Here are some snippets:
Analysis of this sort assumes that the majority of Democratic Congressmen have any problem with spying on US citizens and/or violating laws intended to preserve civil rights. To me the evidence is strongly trending toward this not being the case and the majority of Democrats being essentially in line with Cheney's thinking in this area.The majority of Dems voted against the bill. And anyone who has read the actual Act (as this commenter obviously did not) will know that it does not sanctify spying on U.S. citizens. Even those who did read it probably did not bother to look up the meaning of the "minimization" passage. (See my post from yesterday.)
I wonder if people are aware of the magnitude of the congress' collapse on the fisa matter. they have in essence ex post facto legalized a half-decade of lawbreaking by the bushies -- law-breaking of such magnitude that rightists like ascroft and comey were opposed.They did no such thing. And we still do not have firm details regarding what Ashcroft and Comey were opposed to. Let's keep proof and presumption separate.
This site's and other rah-rah dem sites' attempts to distinguish the dems and the repubs allows for a lot of discussion but fails to highlight that no real differences exists between the two parties.Ah, the Standard Issue Both Parties Are the Same Lecture. The one I've been hearing for thirty years. Let's reiterate: Clinton = peace and prosperity. Bush = war and want.
If I were a diplomat, Democrat, or lawyer for any Gitmo prisoners, I wouldn't use a cell phone, email, or fax machine for the next 6 months....Another dolt who thinks that the FISA bill legalizes spying on domestic dissidents. Another dolt who does not read.
It might be time for all of us to turn off and tune out."Yes!" says Karl Rove. "Great idea! Maybe we should distribute some really cheap, high-quality acid to the anti-war crowd..."
Forget the slim majority claim. There comes a time when you stand up for what is right. Bending over on torture and FISA has left me disillusioned. I still read the posts but they are tempered by the fact that the Dems are not the ones to stop Bush and Cheney."I know, boys and girls! Let's form a third party! That trick ALWAYS works!"
Democratic leadership is full of punks and nothing else. If they hadn't gotten the opportunity to be congress men and women they would have been coward gang members in the hood. Let's kick out democrats and elect repukelicans.He means it, too. Dem-hate always evolves into an embrace of Republicanism.
Yes the Dems are not goose-stepping Repugs, but you know what, if they are soo against the FISA bill they should have twisted everyone one of the Dems that agreed to it to make them change their votes. They didn't because they wanted this bill to pass! The Dems are so much worse than the Repugs because they know and do nothing!You could have twisted a Blue Dog's arms clean off, and it would not have done much good. He won't want to go home to Turdville, Arkansas and explain why he voted against something called the Protect America Act.
The GOPers are right; the Democrat party is a party of weaklings. They are scared of their own shadows and concerned more about securing power than the constitution.At first, people thought I was crazy when I said that the Impeachment cult had ceased being anti-Republican and had turned into an anti-Democratic movement. Now, a few other people are beginning to see what I mean. This comment marks the transition spot where "progressive" anti-Democratic sentiment segues into pro-Republican propaganda. Call it the "Mort Sahl" moment -- or perhaps the Hitchens switcheroo.
Here's one from an alleged lawyer (or law student) who at least seems to have read the thing:
“Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.”Oh, come off it. The law does not allow spying on San Franciscans.
While to most that language is clear, there is an open question as what does ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States’ mean in the eyes of those charged with administering this Act?
For example, those pulling Gonzo’s strings believe that the San Francisco Bay Area, indeed most of Blue America, is not the real United States and thus communications to persons located there would be exempt from scrutiny.
Those fixating on section 105A -- which is indeed badly worded, and which must be re-written -- are ignoring the other sections of the law. I bet not a one of you bothered to look up the minimization business mentioned in section 105B(5).
Who filibustered? Feingold?A pointless exercise. With recess coming and a majority favoring the bill, a filibuster could have been overcome.
Yes, I think this Act was bad law. I would have voted against it. But it doesn't do what so many of you think it does. It does not allow Gonzales to spy on Americans without a warrant.
I outline my suggested fixes in yesterdays' post, and some of you may have other suggestions. Nancy Pelosi wants to have a second go at the thing a month from now. Frankly, the entire issue of FISA needs a top-to-bottom review, in light of both new technical developments and the Bush administration's history of flouting the law.
But many of you clowns would rather form a third party -- in other words, you would rather hand the White House over to Guiliani or Thompson. More bombs, more torture, more economic ruin, but at least you get to maintain your precious purity.
And I will blame you. You -- not the Democratic leadership -- are the ones in collusion with the Republicans.
21 comments:
Fugg dat. No more bandaids. If the Dems can't do the right thing and people don't want to vote for them because there is the impression they aren't doing anything for us, then let them lose.
Let it break.
Things will rebalance themselves and we'll be fine.
Boy, you didn't read a word I said, did you?
(Gary, 'fess up. Is it you? Are you funnin' me here?)
“Dem-hate always evolves into an embrace of Republicanism”
You forget, the Dems control the congress now. When the Republacists controlled both houses, they were reviled by anyone other than the far-right. Guess what happens when the Dems control the congress (elected to stop the nosedive toward authoritarianism) and they give the appearance of capitulation? Oh, they become the focus of the attack! Who thought?
I do not understand your knee-jerk defense of Democrats bowing to the status-quo. The whole point of an opposition party is to oppose, and strongly. You clasp your hands in a white-knuckle grip and beg that all bow to the needs of the Democrats who represent conservative districts. Do they represent these folks? Why aren't they Repugs then? Vote with the caucus for Christsake! If not now, when?
IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
I remain,
seamusandrewmurphy@yahoo.com
(never been to DU, am definitely not a liberal, nor a rightwinger...adherence to “ologies” make me ill. Please do not pigeonhole me among your DU, 9/11, JFK loonies. That bloc is not your only source of criticism,)
"The whole point of an opposition party is to oppose, and strongly."
The point of any party is to legislate and to govern. A revision to FISA was needed, and pronto. Bush snuck this one onto the tail end of the session, which allowed a poorly-crafted Bill to win the day.
"You clasp your hands in a white-knuckle grip and beg that all bow to the needs of the Democrats who represent conservative districts."
When did I say that?
I simply pointed out what IS. Those are the Democrats who voted for the thing -- not Pelosi or Reid.
The only real way to improve matters in the Blue Dog parts of the country is to change the way those folks think. A daunting task, to say the least.
"Do they represent these folks? Why aren't they Repugs then?"
Yes, the do represent those folks. And they will be replaced by Repugs if people like you have your way.
"Vote with the caucus for Christsake!"
Gee, just a day or so ago, folks like you were blaming the caucus. Then again, some of you ninnies have acted like the entire Democratic Party voted for a bad piece of legislation.
And you are still acting as though the law says something other than what it says.
I don't represent "folks like you", so stop that, stop that right now.
Yes, you have stated that Dems in conservative districts cannot help but bow to pressure. Or what? Lose the majority? You've said in so many words that the Republicans will win in 08. Act now, that's all I'm saying.
A revision to FISA was indeed needed, one that stated in plain language, up front (and this should have been a Dem talking point), NO ABUSES WILL BE TOLERATED AS IN THE PAST. Without that qualifier, and a repetitive one at that, they will be seen, soon enough anyway, once the mainstream noise machine gets a hold, as endorsing the flagrant wiretap abuses of the Bush admin. You must realize this. You are astute.
Damn man, the 2006 congress was elected in reaction to the previous six years. They have (had?) a mandate to hold Bush and company's feet to the fire. They must keep doing it, no waffling.
I understand they can't move without public opinion, but look at the polling numbers. They have public opinion. The majority of the citizens are fed up. The editorial pages are not public opinion now. That will change, but it hasn't yet.
This should have been used as a chance to bludgeon the authoritarian abuses of Bush/Cheney, not as a fix to be reviewed six months yadda-yadda.
Ah look, I'm no fatalist, but I think we're at a political precipice in this land of ours (notice I said, "ours", not mine, not yours) and I don't think you do. We'll agree to disagree, but I'm betting the die has been cast for the worse and permanently and that all stops should be pulled out by the opposition. No opportunity to scream and point fingers should be missed.
This FISA thing could have been a political hammer, and should have been.
(if security against the terrorists were the reason, I ask again, why not port security, why not border security, why not real and effective airline security? The idea that the Dems should have played nice on this and not slammed their fists so that the terrorists won't win just doesn't hold water. That canard is always hauled out when more power for the state is deemed necessary).
Have a nice day,
Seamus
A voice a reason in an otherwise chaotic circus.
BTW check your paypal.
JD
"A revision to FISA was indeed needed, one that stated in plain language, up front (and this should have been a Dem talking point), NO ABUSES WILL BE TOLERATED AS IN THE PAST."
How silly. No law is ever going to read that way. This is legislation, not a scolding.
"This should have been used as a chance to bludgeon the authoritarian abuses of Bush/Cheney, not as a fix to be reviewed six months yadda-yadda."
An amendment to FISA is not a bludgeon. It is law. It is meant to offer guidelines as to when surveillance on foreigners requires a warrant. It is supposed to apply to all administrations, not just to this one.
I happen to think that this was a badly written law and should be rewritten sooner than six months from now. I also think that after lengthy hearings on the matter, there should be an entire top-to-bottom review of FISA, especially in light of new technology.
I think a big problem here is that you -- and even many of the people claiming to be experts -- never bothered to look up the "minimization procedures" mentioned in the new legislation. When you read those passages, you will realize that much of the hysteria has been overblown.
That said, I still think the new law has severe problems which must be addressed. That's why I would have voted against it. I outlined my suggested fixes in yesterday's post.
Joseph,
I don't know what the truth is, but I don't find THIS discussion particularly stupid:
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/08/08/what-happened-with-fisa-part-ii/#comments
I don't really know what the hell is going on.
I smell a rat amongst your quotes from the 'other side.' One wonders whether some, maybe all, of these anti-democratIC postings aren't the work of certain freepers in a bid for notoriety amongst their peers. Or even, more diabolically, a concerted effort to undermine support for the democrats. Hmmmmm......?
fallinglady
priscianus jr, the sitch is worse than I thought. Those comments over at firedoglake are NUTS.
They're saying that the Dems secretly wanted this law -- even the majority who voted against it. Wow. Their ESP must be better than mine.
And they say that the law violates the Fourth Amendment. Maybe. But only to the degree that the original FISA law did, since the same minimization procedures (which were obviously put in there to cover constitutional issues) apply in 2007 as in 1978. Can anyone tell me what has changed? (Please cite the text of the law, as opposed to some incoherent ravings about how much you don't like Bush.)
I used to think firedoglake was one of the saner blogs. It has turned into another version of the Free Republic.
Hey, Joe --
Don't make fun of Turdville, Arkansas. Stupid, inbred Arkansans have 2 Democratic US Senators; a Democratic Governor/Lt Gov/Sec of State (in fact, all top-level state elected offices); and a Democratic majority of US Representatives. Not to mention a Democratic statehouse.
P.S. -- Don't stop writing. Not all of us are cretins.
From the Constitutional-law related blog Balkinization:
"Well, as several of our commentors have noted, the so-called six-month sunset provision of the "Protect America Act of 2007" is a bit of a ruse, because it's not clear the sun ever sets on the unchecked electronic surveillance of the Bush Administration. Although section 6(c) provides that the operative provisions of the Act "shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act," i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:
AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).
Thus, "acquisitions" authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. I think it's fair to assume that the Attorney General will authorize a system of such acquisitions on or close to February 1, 2008, which will mean that the warrantless surveillance can continue until . . . February 1, 2009, or twelve days after the next President is sworn in.
Congress could, in theory, repeal section 6(d) if and when they enact a replacement statute. But it's safe to say this President would never sign a bill containing such a repeal. So it's likely the new surveillance will be in effect throughout the Bush Administration, even in the unlikely event that Congress lets the new Act "expire" on February 1, 2008."
Have you noticed that liberals always predict defeat for themselves? They'll do it every time.
The Dems are stuck anyway we look at it because they DO NOT hold a majority in the senate because of LIEberman and the dude with the aneurism, plus they need 60 votes to make anything happen.
So to me it makes sense for the reps from "Turdville" to vote for the bill or Rush Limpy et alia will have there heads come election time, especially if something fishy happens between now and then.
This is the most dangerous administration ever IMO, cooler heads will prevail for now.
Flo.
...and yes, I believe too that this is a covert plot to undermine the Dems because I'm hearing a lot of the 'Dems have control, why aren't they doing anything' meme on the MSM lately.
Pro-wrestling is real because both guys fight really hard to win, right? Well, that's proof enough for me!
peace
...and how is it that we never hear that the Republicans have filibustered a record 43 times (at last count) since the 110th first convened in January on the MSM, or even on the super left blogs, the Dems need our support not our wrath...sickening.
Joseph,
first of all, keep on blogging, warts (that refers to some obtuse readers) and all.
2nd of all, do you remember "project mockingbird" where the CIA infiltrated major mass media by making alliances back in the late sixties/seventies?
It seems that the majority of mainstream media has been purchased and controlled by rightwing ultraconservatives who hate and despise liberals and Dems.
It seems that the latest disinformatino campaign is to confuse the american public into believing that there is no difference between the Repubs and the Dems since the poll numbers are so bad for the Repubs. They are doing this by hiring hundreds and hundreds of folks to blog on internet sites like yours and create a mass confusion and basically undermine the Dems' ability to reach out using alternative channels such as internet blogging.
I think this is all very calculated to essentially keep status quo and undermine any chance that the Dems such as Pelosi have for building a strong consensus in Congress and in the Senate.
The 5% of the pop that owns something like 80% of the wealth in this country could give a rat's ass about the poor, the shrinking middle class, universal health care or making life better for the average citizen. What they want, they get even if they have to pay millions and millions to covertly campaign to undermine the only real opposition party, the Dems, in this country.
I think something much more underhanded is at work. The elite 5%, or Bush's Base, will and do kill to keep what they have and get more as they have done over the past few decades.
I think things will only get worse before they get better, thanks for allowing commenters to still have their 2 cents on your blog.
Anyone with a brain, a heart for common decency is doomed in this country because of the wealth inequity.
OMG Joseph,
You are right!
(I never imagined saying that in a million years).
Forget the free comment posting!
I hear you! Loud and clear!
This country has gone nuts! It's "Official"!
I never beleived you before,but it is what it is!
What is it called???? an ephim..........
Perhaps another way to approach this problem of Dem-bashing is to point out which "Dems" or Dinos are really causing the problem.....the Blue Dogs:
http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/
For more partisan information on them, check out this essay from TruthOut:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081007J.shtml
fallinglady
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAum9TzR9WQ
Post a Comment