House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping

inKubus writes to mention an AP article about the approval of a warrantless wiretapping bill by the house. The legislation's goal would be to legitimize the wiretapping program President Bush previously authorized, with a few new restrictions. Despite this victory for the President, "Leaders concede that differences between the versions are so significant they cannot reconcile them into a final bill that can be delivered to Bush before the Nov. 7 congressional elections. The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of the week. For its part, the White House announced it strongly supported passage of the House version but wasn't satisfied with it, adding that the administration 'looks forward to working with Congress to strengthen the bill as it moves through the legislative process.'"

Comments

It's in keeping with current trends.

[aussersterne]

For those who saw my post yesterday about the Senate torture/habeas corpus bill... An amendment toning the bill down was rejected early in the day, and then the bill in its full-strength, scary form was passed and will be signed into law by the President shortly:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi -0609290178sep29,1,1387725.story?coll=chi-newsnati onworld-hed
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/detention/26947prs200 60928.html

So, a bill legalizing wiretapping would just be par for the course for this government.

Oh, and welcome to the police state . You may not notice any difference at first... but sooner or later it's probably safe to say that you will.

Re:Well worn quotes not a substitute for thought

[z0idberg]

One difference between an "occupation force" and an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" is that you can generally tell who the members of the occupation force are and you can tell when they go away and the threat is gone.

Wouldn't it be easier to give up certain liberties to the government to fight an occupation force because you know :
a) who the exceptional powers the government now has is to be used against and
b) when the threat has passed so those powers can be taken away from the government again (assuming they are willing to give them back up).

With an "externally commanded islamo-fascist terror insurgency" how do you know who to use the powers against? There will be obvious targets but due to the nature of the threat there will be very non-obvious targets who look for all the world like ordinary citizens. Are you willing to face the force of those powers yourself so the government can fight the good fight? or are you just happy for other citizens to do so as long is it isn't you (because after all, you have nothing to hide).

And who says when the threat has passed? There is no invading army at the border to tell the threat is still there so when does the government give up its special powers granted to it to fight the bad guys? What if the powers that be decide the threat has never passed?

I think it would be much easier to give up some rights to fight an invading force than terrorist type threat. So if you wouldn't give them up for an invading force you definately shouldn't in this case.

Try these ideas on for size

[KarmaOverDogma]

Individually there is very little that we can do but, collectively, people can make a huge difference. For proof just look to the Christian Coalition, Moral Majority and other organized groups of the Religious Right. You do not have to agree with them to see that they have made significant changes to the United States. Only the foolish and/or ignorant would deny the power of well organized groups with cohesive messages and clear goals. (Google these groups and see what I'm talking about).

Feel powerless? You are not alone. Feel like your voice doen't matter? By itself one vote rarely does. But collectively, people can move mountains (politically speaking).

Try joining these groups so they can speak for you in matters you care about and know about (and those you don't know about but would care if you did):

1) ACLU
2) EFF
3) Judicial Watch
4) MoveOn.org
5) Amnesty International
6) Union of Concerned Scientists

The list goes on and on and on.
I'm a member of one, two and four and I can't say I *always* agree with everything they do, but I do most of the time for most of the things they do.

Stand up, speak out, ally yourself with groups that share your values and be heard for a change (literally and figuratively speaking).

I forgot to mention signing statements,

[aussersterne]

which were to be the other "compare" that goes with the Enabling Act.

If you're not aware of Bush's signing statements, see this.