Democrats Negligent on FISA
By Congressman Tom Price Posted in Capitulation | Congress | Democrats | FISA — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I just got off the House floor after engaging Majority Leader Steny Hoyer regarding the latest extremely negligent actions of the Democrat leadership. The clock displayed on this page is real. At midnight tonight, the Protect America Act will expire, and a serious lapse in America’s intelligence gathering capabilities will be realized. Yet Democrats in Congress just recessed the House – for 10 days – without acting to permanently authorize an essential national security law.
This is the same authority that has provided our intelligence community with invaluable tools used to identify and disrupt numerous terrorist plots. Democrats have known that this law was going to expire for more than six months, yet continue to drop the ball on our national security. First, they secured a two-week fix, and this week sought another 21-day extension. The ability of our intelligence community to protect us from threats should not be treated with temporary stop-gap extensions. Republicans in the House are resolute in our demand for permanent solutions instead of reckless week-by-week extensions.
Rather than working together and allowing a vote on the new Protect America Act, which the majority of the House is on record supporting, the Democrat leadership in the House is disregarding their solemn oath to defend the American people and abdicating their constitutional responsibilities.
This bill is ready and waiting for bipartisan passage to send to the President, but the new majority decided a better use of their time was to leave town early with a brazen disregard for the seriousness of the terrorist threat. The Speaker must call the House back into session to ensure our intelligence agencies have the tools needed to keep us safe.
You may have walked out, Congressman, but they were the ones who were out to lunch. It's a shame Osama never used HGH. Waxman would have already captured him.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
GWB is absolutely silent on the subject.
I would suggest, for starters, that the Republicans in the House and Senate ask the President to grant the telecoms immunity and a pardon for any illegal acts they may have committed prior to passage of the current bill.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I want to remind everyone that conservatives are supposed to be against extra spying powers of the state unless it's absolutely necessary. There should be checks on state spying powers such as congressional review, and granting immunity to telecoms goes against real conservatism. If you are for this passage, check your conservative credentials at the door and pick up your neo-con badge. If you are against state spying powers (against U.S. citizens), you sir are on the right side of history.
Don't be a cheerleader: If dems were in power and requested this power, you'd all be ballistic.
baiting with neocon is strictly forbidden on Redstate
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
how is pointing out an obvious philosophical difference baiting?
Far too often used to try to exclude one faction or another, particularly by the right wing of the GOP towards the left wing of it.
Sorry, but you're going to have to accept that.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Hehe I haven't been accused of being left of anyone in 6 years Moe. Now your here telling me that I'm to the left of the Party :-) Oh well, we aren't all as perfect as HWMNBN.
"Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."-John McCain
McCain/Rudy 08-kill the terrorists and punch the hippies.
Maybe FISA is so far left it's right? :-)
I apologize, I didn't realize using neocon is against site policy. I'm sure we will have differences of opinion on issues. Perhaps I should use classically liberal and modern conservatism?
That explains the primary results, then.
I need to go bathe now. I feel dirty.
...to mean 'conservatives whom I disagree with.' Your faction had your chance to have your say: you lost the discussion in the Party; now deal with it. This is going to get passed, because we need it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
My point is people who believe that these powers are absolutely necessary without checks are going to find that they disagree with such powers when the person in the White House changes to a Democrat. It is a slippery slope to allow government spying without getting warrants and reporting to congress. Conservatism means: give me my freedom and get the government out of my business. How can I be sure of that if this passes? Please tell me why we "need it" and why is immunity for telecoms that participate in these programs if they are found to have collaborated against the laws of our nation?
Conservatives have always believed in the power of the executive to conduct foreign surveillance. You talk about "powers of the state" and "warrants" as if these are domestic communications. They are not. They involve suspected terrorists with an international end to the communication. A communication is either domestic or international, but not both, just like a financial transaction or an airline flight is either domestic or international. The two are mutually exclusive of one another.
So PAA isn't about the surveillance of U.S. citizen A calling U.S. citizen B. It is about an Al-Qada terrorist in a cave in Afghanistan contacting someone else overseas or even in the United States. That is not a domestic call covered by Constitutional due process. That is an international communication in which the President has the authority to gather intelligence on. That is and always has been a conservative position.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
communications of enemies at war with the US without a warrant. If he were to seek to charge one with a crime based on info gained w/o a warrant then such evidence would be thrown out. But the President is charged with protecting the nation form all enemies, foreign and domestic.
see Lincoln
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Not only did the far-left controllers of the House Democrats get their way in a rule fiasco, resulting in contempt against White House officials who cannot be held in contempt for having followed a Presidential order, but they likewise, got back what they did not want to part with to begin: when the revisions to FISA expire tonight, it will be back to the old FISA, which means the Dems vote for last August's changes are null and void and its back to square one. Which can only mean there is SOME OTHER REASON the dems, controlled by their far-left owners (bought and paid for, lock stock and barrel), had managed to place this country back in the condition it was before the quick adoption of the FISA updates. I quote John McCain from his CPAC speech:
"I know in this country our liberty will not be seized in a political revolution or by a totalitarian government. But, rather, as Burke warned, it can be "nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts." I am alert to that risk and will defend against it, and take comfort from the knowledge that I will be encouraged in that defense by my fellow conservatives."
And as Dana Perino said yesterday:
"They’ll have to ask themselves, ‘Do you trust the intelligence community more than you trust Democrats who are beholden to their left-wing?‘ And that’s the debate that this country is going to have."
You betcha it is!!!!!!! And it better happen soon!
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
as they count down to the expiration, when they can safely commence a flurry of calls to plan the next attacks. THANKS, DEMS!!! Waste time on baseball players, then recess, while ignoring the terrorist threat - talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Now this issue does tend to concentrate the mind.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
If letting FISA lapse will indeed mean terrorists will be free to communicate and potentially attack the US then why did Bush say he would veto it if it didn't include immunity? Is immunity more important than our safety? Why not just work on a separate bill for immunity? Also why would he prefer to let it lapse and endanger the US instead of just accepting the 30 day extension? Wouldn't youu rather have 30 days of protection then none at all?
more important that National Security? Why is the President so completely consumed with protecting huge corporations from potential lawsuits that he will allow a piece of legislation that he insists is vital to our National Security lapse? If corporations have broken the law, why should they be protected?
Please explain your eagerness to have your telephone bill go up so that the "telecomm" can transfer your money to some trial lawyers.
Here's a clue: the way corporations acquire money is by charging customers. That's it; there is no money hose from space filling their coffers. Therefore, no money may be extracted from a corporation except at customers' expense.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
This isn't about the President protecting our telephone bills. This is about him clearly ranking Telecom immunity over National security.
...over the need for Democrats to play partisan political games with National Security.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
That's one odd way of looking at it.
Congress was willing to send him an extension to cover our National butts until they could resolve the immunity issue. Bush declared he would veto that extension, he is the one playing politics and putting the Nation at risk.
Immunity is not something intrinsically linked to how well FISA operates, its a completely separate issue. In fact if the Government simply gets a court order, like they are suppose to, and a Telecom complies then that actually resolves them of any legal action against them, they have immunity!
future. The end of history redux?
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
As long as corporations are helping us, then laws are optional? Who gets to decide what "Helping" is? Hillary Clinton? A Democratic congress?
I suppose if I read your answer as a response to my question, that the President believes that the larger issue of making sure corporations stand ready to "help us" is more important than allowing the government to monitor widely for possibly terrorist activity. Do you actually believe that?
far exceeds that purportedly conferred by FISA. I am sure that President Bush has, is and will gather intel from jihadists calling from Miami to Detroit, much less Baghdad to Amman. All of the talk about his powers was started by leaks. He, rightly doesn't volunteer all we do.
Hence, he can go to Africa and fight a bad bill that would cause corps with vital info to clam up in the future and so risk your broony weenie butt being incinerated.
enjoy not being incinerated and quit frothing at the mouth to sue a deep pocket
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
You appear to be the one "Frothing at the mouth". Calm down a bit kid. If, as you say, the President can gather all the intelligence he wants, then why bother with the FISA bill at all? Unless the only purpose for it is to protect the telecomms from prosecution for crimes they may have committed, just in case we "Need" them to help us in some future crisis.
Now I advise you to untwist your panties before responding to me, and answer in a civilized manner. No "Weenie" name calling (VERY impressive argumentative technique by the way-it certainly lends credibility to your tortured logic.
Respectfully yours
Broony
acceptable "liberal". For the logic, see all the words before and after weenie.
Again, sorry for the name calling. truly
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
But we may have to agree to disagree on the logic here. I think surviellance is important, but I have a fundamental disagreement on issuing retroactive immunity to powerful entities like the telecomms. It is not that I hate corporations, but I don't trust them to do anything but look out for their own interests-and that is fine. They can look out for their interests and I can look out for mine. The reality is that have much more money and power than I do. I on the other hand, have the law to protect me from their interests over running my own. This is a case where the principal of allowing them to break the law with impunity and immunity means I have lost whatever leverage I have in looking out for my own interests. I object to it on principal, rather than specifics. What is so "liberal" about that? In the case of the FISA bill, the fact that the President insists on holding up what he admits is vital legislation over his concern for protecting them just doesn't make any sense.
Geez. They didn't commit a crime by giving up their lines to government surveillance, but that doesn't mean that they can't be held liable for frivolous lawsuits. These telcom companies acted in good faith, trusting in the government's case for monitoring various conversations over their web, with the understanding that they were helping the national security of this nation. The telecom immunity would protect them from lawsuits that are a result of their aiding the government in protecting Americans. Since one of the bottom lines for companies are the bottom line, what is or isn't profitable, without that immunity that would less likely to help the government in monitoring these communications. It makes perfect sense and the only reason that Democrats are against is that they don't take national security seriously, they would endanger this great nation out of spite for the President, and, deep down, they hate corporations and businesses. That is the plain, cold, hard truth.
"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator John McCain
As I said in an answer above to Gamecock, it is not so much "Hating" as not trusting corporations. There is a big difference there. To trust corporations to look out for any interests other than their own (and those of their stockholders) is naive and foolish. That is why we have laws, and that is why you don't just issue immunity because their intentions may have been good. If they broke the law, they should be accountable. If lawsuits against them are judged to be "Frivolous" , the then it will be proven at trial, and the frivolous person suing them will have to pay court costs and go through the expensive and time consuming hassle of suing them. Sometimes doing things legally is a pain in the neck, but you still gotta do it.
immunities to entities for all sorts of public policy reasons. This would be yet another.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Whether or not the Telecoms committed a crime or not is precisely what this debate is about. There are Federal Privacy Laws that govern communications like telephone calls, email and things like that, the Telecoms by nature of their business (telecommunications) know about these laws and know that as their customers and citizens of the Unted States you have rights under the Federal Privacy Laws. They volunteerily gave up your information to the Government without any court orders or warrants or anything. They knew this would violate the Privacy Laws and they did it anyway, now it doesn't matter why they did it, they could have the best intentions but it still a violation of our rights.
Because digital information is somewhat intangible let's try another example. Say you hire a general contractor to remodel your bedroom. Your happy with the work but a year later you discover a small hole, you go to fix it and you discover a miniature video camera and microphone. You're outraged and you call the contractor, he explains that the Government suspected there might be terrorists in your bedroom and asked him to install the camera and microphone, so he did. Now you want to know whose been watching you and recording your bedroom activities for the past year, he won't tell you and won't pay for any related damages to your house or your privacy or whatever. You paid him to spy on you. Sound fair?
But if they have a reason to suspect a terrorist, they can go to a judge (even after they start monitoring) to get a warrant for their activities. Why do we want warrantless searches?
Because they're terrorists in a cave somewhere who are not U.S. citizens and are planning the deaths of American citizens. They shouldn't be dignified with due process and warrants. They should be smoked out without wasting anymore tax payer dollars than necessary.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
with secure phones in their houses? So they can be there THE MINUTE NSA calls?
And, whoever is on duty is on duty BY THE PHONE. Not on a pager, or through an answering machine where someone can leave a message?
And, that leave/vacation/speaking tour plans have been rearranged, to ensure that enough FISA judges are on duty, anytime we need them?
Surely the Dems made sure of this before they left on the holidays, right?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
FISA review can take place as late as 72 hours after the wiretap
has begun, and and the FISA judges almost never say no.
The person who has to jump when his string is pulled by the NSA
is the Attorney General. Old men like Mukasey don't sleep very
much anymore, anyway :-)
I found this document extremely helpful in describing the regime
of FISA that we'll be under in about a day:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/navy0903.pdf
It embodies a pleasant directness that is lacking from
many civilian political documents.
And personally, speaking as an involuntary rural customer of
AT&T, it would be fine with me if the entire corporation
disappeared in a flash of blue light and a puff of greasy
smoke, accompanied by the screams and lamentations of lawyers
and bureaucrats. I'm not bothered by the lack of retroactive
immunity (or pre-emptive pardon, however you look at it) for
AT&T.
Unlike when the House Republicans "shut down" the federal government in 1995 (which got covered wall-to-wall), I suspect the MSM will find something else, anything else, to talk about.
Time for an update on the homeless, dontcha think?
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that Dr. No voted yea to that one (along with two other R's).
Is this a first (a yes vote for HWMNBN)?
If there was any question that this guy is as nutty as Kucinich, this should remove any doubt.
but they also found time to vote on honoring black inventors. Where are their flipping priorities? Americans need to wake up and realize what a danger Democrats are to the national security of this nation.
"Glory is not a conceit. It is not a decoration for valor. Glory belongs to the act of being constant to something greater than yourself, to a cause, to your principles, to the people on whom you rely and who rely on you in return."-Senator John McCain
Here is President Bush in Oct 2001, praising what is now the current FISA:
"The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. It will help us to prosecute terrorist organizations -- and also to detect them before they strike. . .
Surveillance of communications is another essential method of law enforcement. But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones. Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.
Mr Price claims that "serious lapse in America’s intelligence gathering capabilities will be realized" if the PAA is not passed. Can somebody clearly explain what these lapses will be, given the strength of the current law?
When Conservatives start giving up freedoms one after the other because of a totally irrational fear then I have no more time for them. Our President has been working hard for seven years to convince us that our demise is right around the corner. When I see citizens clammoring for their government to spy on them because they are scared of the bogeyman I see the death of our Republic.
Sorry everybody but no matter how much George spies on you, he can't make you safe from everybody who hates you. I am frankly fascinated to see where the trail leads and why it is so important to get immunity for these companies. We worry that they won't cooperate in the future??? They aren't supposed to cooperate unless the government has a warrant. They will still have to cooperate if the government gets a warrant. They won't really have a choice there.
If they want to protect the companies... fine, let's punish the hacks in our government who authorized this to be done illegally. We have due process and the FISA rules have been repeatedly updated to keep pace with technology. At the beginning of his administration, Bush said they had been updated enough. If we needed this it needed to be authorized before they did it. You don't get to break the law in this country and then change the law afterward.
Let's just drop the hypocracy and call this what it is. The Criminals in our government have lied their way into an uncomfortable position and they are hoping to legislate their way out of it. I hope the Dems stand up with everything they have. We have the old FISA rules for another year. We will be no less safe tomorrow than we are today.
I fear my government far more than I fear renegade Muslim teenagers with guns.
"I fear my government far more than I fear renegade Muslim teenagers with guns."
If you are part of the far left: you had better. If you are not a part of the far left: you should be.
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
If I am not a part of the far left: I should be??
I would think you are a huge advocate for the left by that sentence. I will instead be happy with my place near the middle. With the constitution.. or what's left of it.
I will maintain my stand of keeping the government out of people's lives, Objecting to torture, Supporting open markets (and not corporate welfare to companies that outsource jobs), Standing by every amendment in the bill of rights for everybody. I will resist people on both sides whom I find offensive and I will retain my own ability to think.
I will not yield to anybody who tells me I need to live my life in fear.
I'm not sure I understood your first comment at all except that it seems to prove my point. If I were to drift to the far left does that mean that I would need to fear my government more than the teenagers? For which aspects of the far left agenda do you think the government should have the right to terrorize its own citizens.
What interesting ideas.
Futilely, might I add.
Hate to break it to you, but this debate's been over for a while now, and you can tell who won it by seeing who's demanding that Congress do its job by voting on FISA and by seeing who's covering the Democrats' rear as they beat a hasty retreat. So: please understand that we are under no obligation to let you dictate the terms of the debate, thank you for leaving the Republican Party, and may you be as happy in your new home as we are to see you there.
I think that covers it.
Moe
PS: The attitude was cute, but I think that you can drop it now and talk to your fellow commenters as if they were functional, adult human beings. That's not a hint, by the way.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
If you don't want to slagged and tagged for being a lefty when you don't support the GOP's attempts to expand the ability of government to spy into the lives of private citizens in order to protect the country.
So how far does the government get to spy into the lives of its private citizens before a 4th amendment violation occurs? When it comes to national security the answer right now is nobody knows.
"Jeered and sneered" would be much closer. Whaddya think this is, netrunning?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I am so sorry if I miscontrued your obvious statements. I really am. But in all reality (that thing that separates most conservatives from liberals) anybody I read who declares the 'criminals' in our government, does not know the definition of a criminal and it bothers me when a person doing so, then proceeds to induce all sorts of absurdities from the initial incorrect assumption. Anyway... a person who wrote as you did is only fooling himself if he or she believes they are in the 'middle'. Not possible with verbiage of that sort.
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
Considering that he's trying to characterize a bipartisan Senate bill as being all part of an insidious plot of some sort of demon-President that's driven, driven! him into the arms of the Democratic Party.
They've learned to stop talking about oil pipelines, at least. Took 'em what, only six years?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
This reminds me of an old joke.
A bunch of Russian Diplomats came to Washington DC and a young Republican staffer was showing them around.
"There are two parties here in America. We are the Stupid Party. The other Party is the Evil Party. Sometimes we work together to do something both Stupid and Evil. This is called 'Bipartisanship'."
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I am happy to say that I am bipartisan when it comes to condemning criminal behavior. I was offended when a previous president was having lewd relations in the white house while on the clock and then lying about it. I remember the halcyon days when that was actually something to get offended by. My own Republican representatives then went on a madcap year of behaviors so egregious it became impossible to even watch the news and at every turn things were covered up. Meetings were held behind closed doors and many people were never punished. Many are still in office.
I am incensed by a white house that hides its information. I'm sorry but things like attorney firings over elections have nothing to do with National Security.
I still have yet to see anything in the constitution that allows for "executive Privilige" I was outraged when Clinton used it and I am equally appalled at the current administration. How do Mrs. Myers and Mr. Bolton have the right to ignore a congressional subpoena. They are expected to show up when Congress calls them. It isn't optional.
Ideally every politician should be forced at the end of every year to account for their time with 100% transparency. These are our employees and absolutely nothing more. The president deserves no more homage from me than the clerk at the DMV. If they did somethig wrong they would have to account for it. So should he.
As for the telecoms, we already know that they acted outside the law, that isn't the issue anymore, now it is time to find out who authorized it and whether it constitutes a crime. That will be for the judiciary to decide, not the President and not Congress. We have separation of powers for a reason.
asshattery that I am not even amused by it anymore.
Find a new home. You have plenty of time to look for it now that you aren't bothering us.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
at their university, though.
In Vino Veritas
Breaking a few laws for national security is okay as long as it's addressed and regulated once the situation stabilizes. Personally I don't think there's a "right to privacy," though it's true the government will inevitably use its knowledge to violate other rights.
To everyone else who disagrees with
"I fear my government far more than I fear renegade Muslim teenagers with guns."
If someone kicks down my door at night and points a gun at me, I'll bash his brains out with a crowbar. I have said crowbar on standby.
If it was a terrorist, I'm a hero.
If it was a cop mistakenly serving a warrant, which is much more likely, I go to prison for the rest of my life.
At least with the terrorist I stand a chance.
Personally I don't think there's a "right to privacy,"
Really? Stop and think about that for a minute. Don't give me the "if you don't have anything to hide" stuff either.
I live in a state that has a right to privacy clause in its constitution (Alaska) we all have a right to live a private law abiding life. Should we choose to violate a law, our privacy then becomes void.
This is the United States guys, giving up our freedom, any of them is exactly the opposite of what we stand for. Why do the telecoms need to be so protected if they "don't have anything to hide" right? I mean, thats the argument I hear over FISA all the time.
"If you don't have anything to hide why are you so worried if the government is listening"
Its a slippery slope to thought-crime, pre-crime, ect. We all had to read Orwell for a reason.
Bravo to the Dems for finally standing up to GW. If we get attacked so be it. I'm not giving up my freedom just in case a bunch of psycho's decide they don't like us. Thats what they want, it's called TERRORism. Giving in to the fear is letting them win. Giving up our freedom is letting them win.
maniacprovost's actually a Ronulan playing agitprop games on this site, secure in the knowledge that it'd be bad form for me to toss him just because he doesn't have the guts to insult me to my face. Which means that he probably has even more of a beef with FISA than you do.
Me, I just don't care if you don't like the bill.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I don't have a beef with FISA at all. PAA is what scares me. I'm all for catching these guys. FISA allows for wiretaps on the spot and warrant after the fact. That isn't enough?
I don't understand how having to get a warrant 3 days latersmakes America less safe.
Thanks for the heads up though, I'll avoid arguing with him in the future.(I'm totally new here)
I'm not trying to troll at all, I think these issues all need a healthy debate from all sides, conducted in a civil tone, among adults.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Call the Congress back in session? Cancel his Africa trip?
Because, if he doesn't do somethung dramatic, it will feed into the Dem storyline that this is all moch ado about nothing. The MSM favors the Dem storyline, or will want to ignore this altogether. Only dramatic action by POTUS can change that.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
The house is not officially in recess. They are holding themselves officially in session (even though only the leaders are in to be in town.) That stops the President from forcing them back into session, which I would have liked to have witnessed, and it stops any effort by Republicans to force a showdown. This is not about the public's freedoms. This is about the Democrats' freedom. You can quote me.
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
The house is not officially in recess. They are holding themselves officially in session (even though only the leaders are in to be in town.) That stops the President from forcing them back into session, which I would have liked to have witnessed, and it stops any effort by Republicans to force a showdown.
I.e., a parliamentary trick. Similar to the Senate staying in technical session over the holidays, so the President can't make recess appointments.
The MSM and Dems will ignore this. Only the President has enough PR power, with his bully pulpit, to shine light on what they're doing. Yet, he split for Africa.
The Dems are going to get away with this...yet again. Then, when we raise the issue anew in the future, they'll claim we made much ado about nothing. And, they'll point to POTUS leaving the country as proof. That will be enough for the MSM to justify ignoring the story, and even perhaps siding with Pelosi.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
But the Administration's response to it has more depth than meets the eye. Political games are afoot and as President Bush stated, "House leaders chose politics over protecting the country -- and our country is at greater risk as a result." Wait for it. Don't think that just because the President has continued an Africa trip that nothing is going on to expose the lack of country above self.
Proudly Supporting Patriots At http://www.countryaboveself.com
...attack, those who perpetrated this abdication of responsibility should be tried, convicted, and sentence carried out with deliberate haste and enthusiasm.
There will be thousands of patriotic Americans willing to slide down through the trap door to engage in the opportunity of jumping on the convicted's shoulders to make sure the job of their paying for their malfeasance in creating new legions of American dead is finished properly and promptly.
If Hillary became President and started demanding increased powers to fight terrorism, would you support her in that? Or will you start to wonder if she considers abortion-clinic protesters to be "terrorizing" women?
If President Hillary takes military action--bombs Waziristan, stay--will the GOP give her their full unqualified support?
The reason I'm asking is that when Bill Clinton bombed Serbia and then bombed Iraq's WMD facilities, conservatives were yelling that these were "Wag the Dog" campaigns to take the public's mind off Monica Lewinsky or some other thing. McCain, to his credit, publicly supported Clinton. Other Republicans either didn't care or were sharply critical.
And the feminists have always maintained that the threats against abortion clinics and other methods of intimidating women out of having abortions are terrorism. In which case Hillary's Attorney General is going to go after abortion-clinic protesters, using all the surveillance tools available to the Justice Department.
Sauce for the goose....
...disquieting Democratic possibility re natsec issues, these days. After all, Barack Obama might actually mean all the nonsense that he's been spouting off about the GWOT.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
to you but the DoJ has been after abortion protesters using all the tools at their disposal for over 15 years. We're used to it.
An Hillary isn't going to be president so the rest of this is crap.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The response comes "Don't you care about organized crime? Do you want the Mafia killing Our Children?"
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
sinz52
Do you know something we don't about a Hillary scandal that she's going to have to bomb a baby food factory in the Sudan if (god forbid) she was elected President?
More Rose Law firm records being suppressed, Bill got caught being a bad boy again or something?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
is bunk if they don't defend the country.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
I was on the phone with Hoyer's aid this am over this mess.
I was polite but no nonse and this young man was very dismissive made it very clear they were not interested in hearing any thing negative about what the Left has failes(again) to do....
PROTECT this country and our citizens.
AS to the statements above by some who think this threat is not real...
I guess all that crap in the 1970s, Beruit, more dead in the '80s, 1993 WTC bombing, the embasy bombings, The USS Cole, 9/11, Madrid, Beslan, London, D Pearl, Tom Fox and the countless others who have been butchered by the Islamists NEVER HAPPENED ????
The assertion that the Islamic threat is not real should discredit anyone making such nonsense from commenting here further with any credibility.
Bush and House Republicans should have accepted Pelosi's offer for a three-week extension of the Protect America Act (PAA), if, as Bush is arguing, the surveillance in question is so critical to our national security that a lapse of a few weeks would be dangerous. I think there's a bit of politics and grand-standing going on here. Ongoing surveillance operations authorized under the PAA can continue for up to a year even after the PAA itself lapses, and new surveillance can still be quickly authorized by emergency court order, so it's not like we're going to be blind or unprotected if the PAA lapses for a few weeks.
Still, that being said, the conduct of most House Democrats in this matter has been disgraceful and misguided. The PAA is a reasonable, sane measure in light of modern communications realities and the need to protect ourselves from terrorism. The PAA should have been reauthorized months ago and for at least a full year, and telecommunications companies should be gratned retroactive immunity for cooperating with the government. Even the libertarian, civil-liberties-hawkish Cato Institute agrees that PAA surveillance is both legal and wise.
Mike Griffith
Let Freedom Ring website
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id47.htm
Could you cough up a quote or a url for the opinion of the
Cato Institute you refer to? All I can find are this
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/15/two-sides-of-the-rule-of-law-c...
and this
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/02/15/fisa-confusion/
in the Cato Blog.
Extremely shameful on the part of House Democrats. This should be a battle cry for all of us. I don't know what good it will do, but I will be calling Pelosi and Hoyer's office this afternoon to express my thoughts on this matter. Please keep up the good work, Congressman Price!