY of the history behind WHY we require warrants?

As for the whole "It has to be renewed every year" nonsense, all it takes is one rider in one bill to remove that Sunset clause. We saw that happen with The Patriot Act.

I did read the PDF

[KarmaOverDogma]

Excluding the currently proposed revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA already provides for the oversight of Wiretapping via the FISA Courts and Congress.

Consider the following Facts:

1) The FISA Court has the authority to hear and issue decicions in a completely secret manner, so that if the court chooses, neither the case or its decision will be made public. The FISA court has, on very rare (and mostly recent occasions) occasions chosen to state its decisions publicly, but this is quite unusual.

2) From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence _Surveillance_Act#FISA_court): "Proceedings before the FISA court are ex parte and non-adversarial. The court hears evidence presented solely by the Department of Justice. There is no provision for a release of information regarding such hearings, or for the record of information actually collected." This means that unless the FISA Court chooses to publicly release its findings, its decisions cannot be challenged by any other court (including SCOTUS) save the FISA appeals court, which only met once in US history, in 2002.

3) FISA already has provisions which allow for the President to temporarily bypass the 11 member court, in cases that he deems of sufficient need, as long as the case is brought before it soon after. The President (via U.S. AG Alberto Gonzales) has acknowledged this provision but essentially said that it is too much trouble to have to go back to the FISA court every time he wants to start a new round of spying programs or make changes to them.

Why then, is it neccessary to make any more changes to FISA?

I did read the SB2453: like most bills it is full of very specific verbage and definitions. From what I could digest of it it has a lot of room for a President to wiggle through (IANAL, but the ACLU which has plenty of them and found it "stunning"). I also read the wired article. SB2453 makes me nervous precisely for the reasons you cite, listed below:

"1) It's for people communicating the terrorists"
Duh. And Who has the legal authority to define what terrorist is? While congress could define such security terms narrowly they usually do not, deferring to President, the DOJ or the Department of State. The DOJ and DOS heads are nominated by, guess who? the President, and rubber stamped by Congress. Judging by how many people in the US are subjeced to this domestic spying program, the current President has shown he thinks a lot of US citizens could be terrorists. That bothers me, but even more is the idea that FISA courts can be ignored completely here.

"2) It's being overseen by a court."
See my above comments.

"3) it's ALSO being overseen by Congress."
As I stated in the beginning, FISA is already under the jurisdiction of Congress but as a whole it has demontrated remarkably little oversight to the public with respect to the current domestic surveillance. Their "solution" to the President's illgal wiretapping of citizens has been to propose this bill, which purports to make it legal. So much for the concept that no one is above the law. I doubt the courts will allow it to stand. That is, if they even get the opportunity to review it; under the proposed bill normal citizens will no longer have the right to do challenge it, only the FISA court will, and it rarely lets us know what's going on.

I think our best hope is for SCOTUS to declare the current program unconstitutional, but because Judge Taylor was so left wing in her outspoken criticism of the program, I think the strength of her decision has been weakened by it; IMO there was plenty unconsitutional about the program without having to spout so much left leaning platitudes.

To sum it up: your argument is a Red Herring.

Republicans are always so good at talking about how Government is intrusive and bad, but are almost always the first in line to vote our civil liberties away, one bill at a time. Then enough meek Democrats follow along for fear of being labled "soft on terrorism." The whole thing disgusts me.

I know who I'll be voting for in November.

The Anatomy of Your Enemy

[Shawn is an Asshole]

What you posted sounds very much like the lyrics to this Anti-Flag song. It was written soon after 9/11.

The Anatomy of Your Enemy
by Anti-Flag on "Mobilize"

10 easy steps to create an enemy and start a war:
Listen closely because we will all see this weapon used in our lives.
It can be used on a society of the most ignorant to the most highly educated.
We need to see these tactics as a weapon against humanity and not as truth.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR!
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!

First step: create the enemy. Sometimes this will be done for you.

Second step: be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
Find obvious differences like race, language, religion, dietary habits
fashion. Emphasize that their soldiers are not doing a job,
they are heartless murderers who enjoy killing.

Third step: Once these differences are established continue to reinforce them with all disseminated information.

Fourth step: Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information
this can be done through state run media.
Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information, therefore all for-profit media is state-run.

Fifth step: show this enemy in actions that seem strange, militant, or different.
Always portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY. THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR.
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY.

Sixth step: Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
Create an "Us versus Them" mentality. Leave no room for opinions in between.
One that does not support all actions of the ruling party should be considered a traitor.

Seventh step: Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
This can be achieved by slogans such as "freedom loving people versus those who hate freedom."
This can also be achieved by the use of flags.

Eighth step: Align all actions with the dominant deity.
It is very effective to use terms like, "It is god's will" or "god bless our nation."

Ninth step: Design propaganda to show that your soldiers
have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
Make it clear that your soldiers are doing a duty; they do not want or like to kill.

Tenth step: Create and atmosphere of fear, and instability
then offer the ruling party as the only solutions to comfort the public's fears.
Remembering the fear of the unknown is always the strongest fear.

THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY! THIS IS HOW TO START A WAR!
THIS IS HOW TO CREATE AN ENEMY!

We are not countries. We are not nations.(enemy)
we are not religions. We are not gods. We are not weapons. We are not ammunition.(enemy) We are not killers.We will NOT be tools.

Mother fuckers
I will not die
I will not kill
I will not be your slave
I will not fight your battle
I will not die on your battlefield
I will not fight for your wealth
I am not a fighter
I am a human being

I am tired of hearing this.

[pavon]

First on the issue of throwing votes away. It only takes one vote over 50% to win, so any amount over that is unnecesarry - ie wasted. Therefore, unless the race is close, and you have a chance of casting the deciding vote, then voting for a major party has just as little practical effect on the result of the election as voting for a third party.

Secondly, if the democrats actually defended civil liberties, then I would start considering the lesser of two evils. But they are just as bad as the republicans when it comes to throwing out our freedoms to appear tough on crime or terrorism. Furthermore the progressives have gotten as bad as the religious right when it comes to forcing everyone to live the way they want them to. The only civil rights issue that the democrats still defend are equal rights for gays, and other minorites. While I give them credit for this, it doesn't matter much if you are systematically eliminating everyone's rights.

As an aside, you cannot blame liberals voting for third parties for the result of the last presidential election or for democrats poor showing in congress. That is due to more people voting republican, not third party.

I vote for the candidate I think is best in almost every election. The only time I vote for the lesser of two evils is when all the following are true:

1. One of the two major candidates really is significantly worse than the other.
   
2. the race is close
   
3. I am in a swing state/district
   
4. The race is close in my state/district
   

The last presidential election was the very few times that has happened in many years.

If the only "realistic option" is to vote for a major party, then we might as well admit that there is no solution to the problems that are facing the country today, because they are the ones who created them and they show no signs of changing track. I don't think that voting third party is a waste, but even if it is, I would rather waste my vote than be complicit in the destruction of our country.

Re:I am tired of hearing this.

[Shajenko42]

Only solution to the spoiler problem is to change to approval voting. That way, those who are worried about "throwing their vote away" will vote for the third party plus their main party choice.

Approval voting is the least complicated of all the voting systems that gives a fair result. IRV is far too complicated for the type of people who will accidentally vote for Buchanan.

To implement it, we have to get the local races to use it first. So go to a town hall meeting once in a while and bring up approval voting. It's the only way it will ever happen.