For once, probably for the first time since the beginning of the Democratic controlled congress, the equ
al branch of government ignored Bush's threats and fear-mongering and decided to stand on their own and recess without passing revisions to the 1978 FISA law that regulates government wiretapping.
Today, again, Bush tried the tired game of labeling the refusal to cave in to his demands as "inaction" backed up by the threat that terrorists are lurking and waiting for Democratic capitulation before they attack us again on the home front. After 3 solid years of 30% approval ratings, finally Democrats are beginning to understand that Bush is a lame duck grasping at the only weapon he has left to prove his legitimacy, fear-mongering. It's easy to take Bush to task on the argument that he needs warrantless spy powers when even reporters are able to see right through the Bush facade.
The current laws are set to expire at midnight Saturday. The nation's intelligence agencies then will have to go to court for warrants to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists overseas.Even the MSM has discovered Bush is unpopular and virtually powerless.Intelligence officials said that it will cause unnecessary delays, but the government will be able to get permission to conduct eavesdropping through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Even without court permission, agents also can listen in on a suspect's calls without a warrant as long as an application is submitted within three days.
Additionally, any warrants already approved are good for a year from when the initial warrant was issued.
6 comments:
The only people 'afraid' in this situation are the Democrats in congress who are fearful of capitulating to President Bush in a year when they assume that they will be winning the presidency. On the side issue of Democratic hubris, check out this article in the Times of London which explains why both Democratic candidates have been, at times, over-confident with their own ability to win the White House.
"This certainty, of course, was more than just the usual product of an insufficiency of humility. It was the central, self-reinforcing argument for the Clinton candidacy. The more they could persuade people that she was invincible, the more invincible she would in fact be."
The Democrats in congress who are preventing the renewal of this executively controlled surveillance from taking place are missing the point by playing politics with our nation's security. To them, and to you I think, the president is merely trying to expand his own executive powers, by not having to go through the FISA courts every time there is a new potential threat, simply for the sake of expanding his own power. Considering that Bush will be out of office in a matter of months, is it still not clear to those of you on the left that the president wants these powers, not for some dastardly ulterior motive, but to better serve the citizenry who he is charged to protect?
All things being equal, even though as you point out the surveillance can still take place, could not the Democrats for once think of protecting this country ahead of their own petty political agenda?
Would it really be so detrimental to allow the president the power to move quickly and have to jump over fewer hurdles when trying to serve the country in the interest of national security? If we can both be objective for moment, I just don't see the benefit of letting these executive powers expire. Why is it that time and again the Democrats are in the position of making it more difficult to prosecute the war on terror and protect the population of the US from the threat of terrorism? Down the line on issue after issue the Democrats are on the side of making it more, not less difficult to carry out the things needed to effectively fight back against our enemies.
In way I hope that the Democrats do win the White House simply in the interest of taking political posturing out of national security. If Obama is president, will a Democratic congress still persist with thwarting and blocking the president at every turn from taking the steps required to better protect us? Or will they then magically be in favor of expanding presidential powers in the interest of national security? In a way the Democratic Congress is remarkably short sighted. If they're so confident that a Democrat will be president, what then would be the harm in expanding presidential authority in this manner by making it easier for this type of surveillance to take place?
The answer is that the Democrats in congress are so backwards looking and political that they would rather stick it to Bush one last time than either expand the presidential authority for their own future Democratic president or worse, do what is best for the country. No wonder their approval rating is even worse than that of President Bush which you endlessly trumpet.
Those Democrats are gutsy, aren't they? Opposing a lame duck President in an election year? What courageous leadership by Nancy Pelosi.
Being realistic about the threats from any number of radical terrorists groups isn't fear mongering, Christopher.
Protecting Americans is the fundamental and basic reason that government exists.
Purposefully weakening the government's ability to protect itself is both unconscionable and treacherous.
We like this blog, the new format is fine assuming we'll still be allowed to comment here freely.
Of course you can comment here freely. Just keep it civil is all I ask. Don't be threatening lives or fist fights is the main thing.
I was referring to the way you essentially locked us out of your other blog 'The Barr Exam'. When I try to visit the link of a discussion I had with you there I'm blocked with a message saying that I have to be 'invited'. Is that blog off-line or something or am I "Barr"-ed.
I didn't necessarily lock anyone out. I was told to delete the site by Obama's office. Instead of totally deleting everything, I put a password on it until I could figure out how to back everything up. Since then I've deleted everything so the site is no longer there. I kept the domain because I wanted to keep the name all to myself.
The Times article is very interesting. I don’t agree with it all but interesting nonetheless. You also bring up some good points about Bush leaving office in less than a year so it’s not like he’s wanting to expand the powers just for himself. For once that argument finally fits for Bush. I can’t help but think that if Bush was already out office and Hillary was in that the Repubs would be cheering the new FISA laws like they are now. Just like when the Repubs were in control of congress, fiscal conservatism was something of a bygone era. Now that they are no longer in control of spending, ALL Republicans are fiscal conservatives again. The same would be true for the FISA laws as well. If Hillary wanted to spy on people without warrants I just don’t see Bill O’Reilly sitting back and keeping quiet about it.
Letting the PAA expire does not make it more difficult to prosecute the war on terror. I do absolutely disagree with you on that concept. Even with the expiration of the PAA, officials can still carry out new surveillance on suspects and do so after the surveillance has already begun. They will need to get a warrant, but the warrant can be obtained after starting the new surveillance.
What all this is really about is granting immunityto the telecoms, which the senate Dems supported and passed. The FISA court was setup to secretly grant warrants for wireless tapping and very, very few have ever been denied. What the Republicans really want out of the expansion of the Protect America Act is immunity to the telecoms that line their pockets, which the senates Dems were also after.
For the moment the House is refusing to bring it to the floor and in the process they got to stand up to the president and his fear-mongering. I really see nothing wrong with making the government obtain a warrant. Sorry it took me so long to get back but this weekend was busy and I’m just now getting around to some of the things I meant to do.
Post a Comment