The administration and congressional Democrats agree on the need to update the FISA statute to reflect the realities of 21st-century telecommunications, including the ever-expanding digital world of e-mail, podcasts and text messages.The vote was 60-28, so it's clear that Democrats, much as they'd like to put their mark on the legislation, cannot bear to look as though they accept a greater risk of terrorist attacks.
White House and intelligence officials have sought a broad overhaul of the act to allow spy agencies to listen in on terrorism suspects quickly, without having to apply for a court order, as is required for surveillance that targets U.S. residents. But Democratic leaders say the administration's proposals could lead to broad searches of phone calls and e-mails by ordinary Americans without judicial review....
White House officials complained that Democratic proposals do not give them a crucial tool: the ability to begin wiretapping without having to go to a court. "Every day we don't have [this wiretap authority], we don't know what's going on outside the country," a senior White House official said. "All you need is one communication from, say, Pakistan to Afghanistan that's routed through Seattle that tells you 'I'm about to do a truck bomb in New York City' or 'about to do a truck bomb in Iraq,' and it's too late."
Marty Lederman gives some detail on the failed Democratic proposal, which "the communications privacy community" considered "too conciliatory... going well beyond authorization to exclude purely foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA, i.e., far beyond what is necessary to address the problem that the Administration has described."
Joe Gandelman writes:
... Bush held out for the strongest deal he could get, went on TV and seemingly scared some Democrats to go along with him (some other Democrats clearly agreed the law update was needed) since his TV talk centered on how critical it was to give government these new updated tools to protect the U.S. And it worked — indicating a) he still has a lot of clout since he can peel off wavering or sympathetic Democrats so they join in coalition with GOPers and b) if it worked this time chances are this tactic will be used on other high-stakes measures....The Talking Dog barks:
Harry Reid voted against it in every way except the one way that mattered: he had the power to keep this piece of shit off of the Senate floor altogether, and to tell the President that when the President started respecting the Constitution and the rights of the American people, then he could start suggesting legislation of this kind... and not dictating to another branch of government what it should pass or when it should recess. And instead, on this, we get "an up or down vote". Jebus.The Dog is reading Digby, who writes:
... [W]e can presume that the D.C. cocktail party circuit is all abuzz about fear of terrrrrrrrrorists attacking Washington any God damned moment... and, unbelievably, Democrats believe that they would be blamed for it. And again, methinks, why was it I worked so hard to get this party in the majority again, so we could get exactly the same results as if they weren't?
I have the niggling feeling that there has been some pretty heavy cocktail and bar-b-que chatter in the capital this summer with the elders warning everyone that something is afoot, but they can't talk about the details. Suddenly the villagers are all acting like nervous cats on a hot tin roof and dancing around like it's the hot summer of 2002 again for no discernable rason [sic].Americablog:
If that's so and little birdies are whispering in ears, the congress should stay in town and hash this thing out for real instead of signing off on something they haven't read. And if that's so, the president also needs to stay in town instead of rushing off to clear that poor brush again on his "ranchette" set in Waco and negotiate in good faith to protect the American people. The fact that nobody is doing this suggests to me that if there is some fear mongering going on, everyone involved knows it's typical Bushian nonsense but they are afraid to take a chance just in case he gets lucky and hits another trifecta.
No. More. Executive. Power. Period. It's their job to figure out how to track terrorists without trampling on the constitution. If that means staying in town for the month August in that sweltering heat, well, that's what they're paid for.
So much for that "one of the people being listened to needs to be a terrorist" line that Bush kept selling us. Apparently, he never intended that to be the case, and now it isn't. And the more congress permits itself to be rolled, the more Bush knows he can roll them. The man is at 28% in the polls and the Democrats are scared to death of him. Pathetic.
Yes, and how has Congress been doing in the polls?
Posts
226 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 226 of 226Gedaliya,
I think you and Seven will become fast friends.
Not a testicle between the two of you.
*Still thinking about that Tillman question?
Sorry, running errands.
" [W]e need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
Yes, I also disagree with this. My point is there is bleed over on some issues and a lifetime of conservatism isnt negated due to some shared beliefs.
First, let me say that I am a neo-conservative and a strong supporter of both the PNAC and the president's foreign policy.
That's cool, I hold no negative viewpoints about the neocons. I just think sometimes that's a rather broad brush. Rumsfield I don't know enough of his last 30-40 years to hold an opinion.
GEd;
The reason the Tillman story gained so much traction was the false story someone ran that suggested it was friendly fire that killed Tillman. This played right into the hands of the leftloons who would love to hear a story where an officer was fragged under fire. This false story had the effect of causing confusion and a non-delicate explanation of what could have happened to the patriot and all-american hero Mr. Tillman.
Additonally, it hurt the Tillman family who had to interrupt their grieving process to consider the validity (No powder burns) of the false claim of close-in friendly fire. Also, it was a P.R. nightmare that was probably mishandled for good reason based on OPSEC first and the sad death of our all-American Ranger, Pat Tillman.
We have people here who would pimp this warrior''s death for political means. They revel in the details to turn public attention away from the cost of freedom.
Oh, and for luckyoldson, I responded to your Tillman question last night. I responded to a couple other things you brought up then also. You didnt respond or debate my comment, you only called me a right wing moron. Whatever you are, you are not here to debate in good faith.
That's cool, I hold no negative viewpoints about the neocons. I just think sometimes that's a rather broad brush.
There are few terms, in our current political climate, which engender more antipathy and misunderstanding than "neo-conservative." Even so, the word does have meaning, and people of good will can debate whether its central premises are good or bad for our national interests.
ged-True. It does seem like a depressingly large group of people consider neocons to be "someone who I disagree with" rather than bothering themselves to understand why there are neocons rather than just cons. These are the same people who use "neocons" as nickname for "jews". I would hazard a guess that we agree on more than we disagree.
vet66 said..."The reason the Tillman story gained so much traction was the false story someone ran that suggested it was friendly fire that killed Tillman."
It was friendly fire you moron.
Have you even read any of the accounts...from the military?
Jeff,
I probably didn't see your Tillman response.
Are you saying the family should know the truth of how their son died?
Are you saying Bush should shield those who know with executive privilege?
Vet...and the rest of you:
P: New Details on Tillman's Death
By MARTHA MENDOZA 07.26.07, 7:28 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO -
Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
Ultimately, the Pentagon did conduct a criminal investigation, and asked Tillman's comrades whether he was disliked by his men and whether they had any reason to believe he was deliberately killed. The Pentagon eventually ruled that Tillman's death at the hands of his comrades was a friendly-fire accident.
The medical examiners' suspicions were outlined in 2,300 pages of testimony released to the AP this week by the Defense Department in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
Among other information contained in the documents:
_ In his last words moments before he was killed, Tillman snapped at a panicky comrade under fire to shut up and stop "sniveling."
_ Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.
_ The three-star general who kept the truth about Tillman's death from his family and the public told investigators some 70 times that he had a bad memory and couldn't recall details of his actions.
_ No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene - no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
The Tillman article by the way...is from Forbes.com
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/26/ap3958728.html
"Are you saying the family should know the truth of how their son died?
Are you saying Bush should shield those who know with executive privilege?"
Read my response. It is clear what I am saying. Are you saying you should stop beating your wife?
What I said was the document that you supplied to lay this off on the White House did not support your claim.
Any number of people have stated that this was handled poorly.
Executive privilege isn't something that you can turn on and off. No matter which way you go a precedent is set for yourself and future presidents. It's immaterial in this case as you have not demonstrated that this was orchestrated at the White House level.
Furthermore, under your rules, the fact you missed my reply last night means YOU LIED TO US about no one responding to you. Rather than the truth which was my response was lost in the other 150 responses.
Jeff,
Okay, Bush isn't hiding anything. The Tillman family should be perfectly satisfied with three years of stonewalling from the White House and the military (as, I'm sure you would be, too if it was your son or brother who was killed...right?)
That make you happy?
I didn't call you a liar, asshole...I said I didn't see your response.
And when it ALL comes out...I'll lays odds the White House is hiding something.
yeah, were done in this thread too. If you cant be bothered to read my response before you let fly with the insults then there is no point in this.
LOS:
You rose to the occasion. I explained in the same paragraph that it was friendly fire but not the "Brass ring" of fragging an officer who allegedly belittled a subordinate who, by the way, stated for the record that Tillman never talked that way to him.
The distinction is between friendly fire that is murder/fragging and friendly fire that is an accident in the fog of war.
Don't take things out of context to make a point!
Mindsteps, thank you for the civil conversation. Much appreciated.
Mindsteps: I think the international terrorism will continue well into the 21st century because many of the root causes of terrorism are not being addressed. Among the conditions that encourage terrorism I would include:
1. Global poverty (although, some of the more high profile terrorists are far from impoverished)
2. Racism
3. Opression
4. Israeli - Palestinian conflicts
5. Unstable nations (e.g. Afghanistan, Sierra Leone)
6. Rogue nations (e.g. Iran, North Korea, etc)
I would add another: US support for tyrants in the ME, partly because our need to counter the Soviets during the Cold War, partly to maintain stability in the ME at any cost. It was the better of two evils before 9-11, but that has to change. Saudi Arabia is a good example: We prop up the House of Saud because they stabilize world oil prices, they tyranize their population, and then deflect the resulting anger of the arab "street" with hatespeech about the West and the Jews. Thats the crucible that forged Osama Bin Laden.
And....our mishandling of Iraq has further inflamed international terrorism, diminished our reputation in the world, and has divided and confused the public.
Mistakes have been made, we're new at this. Deposing Saddam was easy, rebuilding the infrastructure [that Saddam let rot] and installing a representative government to a population that basically has battered wife syndrome is incredibly difficult.
But would you concede that our efforts in Iraq address your 6 points above? I think the solution is the right one, even if the implementation has been sloppy.
jeff to Lucky: If you cant be bothered to read my response before you let fly with the insults then there is no point in this.
Its Lucky's MO. He always shifts topics. The only reason he's talking about Tillman is because he doesn't want to talk about FISA.
Seriously. Lucky doesn't give a damn about Tillman or his family. He routinely uses the corpses of American troops and Iraqis to prop up his political soapbox.
hdhouse: I don't like liars. i particularly don't like liars whose lies are surrounded by death and interwined in killing. That Bush lies is a given. I dislike him intensely for it. You should too if you were honest and not connected to him by the hip.
The problem here is that your assertion ["Bush Lied"] is itself a lie.
So, you rountinely lie about Bush lying and justify your hatred of him by claiming you hate liars. Self-loathing?
On that basis alone I think it is safe to call them both neo-conservatives
I think they have common cause with neo-conservatives, but I'd be very surprised if they called themselves such. It isn't historically accurate (neoconservatives were liberals who abandoned the Left over its failure to stand up to America's enemies). The only definition of "neoconservative" that fits Cheney is the one lefties use -- i.e., "any conservative who isn't currently attacking George Bush and/or the Republican Party". I doubt he'd self-apply that definition.
More good news from the incomparable...TEAM BUSH!!
30% Of All Weapons Given To Iraq are Missing...
190,000 AK-47 Assault Weapons, 80,000 Pistols Unaccounted For...
*But thank God we recovered those WMD Fen's always harping about.
Lucky: [...]
As usual, nonresponsive and off-topic.
Fen,
Here's the topic, dipstick:
""We're at war. The enemy wants to attack us. This is not the time to strive for legislative perfection.""
Here's what I posted:
More good news from the incomparable...TEAM BUSH!!
30% Of All Weapons Given To Iraq are Missing...
190,000 AK-47 Assault Weapons, 80,000 Pistols Unaccounted For...
Did you miss the "We're at war" part??
Give it up...the ineptitude of this administration is staggering.
Lucky: Fen, Here's the topic, dipstick
No Lucky, thats not the topic, thats the title of the topic.
The topic is Congress voting to overhaul the FISA statute.
I'm hoping your analytical skills have atrophied only because you are highly creative. So could up your game a bit? At least flame me with something more sophisticated than "dipstick".
Fen,
Blow me.
Post a Comment