Comments (19)

Anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 3:45 PM:

This seems like a decent bill:
-if both parties to the communication are known to be outside the US, then no judicial review or authorization is required, even if the communication is detected within the US.
-if the target party is reasonably believed to be outside the US, then a FISA judge must review the surveillance program.
-if, under the program, the US determines that it is listening to a person in the US, then the US must switch to general FISA rules.

How can the administration call this inadequate?

MillionthMonkey wrote on August 3, 2007 3:47 PM:

I think they might object if the modified bill would fail to make their prior actions legal.

Anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 3:50 PM:

They don't need a reason to call it inadequate, just rhetoric.

code word: "sticky", as in wicket

Enhancer wrote on August 3, 2007 3:51 PM:

Now is not the time for the Democrats to worry about whether they will be viewed as 'soft' on terrorism. I want them to be 'hard' on democracy and the Bill of Rights!

Anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 3:51 PM:

MillionthMonkey,
That's true... the liability protections in this bill don't look like they operate retroactively... Although I think the DNI recently said that they intended to address that in Sept. anyway.

Austin Cooper wrote on August 3, 2007 4:05 PM:

This is a rant, and I apoligize in advance.

Damn it, I want our own people -- the Democratic Congressional Leadership -- to protect our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I want them to *lead*, and keep leading. I'm tired of compromises and I'm tired of timidity. What do you think's at stake??

The partisan Republican monkeys -- I don't trust them to wipe their own behinds. They excel at lying, obstructing, and theft. Jesus; I wish they'd simply go away.

There is absolutely no reason -- none -- to believe that these 'people' will keep the country safe. They won't. They haven't -- they've allowed the real threat to this country to grow like a malignancy until it's ready to 'Present' in the form of another attack.

People will die because these GOP clowns have lied and played politics, boozed and enjoyed themselves, and did their level best to illegally engineer one-party rule. Screw them.

Madame Speaker; Mister Majority Leader -- Do The Right Thing. That's all that's needed.

And if that Duty is impeachment, then that's what you should set about doing. Don't shirk it -- Do The Right Thing.

Code = profit; As In, What Does It Profit A Man If...

.

Lunylegumes wrote on August 3, 2007 4:08 PM:

Gee I would have thought the time to turn the deaf ear to these fellows was when overworked the olfactory broke down and wept . Just how loud and often the cry of wolf is accepted before the understanding is met that the Emperor clothes no lambs .

TheraP wrote on August 3, 2007 4:11 PM:

Good going - putting the text up. We should treat it like a document dump. And use this thread to look at various pages. And comment. That's my suggestion.

Anonymous wrote on August 3, 2007 4:11 PM:

Here's what I see coming.

Congress passes a modified bill.

Preznit throws a fit, vetoes it.

Preznit declares martial law, citing "unspecified threats."

Far fetched?

wiseass.org wrote on August 3, 2007 4:11 PM:

Do we really think that the DoJ, headed by a clown like Gonzales will legitimately and honestly apply the the surveillance will only be direct "at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States"...?

This is the same clown that asserted under oath that there was no major disagreement about the legality of the program while trying to strong-arm a hospital-bed-ridden Ashcroft to re-authorize an illegal program which the heads of the DoJ and the FBI were willing to resign over in protest.

Sorry, but such a loophole is big enough for these criminals to drive a Hummer convey through. This still shifts far too much discretion to the executive branch and has too many loopholes.

This panicked need to change the law is to ex-post-facto make legal a program that the courts have already found illegal in classified rulings which were leaked recently. Do not give away the farm to the Bush clown-posse and retroactively make legal the law-breaking they have already been found do by the courts.

wiseass.org wrote on August 3, 2007 4:12 PM:

Do we really think that the DoJ, headed by a clown like Gonzales will legitimately and honestly apply the the surveillance will only be direct "at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States"...?

This is the same clown that asserted under oath that there was no major disagreement about the legality of the program while trying to strong-arm a hospital-bed-ridden Ashcroft to re-authorize an illegal program which the heads of the DoJ and the FBI were willing to resign over in protest.

Sorry, but such a loophole is big enough for these criminals to drive a Hummer convey through. This still shifts far too much discretion to the executive branch and has too many loopholes.

This panicked need to change the law is to ex-post-facto make legal a program that the courts have already found illegal in classified rulings which were leaked recently. Do not give away the farm to the Bush clown-posse and retroactively make legal the law-breaking they have already been found do by the courts.

TheraP wrote on August 3, 2007 4:14 PM:

I was in the middle of typing. Something must have viewed my comment as ready to post - and...

If it posts, end of last sentence should read:

Read the bill. Compare to the Constitution. Keep referring back from one to the others.

word is "poison." I hope the bill is not a poison pill.

midwestblue wrote on August 3, 2007 4:15 PM:

If I understand if correctly, the Dems compromised on current and retroactive immunity for telecoms. The corporations can't be prosecuted for helping Bush spy on us. This is troubling to me, and it makes sick to think these very same telecoms are huge campaign contributors.

itsbenj wrote on August 3, 2007 4:35 PM:

why is there even a god-damn bill at all!!??? why are the Dems STILL giving in to the Republicans?

wiseass.org wrote on August 3, 2007 4:39 PM:

Pardon the double post there... the server seems to have glitched. I got an error message and when I hit reload again it seems to have double posted.

mo2 wrote on August 3, 2007 4:50 PM:

Democrats can't impeach Bush and Cheney because there is not enough time to jump through the hoops before Novmber 2008, but Democrats must hurry to pass a bill that they and their constituents still do not understand because they and we have been lied to about this NSA program for years on end. That makes no sense.

hope4usa wrote on August 3, 2007 4:54 PM:

sorry i'm new at this....where do you read that this makes prior illegal acts ok?

mo2 wrote on August 3, 2007 4:56 PM:

And who cares what a bill says today? What matters is what it says after aides finish sticking in DOJ add-ins tonight, a la Specter.

TheraP wrote on August 3, 2007 5:05 PM:

and don't forget those signing statements, mo2. Or the secret orders...

hope4usa: Read the text of the bill. It's in red up at the main post. Where it says: "House bill here" (and "here" is in red)

It's long. That's why I suggested in another thread that we treat it like the doc dumps. Refer to pages. Pick over it, with Constitution in hand!