Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFISA Revised: A Blank Check for Domestic Spying
Responding to fear-mongering by the Bush administration, the Democrat-led Congress put its stamp of approval on the unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans.
George W. Bush has perfected the art of ramming ill-considered legislation through Congress by hyping emergencies that don't exist. He did it with the USA Patriot Act, the authorization for the Iraq war, the Military Commissions Act, and now the "Protect America Act of 2007" which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
FISA was enacted in 1978 in reaction to excesses of Richard Nixon and the FBI, who covertly spied on critics of administration policies. FISA set up a conservative system with judges who meet in secret and issue nearly every wiretapping order the administration requests.
But that wasn't good enough for Bush. In 2001, he secretly established his "Terrorist Surveillance Program," with which the National Security Agency has illegally spied on Americans. Instead of holding hearings and holding the executive accountable for his law-breaking, Congress capitulated once again to the White House's strong-arm tactics. As Congress was about to adjourn for its summer recess, Bush officials threatened to label anyone who opposed their new legislation as soft on terror. True to form, Congress - including 16 Senate and 41 House Democrats - caved.
The new law takes the power to authorize electronic surveillance out of the hands of a judge and places it in the hands of the attorney general (AG) and the director of national intelligence (DNI). FISA had required the government to convince a judge there was probable cause to believe the target of the surveillance was a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. The law didn't apply to wiretaps of foreign nationals abroad. Its restrictions were triggered only when the surveillance targeted a U.S. citizen or permanent resident or when the surveillance was obtained from a wiretap physically located in the United States. The attorney general was required to certify that the communications to be monitored would be exclusively between foreign powers and there was no substantial likelihood a U.S. person would be overheard.
Under the new law, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence can authorize "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." The surveillance could take place inside the U.S., and there is no requirement of any connection with al-Qaeda, terrorism or criminal behavior. The requirement that the AG certify there is no substantial likelihood a U.S. person will be overheard has been eliminated.
By its terms, the new law will sunset in 180 days. But this is a specious limitation. The AG and DNI can authorize surveillance for up to one year. So just before the statute is set to expire around February 1, 2008, they could approve surveillance that will last until after Bush leaves office.
There is provision for judicial review of the procedures the AG and DNI establish to make sure they are reasonably designed to ensure communications of U.S. persons are not overheard. But that requirement is also specious. They must submit their procedures to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 120 days after the effective date of the act. The court doesn't have to respond to their submission until 180 days after the effective date of the act, and the standard of review is appallingly low. It's limited to whether the government's determination is "clearly erroneous." Even if the court were to find the proffer clearly erroneous, the AG and DNI have another 30 days to fix it. That takes the entire review process beyond the 6 month sunset period. Meanwhile, the surveillance can continue.
The Supreme Court held in the 1967 case of Katz v. United States that government wiretapping must be supported by a search warrant based on probable cause and issued by a judge. In 1972, the Court, in U.S. v. U.S. District Court (Keith), struck down warrantless domestic surveillance. The Court has recognized the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. The special need must be narrowly tailored to the problem. However, the new law is much too broad to come under this exception. Congress eliminated any need that the person surveilled be a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The government need only show it is seeking "foreign intelligence information." There is no requirement of any connection with terrorism. The special needs exception also requires an absence of discretion in the implementing authority. There is unlimited discretion now as long as the target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States.
The AG is required under the new law to report to Congress semi-annually, but only on incidents of non-compliance. Can we really trust Alberto Gonzales to be forthcoming about compliance with this law? Senator Christopher Dodd told Glenn Greenwald at the YearlyKos convention last week that neither he nor the other senators have any idea of how the Bush administration has been using its secret program to spy on Americans.
Finally, the new law requires telephone companies to collect data and turn it over to the federal government. It also grants immunity against lawsuits to these companies, many of which are currently defendants in civil cases.
Indeed, the mad rush to push this legislation through last week was likely a preemptive strike by Bush to head off adverse rulings in lawsuits challenging the legality of his Terrorist Surveillance Program. On August 9, a federal district court in San Francisco will hear oral arguments by lawyers from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the National Lawyers Guild in CCR v. Bush. And on August 15, Guild lawyers and others will argue Al-Haramain v. Bush in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
In six months, when the "Protect America Act of 2007" is set to expire, there will be even more political pressure on Congress to appear tough on terror in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election. We cannot expect a Congress that so easily caved in to the fears hyped by the Bush administration to stand firm in support of the Constitution.
Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, was just published. Her articles are archived at http://www.marjoriecohn.com.
© 2007 Huffington Post
38 Comments so far
Show AllWe'v become everything the GOP.toled us to hate Russia for,so it must not be such a bad thing to spy on your own people. Question is why were we bombing Korea and Vietnam for doing the sane thing?
What congress has done is knock one of the legs out of the cases for impeachment. They have made "legal" some of the most heinous crimes that Bush/Cheney ought to be impeached for. Way to go, bastards.
John F. Butterfield August 11th, 2007 2:17 pm
"hope that answered some of your questions"
Not directly...but I sympathize with your personal candor.
I will look at your website.
Libertas; you nailed it.
War hater: I agree. Their spying got them some good information.
While my congressman and senators did not vote for this travesty far too many Dems did. I'll not vote Democratic again and of course I'll have absolutely nothing to do with Republicans or christians for the rest of my life. Is this the Continential Divide?
baska,
I have been pondering the reform from within vs. the third party issue for at least the last five years. During that time I have been a dues paying member of the Labor Party and (not at the same time) a near candidate supported by the Democratic party running for the House in Vermont. A campaign that didn't get too far because the people who knew me best were restricted by the Hatch Act. I also got far more encouragement from Democrats who were members of the Vermont House and the Vermont Senate than from the county organization which really didn't seem to want to do much more than rent a booth at the county fair. Some politicians just said forget about the Democrats as an organization. I also had health problems at the time.
What I am trying to add to the discussion at this time is the possibility that people who left the Democrats and joined and worked for other parties added to those who have thought about leaving the Democrats probably outnumber those who feel that the current Democratic Party is a perfect fit for them. I am not taking about being a voter registered as a Democrat. That is meaningless. I am talking about being a working part of the organization, which I have never been. But going in as a lone individual is not worth anything. Form a group before you go in.
I live in Florida now and went to a meeting to help with a congressional campaign in 2006. I should have taken some materials to hand out at the time but was given the phone number of someone who was a paid coordinater for the Democrats who would arrange territories for people to cover and hand out flyers for several candidates that would be appropriate for that territory. He missed appointments he had made with me until I gave up.
This year I will spend a few nights standing near a theatre showing SiCKO and hand out Dennis Kucinich flyers that I will print off the web.
I stood at a corner with some people asking for our troops to be brought home but I am afraid that we distracted a driver and there was an accident. Most of the people there lived about a 40 minute drive from me. Now I realize that probably isn't much of a drive at all so I should go back and start to really talk with some of them.
I would like to meet and talk to some of the people who post here. Sometimes I see posts that I think are better than the articles. I use my real name and it links to a home page that has a link that can be used to e-mail me. I could list at least five people whose posts I look forward to reading, but I don't know their real names or how to reach them. I have had four people e-mail me and I must apologize for not getting back to all of them. They have all been supportive e-mails.
I have my own website that I work on daily. I don't get out as much as I should. I hope to change that now that I have a little bit more of a plan. I also need to put a page on my website with more infor about myself. If you click on donate your should get to a page with my address.
Most of the people who post here seem to think the same way I do on what I consider to be the most important things. If you live in Volusia County, Florida; I would like to meet you. Meanwhile I wonder if some more of you would consider using your real names. Sometimes I click on a link that should connect me to the writer of a post just to end up at the webpage of a car dealership or some such thing. What's up with that.
I am astonished that some people memtion forming a 3rd party and don't seem to realize that there are already something like 140 3rd parties. Don't ask me to name them all. That's the point. The biggest, but unofficial party, is the one I call the Slumber Party.
baska, I hope that answered some of your questions. I hope you are not too disappointed. By the way, debate? In meetings that I have been at most of the people would have fallen asleep if they hadn't been eating or knitting. That's why a group of dedicated people could change things.
I come back to what we get for what we give. We give up our rights and how much security to we get? I have not heard story after story on the news about all the terrorists that they have rounded up because of these new laws.
It is not like they need to keep these arrests of the bad guys secret for fear that al Qaeda will learn about them. Law enforcement routinely boasts about how many busts they have made. No one really seems to ask if this is effective, they just assume that all this is necessary without ever measuring the payback.
Thank you, Democrats, for tearing off the mask this summer and revealing yourselves to be Fascisti scum just like the GOP pigs across the aisle.
Libertas Fugit: Sterling insights and post.
RE: HOW ARE YOU ORGANIZING THE DEMOCRATIC TAKEOVER?
John F. Butterfield August 11th, 2007 8:01 am
"Organize, organize, organize."
What work are you doing within the Democratic Party to achieve this? Does it ever occur to the dissatisfied-but-still-in-the-party to hold the Democratic right wing accountable by blaming their 'triangulating' strategy for Democratic losses? Do debates between the "dissatisfied" progressive wing of the Party and the DLC right ever occur in a form - a major forum, the DNC website, e.g. - that would allow the existing Democratic electorate to weigh in on whether it wants the DLC running the show?
Since you're evidently committed to reforming your party from the inside, perhaps you should make that a project - I am sure if you invite 3rd parties to such a debate, you would find many to occupy the 'Why I will not vote for a DLC-dominated party' chair.
And then you can put it to the DLC leadership - 'See, you've driven them away, and as long as you keep triangulating, we'll keep losing traditional voters.'
I am sure that - being reasonable and not wishing to shaft the Democratic Party - DLC strategists will be persuaded. Aren't you sure, delegate Butterfield? Or is it only those who have gotten totally pissed off and left the Democrats who can be appealed to, not the people in your own organization?
RE: 'VOTE OUT RIGHT WING DEMOCRATS' 3rd PARTY TACTIC
COMarc August 10th, 2007 3:48 pm
"The only 'wake up call' [for] a modern politician is to be kicked out of office. Or maybe to see a colleague kicked out of office and to realize it could happen to them next."
I generally agree - both with the view that politicians will only respond to force, and with a 'defining issues' campaign strategy to defeat right wing Democrats.
There are major problems with any approach, including this one - unseating Democrats in predominantly conservative southern states, how to expand this approach to include enough voters to be effective (on a national scale, the 2000 Nader/Green campaign seemed something like this) - but this is no reason not to pursue it.
As I have noted several times before on different threads, this basis for voting 3rd party is different from that of someone who believes the political system is so hardwired into a ruling class that Democrats will/can never support progressive positions, and only a major third party will.
If everyone who has stopped voting for Democrats during the past few decades because the Democrats were at best just "Republican light" became participating members of the Democratic Party; they could probably take over the party and marginalize the DLC, Blue Dogs, and others. County by county like minded people should get together and when they know their numbers are large enough to take over the Democratic Party, they shoud become members and do it. This means contacting members of the various socialist parties, the Labor Party, and other parties and getting them to join you. Contact Code Pink and the people standing on the corners asking that our troops be brought home. Stand outside a theatre showing SiCKO. Exchange names, phone numbers, and addresses, meet together, go in a group and talk to the leaders of 3rd parties. 3rd party leaders might be the key, because it may be hard to get big numbers otherwise, but maybe not. Some of the leaders of the 3rd parties can be leaders in the New democratic party. You won't need numbers as big as you may think. Many people may vote Democrat but how many are actively involved in the party. After getting a start locally, go national. Organize, organize, organize.
The Democrat Congress Criters who voted for this legislation did so because they are being blackmailed. The administrations police state has some credible information or pictures of them in illegal acts, such as, pedophilia. Maybe evidence of taking bribs?
Anyway, this explanation makes more sense than worry about being reelected.
Face it, the Democratic party is in lock-step with this Administration.
I lost count of how many 'surges' Congress passed since the general election last year.
This is not the first blank check either. When I found out BILLIONS were allocated for the Iraq war coupled with NO deadline for withdraw, I gave up hope on Congress, or more specifically, the Demoncrats in Congress.
p.s. 9/11 was an inside job. Watch the WTC 7 fall and you'll know what I mean.
But we already have a Dick and a Bush in our pants.
The worst terrorist of all is currently occupying the office of President of the United States, supported by Cheney, Rice, Rove, and now, evidently, the Congress of the United States. It is insupportable that the Democrats have done what they have done, a bitter disappointment to those of us who worked hard to get a Democratic-led Congress, and a shameful cowardly caving-in to the bloated demands of an arrogant know-nothing president and his handlers. I find the Democrats more sickening than I'm able to describe; it is incomprehensible to me that they have rewarded our exhaustive hard work with this craven gutless copout.
While it felt good to see the Republicans lose their majority in Congress, I didn't really have high hopes for the Democratic Party. Since they've been in charge of Congress, they keep selling out again and again and again. I know you people will tell me to shut up and vote for Hillary and Obamba, and in response I will tell you people to stop deluding yourselves.
My repeated requests for reassurance of my congressional reps that Congress will be party to any consideration of war with Iran go unanswered. These are the good guys. And they do not stop the extension of domestic spying. Hang on to your seats.
They simply were afraid that "something would happen" during their recess and they would/could be blamed. CYA plain and simple. The saddest part of the whole mess is not only are we losing our constitutional protections, but I don't believe any of this is going to thwart a determined group of terrorists. We're going to be hit again--it's a terrible fact, but if we could face it and move ahead we'd be a lot better off. No one wants to lose their life or the life of someone close to them to a terrorist attack. No one wants to lose someone to a traffic accident or to street crime, either, but both those things have happened in my small family and they happen to many others every day. If we let fear rule us, we'd never step out of the house in the morning.
Libertas fugit: Thank you for your succinct overview of our current political status.
If only we could get the rest of the American public to realize the truth. They are the sleeping giant of ignorance/denial.
Besides killing the televisions, how do we awaken the sleeping giant?
"APPARENTLY THE WARRANTY ON THE CONSTITUTION HAS ELAPSED"
Or, 10 Motives to Fear Why the Democrats Voted to Allow
Continuation of Warrantless Searches
I can see only ten potential reasons why those currently
(and hopefully temporarily) in control of the Democratic Party so cravenly caved in to Bush and conspired with him to violate the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms by granting him near dictatorial powers for spying and searching without warrants:
1. They have never bothered to read the Constitution. Maybe all they have time to read is bribe requests from lobbyists.
2. They do not understand or have forgotten how central it is to our democracy and what we stand for in the world. D'oh.
3. They can't read or are of such minimal intellectual capacity that they cannot comprehend the plain meaning and obvious intent of the words. It makes Bush's stumbling through a children's story while 9/11 was in progress seem professorial in comparison.
4. Their copies of the Constitution are missing several important pages. I wouldn't put is past Bushites to razor blade all copies they can locate, but I am beginning to doubt the ability of Democrats to notice.
5. They don't care or they are lazy, or incompetent or cowards afraid of a fight. From their actions over the last several years, this is sadly an emerging pattern.
6. They have been bought off or being blackmailed. Wouldn't it be an interesting irony if whatever blackmail is being used was obtained by this same illegal power the Executive Branch has been using for years to secretly search communications?
7. They are more interested in preserving their perks of office than they are obeying their oath of office in which they expressly swore to defend the Constitution. The oath, by the way, is not to defend people or places from attack by terrorists, but to defend the CONSTITUTION.
8. They do not recognize how easily the power to spy and search without warrants can be abused. Nothing prevents it from being used against Americans for purely partisan purposes such as finding dirt to blackmail or destroy political opponents. This is especially possible when there is little or no oversight such as a neutral court to help, at least a little, to discourage violations. That is why the founding fathers made the absolute prohibition such a key and highlighted provision. If the ambiguous prohibition against infringing the right of "militias" to bear arms has been interpreted so broadly that it is perceived as allowing everyone to have any guns they want, then surely an explicit and unequivocal prohibition against searches without warrants ought to be enforced as written.
9. They do not believe Bush and his monomaniacal cabal are capable of using the power in ways not allowed by law. Actually, if this is the reason, it falls into the gross stupidity category already mentioned above since how could anyone who reads not be aware of what Bush and the minions he exemplifies have been doing?
10. They see themselves gaining control of the White House and want the power to spy and search without warrants for themselves.
Keep in mind that to prevent this particular assault on the Constitution, all the Democrats had to do was simply not bring the bill up for a vote. Nothing else. It would have automatically died a natural death this Fall. They did not need to fear a Presidential veto. They did not have to worry about a filibuster stalling work in Congress for a lengthy period. They did not have to worry about having enough votes to win. They did not have to worry about looking ineffectual. They would have greatly pleased their constituents. There would have been little harm as evidenced by the fact that the millions of violations by Bush for literally years so far has not actually accomplished anything useful in saving the nation for harm. The Democrats did not have to even take a position one way or the other and would have had cover by claiming it was not their fault. They could have legitimately said hundreds of bills never see the light of day and there are other things of more importance claiming attention on their limited time. Consequently, they had little worry that doing nothing could be effectively used against them when running for office.
Why then did the Democrats bizarrely go along with a lengthy extension of the surveillance and wiretapping of Americans without warrants outrage? It is not clear which of reasons speculated above resulted in such gross offenses against the Constitution, but whatever the reason, it is scary. We apparently need to replace the present Democrats in Congress as well as the President and all his followers.
Maybe what we need on ballots is a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" option when voting so that a new election is immediately held and none of those running at the time are permitted to be in the new race.
[more irreverence at resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]
Okay, we got it - they're spying on us from every which way, laws be damned, unless you're not rich, connected and "loyal."
But no one seems to know why? What is the plan? Clearly, catching terrorists isn't, since their batting average is embarrassing, even with the extra-legal snooping and six unencumbered years, which is more than enough time to eliminate 99% of Americans from the "suspected terrorist" list. Conspiracy theories aside (round up the hippies, force opposition compliance via secrets discovered, etc.), this gang of thieves has a reason for everything, and it's always political.
So? Anyone out there know the truth?
It's true: our government has lost its legitimacy. I wish we could hold a national vote-of-confidence in the Bush/Cheney regime. Or secede.
I do believe that ultimately, justice prevails. It's a moral imperative to stand up in opposition to what we've come to stand for. I don't believe that my opposition will change anything, though. I just feel that I must separate myself from what this nation has become.
The only 'wake up call' a modern politician is to be kicked out of office. Or maybe to see a colleague kicked out of office and to realize it could happen to them next.
To that end, I think we need to start targeting Democrats for defeat. Please note the exact wording of that, as its a bit different than trying to win with 3rd party or independent candidates. Of course I'd love the latter. But to gain power for our side and to deliver the needed 'wake up call', what's needed is to target Democrats for defeat.
We need to find Democrats that meet two conditions.
1) They've failed to follow a progressive agenda in this congress. They've voted to fund the war. They voted to make Americans pay more for meds in order to keep big pharma's profits. They've voted to expand Bush's police state powers. Its better if they are in leadership positions. If they've called us 'idiot liberals' or otherwise made clear their disdain for us, that's good too.
2) In elections in their district, if the progressive vote were to go to a third party, would that be enough to cost them the election. Ie, if you estimate that the progressive vote would be 10%, did they win their last election by less than 10%.
Anytime we see this combination, we need to run an alternative candidate. And we need to do it with the express aim that our goal is to cause the defeat of the Democrat and their retirement from the Congress. If we can win, that's great. Maybe the campaign will generate momentum and get there. But that's not the target, that's not the goal. The goal is the defeat of the Democrat.
What does that get us? Think of what happens in the following Congress. Assume we successfully cause the defeat of several prominent Democrats. Then assume another issue like the war, or Bush spying on Americans or something like that comes up. We try to make an appointment to go talk to the Congress critter.
Today, we are ignored. We have a hard time even getting in the office to see them, and frequently have to try to track them down in the hallways of Congress even to get a word in edgewise.
But if we can cause the defeat of several prominent Democrats, that will change drastically. We will definitely get invited into the offices to talk. We will be treated with respect. We will be listened to. And there is a very good chance we can even get the congress critter to vote our way.
Why, because the congress critter will know for a fact that we successfully forced the early retirement of several of his colleagues. They will also know they don't want to be next on our hit list. So they are going to be very respectful to us, and there would then be a very real chance we'd have enough power to change votes. That's because we'd be wielding a very real threat that if they opposed us then they'd be the next one to go to an early retirement in the next election.
If you want to deliver a 'wake up call', that's the only one they'd understand and to which they'd listen.
We are in the seventh year of a United States government by an appointed president and his gang. He has never been elected.
In 2000, he was appointed by one member of the "Supreme" Court, 5-4, to stop the recount before it could expose the criminal acts of the Republican machine. Gore rolled over and played dead.
In 2004, massive, documented, fraud in Ohio plus a couple of other states got him in. While We the People were protesting at the top of our lungs, Kerry rolled over and played dead in record time.
So, for over seven years, this gang of venal, murderous crooks have been able to trash and subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and turn the nation into a "Unitary Executive" (dictatorship)
The Supremes are falling right into line. There was a time when nominations for the Supreme Court came from the absolute cream of the crop of American Jurisprudence. Men and women were considered who had many years of impeccable judicial experience, or had taught law in the best colleges and universities. They were universally respected. The appointments were lifetime because that was considered to put them above any possible political influence or interference.
Now, it is the nomination of political hacks who may possess a law degree, but owe fealty to the criminal gang in the White House. As I predicted in 2000, the social legislation and civil and human rights legislation that we fought so hard for are being reversed in the name of corporate greed and government control of every aspect of an individual's life.
Our treasury has been looted by this gang and given to their powerful allies. We are in an illegal, immoral, war that is unwinnable, but is making huge profits for the gang, while bankrupting the nation to the point where, one day, they will turn their pockets inside out and tell We the People, "Sorry, we're broke! No more medicare, no more social security, no more aid to education, no more social programs at all." The neocons will have finally managed to do what they could not do directly. They will have created a nation of serfs with a small, obscenely wealthy ruling class to lord it over us. That has been the dream since Roosevelt cut into their profits.
As a nuclear veteran, I know what is in store for the world if the Cheney/Bush gang gets to enact their dream of a nuclear attack on Iran. Our goose is probably cooked already with the amount of DU we've spread around the world. If we or Israel under Cheney/Bush's blessing nukes Iran or Syria, the remnants of civilization, as we knew it will go down the tubes.
"FISA Modernization" is just one more nail in the coffin of democracy. The coffin is being nailed shut by both parties.
If you look at the U-2 Spyplane article on Antiwar.com, surprise, surprise, the government is flying high above and spying on us.
What concrete evidence do you have that 'Democrats in congress' are moving left? I don't care what they say? That's all just lying BS. Please cites specifics bills and votes.
From where I sit, the Congress has done little or nothing that's concrete that in any way challenges or changes the Bush agenda.
Democrats in Congress ARE moving left -- but it's more that incumbents are getting religion (finally) than that freshmen and -women replacing Republicans are making a difference.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=654
Last year, I spent about 100 hours of my time helping the campaign of one of the 17 dems who voted for this. What a waste.
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---60
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)
How hard would it have been to answer any charges with "We cannot trust this administration with any further powers, given the extent of the abuse of even its legitimate authority"?
The vast majority don't trust the administration, why should any Democratic members of Congress act as if the opposite were true?
Cleaning house starts at home. So, for example, someone worthless like Babs Mikulski in MD should find employment elsewhere. Any Senator under the assumption that they have a job for life because of the D designation, while quietly sitting back and enabling damage should be punished severely at the polls.
There has been legislation passed that I disagreed with, but this needs a far worse category. I am thoroughly disgusted. I could say that I am thoroughly disgusted with Bush and Cheney being drunk on power, and as true drunks they want even more empowerment. However, who is ENABLING their power addiction. Congress.
The Democratic Party needs a wake up call slap in the face. They need a loud and clear message to quit enabling Bush and Cheney. I know that we can't afford to be naive and we need to follow leads on terrorists. However, Bush and Cheney desperately need oversight. THEY NEED TO WARRANTS AND SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE.
The authors use of the phrases: "Responding to fear-mongering by the Bush administration." &"George W. Bush has perfected the art of ramming ill-considered legislation through Congress by hyping emergencies that don't exist." makes the MAGORITY Democratic congress look like a bunch of victims of big bad Bushy. Oh no, Bushy duped us again!!??? Face it, the Democratic party is in lock-step with this Administration. The reason why none of these policies will be nullified (chico) is that the Democratic party wants the ability to use the exact same tactics that Bush is using when they get a Democratic president in office. Bush maybe running things like a dictatorship but its a dictatorship that the Dems would be more that happy to take over. That's why there is always enough Democratic votes for them to seem like the "Opposition" party but never enough to stop a bill. They allow this so they can continue to play the victim so the sheep will vote for them in November '08. News flash, the Democratic party IS NOT the party of opposition. That role changed with this congress. If they wanted to effect real immediate change they could. Pelosi and Reid are nothing but hot air.
Imagine President Hillary Clinton with the powers of Bush and a Democratic Congress. Yuk!
Look what you get when you vote Democrat! Same as if you vote Republican.
Seig Heil! Seig Heil! Seig Heil!!
The Administration is still pushing economic growth by attacking Americans themselves. The design of 9/11 allowed an unprecedented launch of attacks against the middle class in particular. Chimp immediately rewarded his close buddies with a complete new wing of Government run in part by Northrup Grumman. There's simply too much to be gained from marginalization, spending money on projects that celebrate erosion of freedom, and punishment.
With no oversight nor review, any power can be abused. This is a long standing principle that everyone should remember.
I do not think that anyone is advocating restricting the effectiveness for any administration to provide national security.
These sort of "with us or against us" statements have got to stop. They polarize the discussion with emotion.
For far too long we have had statements like "soft on communism", "soft on defense" now it is "surrender date" and other phrases that are meant to short circuit reason and inflame emotions. No one should fall for these tactics anymore.
Until we get real about the stolen elections and 911, and NULLIFY everything this little piece of shit has done, they're gonna keep pulling this kindergarten Manson shit on us.
Grow up and NULLIFY... NULLIFY, god damn it NULLIFY.
Jeez, how long do I have to keep screeching the OBVIOUS ?