Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWith Democrats Like These...
Every now and then, we are tempted to double-check that the Democrats actually won control of Congress last year. It was particularly hard to tell this week. Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution.
The task before Congress was to review and improve an update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, that was pushed through the Capitol just before the summer break. That bill endorsed warrantless wiretapping and gutted other aspects of the 1978 law.
House Democrats drafted a measure that, while imperfect, was an improvement to the one passed this summer. But before the House could vote, Republicans tied up the measure in bureaucratic knots and Democratic leaders pulled it. Senate Democrats did even worse, accepting a Potemkin compromise that endorsed far too much of the bad summer law.
We were left wondering who is really in charge, when in a bipartisan press release announcing the agreement, the ranking Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kit Bond, described the bill as "a delicate arrangement of compromises" that could not be changed in any way. The committee's chairman, Jay Rockefeller, didn't object.
As the debate proceeds, Americans will be told that the delicate compromises were about how the government may spy on phone calls and electronic messages in the age of instant communications. Republicans have already started blowing hot air about any naysayers trying to stop spies from tracking terrorists.
No one is doing that. The question really is whether Congress should toss out chunks of the Constitution because Mr. Bush finds them inconvenient and some Democrats are afraid to look soft on terrorism.
FISA requires a warrant to spy on communications within the United States or between people in this country and people abroad. After 9/11, Mr. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to spy, without a warrant, on communications between the United States and other countries. The N.S.A. obtained data from American telecommunications companies by telling them it was legal.
After The Times disclosed the program in late 2005, Mr. Bush looked for a way to legalize it retroactively. He found it this summer. FISA also requires a warrant to intercept strictly foreign communications that happen to move through data networks in the United States.
That Internet age flaw has a relatively simple fix. But the White House seized the opportunity to ram through the far broader bill, which could authorize warrantless surveillance of Americans' homes, offices and phone records; permit surveillance of Americans abroad without probable cause; and sharply limit the power of the court that controls electronic spying.
Democrats justified their votes for this bad bill by noting that the law expires in February and by promising to fix it this fall. The House bill did, in fact, restore most judicial safeguards. But the deal cooked up by Mr. Rockefeller and the White House doesn't. It would not expire for six years, which is too long. And it would dismiss pending lawsuits against companies that turned data over to the government without a warrant.
This provision is not primarily about protecting patriotic businessmen, as Mr. Bush claims. It's about ensuring that Mr. Bush and his aides never have to go to court to explain how many laws they've broken. It is a collusion between lawmakers and the White House that means that no one is ever held accountable. Democratic lawmakers said they reviewed the telecommunications companies' cooperation (by reading documents selected by the White House) and concluded that lawsuits were unwarranted. Unlike them, we still have faith in the judicial system, which is where that sort of conclusion is supposed to be reached, not in a Senate back room polluted by the politics of fear.
There were bright spots in the week. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon managed to attach an amendment requiring a warrant to eavesdrop on American citizens abroad. That merely requires the government to show why it believes the American is in league with terrorists, but Mr. Bush threatened to veto the bill over that issue.
Senator Christopher Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat, said he would put a personal hold on the compromise cooked up by Senator Rockefeller and the White House.
Otherwise, it was a very frustrating week in Washington. It was bad enough having a one-party government when Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. But the Democrats took over, and still the one-party system continues.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
55 Comments so far
Show AllDr. Zimmerman (10/20/07): point well-taken regarding Pelosi...less "pragmatism" and MORE LEADERSHIP, PLEASE!
genaman (10/21): Democrats in Name Only retard the liberal and progressive agenda. The DINO's should be replaced with Democrats from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party...
TO HELL WITH ALL THE CANDIDATES !!unregister from this insanity they have wrought !!refuse to be a part of their madness and their continuous LIES !!be a slave to the royal elite,no more !!
The Democrats could completely shut down the Bush Administration with the Dear Leader's public approval ratings at mid-20% levels.
They are not "cowed" into doing anything. They are complicit. They are on the same team.
Support Dodd, you bet. Follow the link posted by dreamertoo (October 21st 12:21 am), but also go to http://www.democrats.com and sign their petition, which they will forward to several (named) Senators' national PACs.
**But don't forget** to send a nasty email to that jerk Harry Reid.
Anybody catch this?
http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/10/18/reid-tries-to-shut-down-dodds-hold
illinois indie .. I notice you left out the biggest screwers "in the demise of our democracy" ... bush and his pub buds!!!
genaman ... some of what you say is true ... but not the "all" and "everybody"- stop the friken generizations ...
This is a problem with many posters ... gross generalizations about "everybody ... everyone and all" ...
Dichterfreund...Thanx. The Dems, the NY Times and all the other mass media are all complicit in the demise of our democracy.
Any hope of a way out of the U.S.'s current morass by resorting to traditional political action within the current system is to believe in the impossible. When Eisenhower, on his way out of office, warned of the amalgamation of power by the criminals which control corporations, it was already too late. In the "Godfather" movie series, when they had the mafia don meeting in Havana with their contemporaries such as United Fruit and the other American corporations, they acurately portrayed then just what kind of vile people were actually controlling the U.S.A. And when we who know them for what they are refer to them as "criminals" we don't mean just your ordinary bad guy but as representatives of their kind of gangs led by such as Hitler, Napoleon, Caesar or that other worthless piece of trash Alexander. And the only way to get rid of that kind is at the point of a bayonet.
The democratic party continues to serve as sidekick for Israel's most reactionary politics . it's about time to stop being falsely surprised and take effective action to reject Israel's military supremacist ideology to be embedded in the congress pentagon and everywhere else.
Minds like Gilad Atzmon are most needed.
They will make REAL difference.
dreamstoo
Sorry, I didn't intend to embarrass you, since you obviously don't know what a neoliberal is. I'll drop it. I guess the joke's on me. I thought I'd learn something I didn't know.
Try ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/anneyism
NAFTA Shrugged!
Jesus vs. Ayn Rabinowitz
C'mon Guys, Quit Posturing, whining you can't help yourself --you "gotta" vote for her. You Must like!! Hillary's (Bill's) agenda, she's just not as good a player as her cunning partner. You are Market fundamentalists--you must!! be, you endorse the guy who gave us NAFTA (which BTW Bush Sr. tried & failed to get through congress), concentrated media (controlled now by the Friends of Bill--who owe him, big! for crippling the formerly free press), bombing, starving, people of the world with the least resources to defend themselves, hallucinating about oil--whoops! I mean WMDs --gottal like all this because these were the things institutionalized by Your Guy in the 90s, eagerly endorsed by the W and followed through by Hillary. Quit alibing you're "social" liberals. You're not liberal anything-- The only thing distinguishes you from the f-a-r right mean, stingy, heartless bastards in the companion (not alternate) party is you bristle at the word "Jesus" and you're Christian Haters! I'm no Christian but Jesus' philosophy and way of life over your mean Ayn Rabinowitz-- author of "Atlas Shrugged" and the celebration of greed, I mean, give! me! a! break!
In the parade of extinguished life forms inextricably connected to our own, we can ill afford this current Global-Shrug. Trashing the *living! gifts of creation for hyper-indulgence & frivilous consumption isn't simply cruel & uncivilized its uniquely unforgivable. We're stripping our own children! of a sustainable home on THEIR! Planet, Earth.
The egregious loss of the sacrosanct bound up with us, the tragic loss that foreshadows the end of Earth was the loss of our Respect For Life.
dreamertoo
==...liberal extremists; people who use politics like the neocons do, to forward their own anti-American rhetoric and choices; they're fascists and communists who want to take control of this country away from the people and put it in their own hands.
Not to keep picking, but I guess I STILL haven't identified who you mean, not being familiar with a whole lot of "isms" or political philosophies. Do you mean libertarians? Socialists? Who? Can you name a public person who roughly fits the definition? That might clarify it :-)
Don't let the President or the Congress or their allies sabotage the evidence the independent prosecutor is going to need. She or he can decide whether the telecoms or anyone else has testimony that warrants immunity from prosecution.
(And, don't let their hirelings or the naysayers or the wannabes sabotage the conversation on this site.)
Let freedom ring!
By neolibs, anney, I mean liberal extremists; people who use politics like the neocons do, to forward their own anti-American rhetoric and choices; they're fascists and communists who want to take control of this country away from the people and put it in their own hands.
People who don't vote out of apathy and frustration and people vote out of fear and ignorance empower these groups.
People need to realize that if they'd don't wake up and listen and act now their apathy their frustration their fear their lack of being informed is going to be redoubled.
There's no problem with America that Americans can't solve.
Senator Dodd, chairman of the Federal Finance Committee (or some contraction thereof)....Did nothing to protect tax payers from the economic mess that is in progress. Not only that, but he and Chuck Schumer crapped in your great grandchildrens savings accounts when they together pushed for and got the debt ceilings raised on an already demolished Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think he's running for higher office as in running for cover when all the fiscal *hit hits the fan and the world of little people are angry enough to want their pound of flesh.
dreamertoo
I've seen that term, neoliberal, tossed around several times and have wondered what the dickens it means! I just looked on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
and it seems to be defined as a theory of economics. The characteristic I noticed was the privatizing of what were once government services, such as those faith-based initiatives where religious groups are paid by the government to perform social services once provided by the government, or the Blackwater mercenaries.
Is this what you meant?
Neocons, Please Post Your Comments On "Conman Dreams".
Neolibs, Please Post Your Comments On "Commune Dreams".
Not To Mention, The Neolibs.
More Neocons (And Their Sympathizers) Comment Here Than Progressives.
genaman
The Democrats ARE the "powers that be". They've joined the Republicans to pass every unconstitutional bill Bush has demanded. We elected them to FIGHT Bush's unconstitutional agenda, win or lose, not support it, not negotiate with the White House, not become Republicans.
Believe me, the Democrats hold the power-cards in their hands even at the beginning of the process. They're the majority in both houses, and as such they control what bills come to the floor for votes. All they have to do is refuse to bring those bills with unconstitutional elements out of committees for votes.
The Republicans completely shut the Democrats out of participating in the bill-making process between 2000 and 2006. The majority Democrats should have done the same thing until they'd defanged the Bush administration. But they haven't left the Republicans out of the process, and in so doing, they have certainly failed at protecting America's constitutional government. Bush has had bi-partisan support for his agenda since the Democrats were elected to a majority.
The Democrats have had the same tools to stop Bush's illegalities that the Republican majority had to start them. But by not using them, the Democrats have screwed America time and time and time again. How DARE Nancy Pelosi take impeachment off the table? How DARE the Democratic leadership negotiate in secret for months with the WH and Republicans on the FISA legislation that still allows government wiretapping of citizens without individual warrants and gives immunity to the telcoms for their illegal cooperation with the Bush administration? How DARE any of the Democrats vote to give Bush an okay to attack Iran? How DARE any of the Democrats vote to continue the illegal war in Iraq with no end in sight? How DARE any of the Democrats vote to give Bush any further rights under his "unitary executive" claims. HOW DARE ANY OF THE DEMOCRATS REFUSE TO GUARD AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES?
So don't come here and lecture CDers who criticize the Democrats. Don't come here naively claiming that the Democrats will get us out of this mess if there are just more Democrats elected. They're the majority in both Houses now, and not only are they NOT getting us out of this disaster, they're even more deeply entrenching America in it.
As somebody said elsewhere, current politics is like a restaurant where some of the waiters are Republicans and some are Democrats. To expand on the metaphor -- You, the diner, ask to be seated in the Democratic section and place your food order with your Democratic waiter. The color scheme is blue, blue wallpaper, blue waiters' uniforms, blue tablecloths, blue dinnerware. You look over there at the Republican diners and waiters with their red color scheme and shake your head in self-righteous dismay at their perfidy.
But the underlying joke is this: no matter which section you prefer to dine in, the food you receive is prepared in the same kitchen and ladled into the red and blue plates from the same pots.
You're naively assuming that Democrats and Republicans eat at different restaurants. They don't. The Democratic treachery is that they promised to open another restaurant. They didn't.
genaman - "Those Democratic leaders are our only chance to get this country back from the Powers That Be.
So stop complaining about what the Dems did or did not do?
By the way Where were you?
Did you send Emails or letters to them?
Did you go to their offices and tell them what you wanted?"
We shouldn't have to beg Democratic politicians to do what they were elected to do. These people know full well what the voters want, and if they refuse to do it, then we should throw them out of office, even if that means electing more Republicans.
Even the NYT manages to downplay the importance of the issue. For instance in the sentence that begins 'FISA requires a warrant.' Excuse me, but it is the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights that requires a warrant.
The US Constitution was written in secret. When it was finally unveiled to a young nation that had just fought a long and very nasty rebellion to gain their freedom, it was rejected as a dangerous step back towards the sort of tyranny they had just fought. The idea of taking power from the communities and states where it previously resided and giving it to a central authority caused serious misgivings. The compromise that was reached was to add the Bill of Rights to the Consitution. In other words, the American people would only accept this potentially dangerous central government if there were firm guarantees that the basic rights of American citizens would be protected from abuses by that government.
So, its not the FISA law that 'requires' a warrant. It is the fundamental agreement by which the people of this country accept this government that requires a warrant. That's why its required that the government must present its evidence to an independent judge to show why they need the warrant.
And that's what the Democrats are selling away.
With "liberal" newspapers like these ...
Thank the NYT for stating the obvious long after they worked actively to support the problems that they pretend to decry.
It hasn't been a frustrating week; it has been a frustrating generation, with an emphasis on the past 6+ years.
There are alternatives to fascism and complicity with fascism, and it would be nice if the "liberal" media stopped pretending that there are not.
I keep imagining Pelosi, Reid, Bush, Cheney, Hillary, etc., reading CommonDreams and laughing their behinds off. They must get a kick out of comments like the one below, especially when they check the online war profiteering balances on their bank accounts at the same time:
"We are citizens, not sheep nor children, and we are sick to death of being instructed by the backboneless and the compromised to just bend over one more time . . . just one more time . . . just one more time"
Democrats and Republicans ridicule the working class' innocence.
"Those Democratic leaders are our only chance to get this country back from the Powers That Be."
genaman, you're delusional. The Dems are not an alternative to "the Powers That Be." If they are our only choice than we should settle for what we have and stay out of it. It is up to us as citizens to create a genuine, un-owned alternative but that first requires breaking free of faith-based politics. Just because "the Powers That Be" and their media tell us who is "electable" and what is possible, doesn't mean we should accept that. You probably didn't believe them about Iraq so why believe them about who you should vote for or even whether it matters, given the state of elections?
Turner,
"Can you imagine writing a Federalist Paper about such government spying programs passing muster in 1788?"
Imagine any pol fighting a duel over honor in 2008.
As Wallace Shawn said in "The Princess Bride" --
INCONCEIVABLE!!!!
Can you imagine writing a Federalist Paper about such government spying programs passing muster in 1788?
But then again, Hamilton would have been branded a liberal and instead the bible and fear used to get what the governents wanted: Control of the hearts and minds. They have it now.
The dems will never get my vote again. I say let the country drive itself into oblivion and then I'll help pick up the pieces but I will no longer be a part of processess that are fixed and bring about immoral/unethical policies.
genaman,
"You do know about the Republicans in Congres stayiing united right? Are you on their cases?"
Uhm . . . no . . . because THEY DIDN'T GET OUR VOTES. They aren't about to listen to PEOPLE WHO DON'T VOTE FOR THEM. We are THEIR ENEMIES. Suddenly they're going to say "Boy, you're right, I hadn't thought of that, I'd better try to get some Democratic votes out there by gum! After bieng lock step with the lies, I'll just suddenly stand out and vote for what's right!"
Now. The Democrats DID get our votes. And they won't listen. They haven't listened. They scorn us, they call the cops on us, they patronize us -- "Don't you understand we just don't have the votes" -- even though 45% of the public FAVORED IMPEACHMENT BEFORE ANY PROCEDINGS WERE INTRODUCED?
And I'm sick of Vichycrats blaming the people who got the Dems BACK INTO POWER -- because the political consultants all told their candidates to run away from Iraq, but activists that forced it on them. The candidates that did run away and try to speak "positive messages" -- like Ned Lamont in Connecticut and Jim Peterson here in Arizona -- were trounced.
We are citizens, not sheep nor children, and we are sick to death of being instructed by the backboneless and the compromised to just bend over one more time . . . just one more time . . . just one more time . . .
Consider this: I agree with the money situation and how the almighty dollar has polluted the political process ~ but it's not the PUBLIC dollar that poisons the well ~ it's the CORPORATE dollar! We should push for a $2,500 limit for individual contributions that are listed on the public record and BAN ENTIRELY all corporate, union, PAC, organization and any other-than-individual funding of candidates! My fear is that a tax-funded program would be just as corrupt and just as back-door as the current process.
My gut assessment is: money.
There is simply too much money in the political system for most politicians to
get elected without promising much more to Verizon and Haliburton than to you, me and
the constitution.
We've talked about it before, but it keeps slipping off the table.
Get the private money out of elections and we would take one giant leap toward democracy.
"it's very hard to get a man to understand something when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it."
Look at yourselves people!
each one of your little complaints about the Democrats will keep Democrats at home election day
Is this what you want? Why you are all making easy for the Conservatives to get back in power. Maybe this time when they get back in power they will make it unlawful to criticise them.
I guess you all forgot the legislation Rep. Pelosi got through in those first weeks of the Democrats being in power.
Now you can see why many Democrats are so timid when their own voters turn against them so easily.
Impeach Bush? Then Cheney? It would be far better just to wait to they are not in power .Then go after them. You know their weopons are nothing but downright lies,and they keep repeating them until good Democratic voters start to question their Democratic leaders.
You are all brainwashed period!
You do not even remember what the Republicans did yesterday nevermind in the last 7 years under Bush or the 8 years before.
Those Democratic leaders are our only chance to get this country back from the Powers That Be.
So stop complaining about what the Dems did or did not do?
By the way Where were you?
Did you send Emails or letters to them?
Did you go to their offices and tell them what you wanted?
Do you even have a bumper sticker supporting your causes?
Better government? Compared To What? The last 7 years?
You do know about the Republicans in Congres stayiing united right? Are you on their cases?
Armchair Politics? All that is going to get you is more rights and more misery taken away compliments of the Republicans.
Try and think about that before you knock another Democratic leader Will you?
I Hope So!
genaman
Definition of chutzpah:
Sitting on a story for over a year because a thief in the Oval Office instructs you to & then taking credit for breaking it after a second stolen election has him safely installed for four years and THEN complaining that the Democrats aren't acting on a story that was squelched.
Mr. Keller, editor of the NYT, and Mr. Sulzberger, publisher, go jam your spindles up your arses and spin.
I am sad to say that America has become a nation of cowards.
Only cowards would ALLOW our government to torture and abuse prisoners in the name of self-defense. Only cowards would be cowed into giving up our rights in fear of threats of terrorism from their leadership. Only cowards would refuse to stand up to an invasion of criminals from other countries.
The nation I grew up in had heroes... people portrayed by John Wayne, Randolph Scott, and Gary Cooper... people who portrayed characters in the movies that suffered greatly when they were forced to kill and characters who would NEVER torture or abuse prisoners. Heck, the Lone Ranger never even shot anyone... he just shot the guns out of their hands!
We were taught that OURS was the nation of honor and courage... a nation of laws... the good guys with the white hats... that no matter how evil the enemy, we would treat them with a modicum of dignity.
Yet in less that a decade, we have allowed our leaders to institute policies that make me sick... to START wars based on lies, continue wars in spite of our nation's wishes. We have allowed our leaders to turn their backs on negotiation and diplomacy in favor of the destruction of human rights and prisoner abuse... we and our elected representatives have allowed our leaders to become the bullies of the world and attempt to FORCE everyone to accept their way of thinking.
Virtually NONE of the candidates for president have spoken out against these assorted abominations, in fact what little they have said makes it look like most of them would just continue leading our country down the path to hatred, destruction and being sodomized by illegal invaders.
Our cowardly Congress gives away our rights and privacy to the leadership, our jobs to illegal invaders and our corporations to foreign countries for fear of being called "protectionist".
If you ask me, we are in DIRE NEED of some protectionism!
Someone once said that we GET the government we deserve... I never believed that before, but I'm coming around to believe that sad fact now.
Personally, I'm in favor of voting against virtually every incumbent... we need to start over fresh with people who LISTEN.
Gore/Nader Green Party 2008?
AlexLawyer, Edwards served one term in the Senate and left after 2004. He did not run for the seat during the 2004 election. Please check your facts before you pontificate.
Ireneus,
That's why the suits currently in progress against the telecoms need to go forward.
Wake up America and get the nipple out of your mouth while you still have a country!
(Below from Senator Dodd's site)
The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons.
No more.
Senator Dodd has decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included retroactive immunity telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization.
Not now. Not again. And when he is elected President, Restoring the Constitution is what he will do in his FIRST HOUR in the Oval Office.
Please indicate your support for Senator Dodd's hold by signing on and consider sharing your thoughts in the comment section.
http://www.chrisdodd.com/fisa
Look who's talking ... the friken New York Times ...
Hey boys ... I remember your total admiration of gw butthead and your demand for war with Iraq ... I recall your flip flopping on every major issue ... usually taking the pub side, and your help in "outing" a secret CIA agent ... all for bushie ...You were/are bushie's boys all the way ...
Is this an objective article ... coming fron an objective source .... I don't think so ... The Dems don't have a majority and you know it!!!
Daniel David...Right! This time they'll surely realize what is at stake. I mean An Article In the NY Times! Critical of the Dems! This is exactly what will cause the scales to fall from their eyes, they will begin to fight Bush, they will begin to represent their constituents, they will cut off funds for the war....they will, they will, they will.
And when they do you can look out the window and see the pigs flying by on their way to a frozen hell.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards are currently serving in the US Senate. Talk is cheap, especially on the campaign trail. If they really want to prove their mettle to the voters, to demonstrate that they are not the appeasers, cowards and accomplices to Bush-Cheney-Rice's numerous crimes that their records to date show them to be, they will take clear and decisive action to revoke the unconstitutional provisions of the USAPATROIT, Military Commissions and Protect America Acts, investigate the wrongdoing at all levels, and reestablish the rule of law.
Ireneus, if the national security defense is as iron-clad as you seem to suggest then why would Bush need to obey any law? He and his designated heir could continue an endless war for, well endlessly. Nixon tried to use that defense with the Pentagon papers and you know how that ended.
The New York Times is not noted for wanting to help Republicans win elections. I'm going to believe they think they can put editorial pressure on Democrats to improve by articles like this, and perhaps they can.
If any lawyer tells you that the law is maintained or operates through logic, spit in his/her face.
Aremagen, Chalmer's Nemesis has risen among the juris. The "national security" defense used to dismiss cases is the literal mechanism by which the law abdicates it's sole constitutionally mandated authority to monitor and provide redress for constitutional violations.
Ask any judge you know this: If the government, as defendant, claims "national security" in order to dismiss the case, and you the judge deny it, but the government nevertheless claims it will not abide by the decision because of the threat to national security due to exposure - what then?
The Dems were not cowed, they apparently are in sufficient agreement with Bush.
UN-common-dreams,
Why limit the wiretapping to terrorists who apparently haven't struck in the past few years? Why not wiretap corporate criminals, gangs, organized crime, etc -- whose effects we are far more likely to feel?
In any case, the bottom line is that pesky thing called the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. In order to get at least a tiny measure of safeguard against the possibility of a unitary executive whose main interest in wiretapping has nothing to do with legitimate law enforcement -- but more to do with blackmailing his political opposition, stealing trade secrets from other companies, perhaps obtaining insider trading information, etc. That last possibility is one that corporate America, itself, ought to be worried about.
You need a separate set of eyes to o.k. any sort of searching -- a warrant. The Founding Fathers knew this, and thought it sufficiently critical to be there in the Bill of Rights.
In practice, apparently the vast majority (like 99%) of wirtetaps are o.k.'d by a judge within like 24 hours. I can't cite the specific data right now, but the reality of the situation is that the process did indeed work pretty smoothly.
Unfortunately, the way our judicial system works you can only challenge these laws if you can show you have been affected by them. You can only show you have been affected by bringing to a judge proof that you have been spied on without a warrant. If there are no warrants, the only proof would be case files by NSA/DOD/FBI investigators or computer logs recording the activity, both things way beyond the standard FOI request.
Unless any agents get sloppy, this appears to be formally insulated from the courts and completely beyond any citizen to challenge.
I am very disappointed in the Repub--I mean, Democratic leadership. I have no idea why they cave in repeatedly on the issues we care about, unless it's all just an act and they really buy into the Bush security agenda. If that is the case, we don't have a party, we don't even have a nation anymore. Everybody just seems to be sleepwalking--the media, the parties, the unions, lawyers. The opposition's cries of protest just seem to disappear overnight, because it's on to the next outrage. That's why the Bushies keep doing one terrible thing after another--to knock their previous misdeed or scandal off page one and keep the opposition from being able to focus its rage into effective political action.
WITH NEWSPAPERS LIKE THESE...
How nice that The New York Times still has faith in the judicial system. With such shining examples like O.J. being acquitted of murder but then somehow losing a civil case based on the same event and having to pay millions of dollars in damages. Why would any Senate back room be polluted by "the politics of fear"? Don't they rehearse their lines? Or is it just a case of stage fright?
How convenient that they can jump all over a single name when things go awry so that the next facsimile that comes into office can begin with a clean slate as if everything has changed and is really new. The real Bush was revealed to the world on 911 when they showed him sitting in that classroom with the other little kids and holding a book that was probably close to the limit of his comprehension. It makes one wonder who the Times thinks their dwindling audience is. Who do they think is still voting in those phony elections?
aremagen is spot-on. The empire is much too far gone to pull back from it. Dems know that, so they've signed on for good. Empires are not governed by more than one party -- which is what you've got.
The NYT article says:
"Democratic leaders were cowed, once again, by propaganda from the White House and failed, once again, to modernize the law on electronic spying in a way that permits robust intelligence gathering on terrorists without undermining the Constitution."
Well, personally I am all FOR such spying tactics!
I think the *terrorist elements in power* SHOULD have their phones tapped. ~ That way we could dispose of their ugly services that much sooner. After all, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!"
Aremagen:
"Why isn't Pelosi calling for the most impeachable President, VP and AG in our history to account for their obviously unconstitutional behavior?"
Good point, maybe they know something we don't? Such as just how VERY much it would pain their bank balance, their egos, their illusions and career structures, were they to begin acting like *honourable* people who *care* very much about the general populace?
In keeping with modern shopping traits, (with a few notable exceptions) it seems 'Self service' is the main raison d'être to enter the 'hollowed' portals of power?
Perhaps the silver lining in this will be that the democrats actually hang themselves and the citizens are so completely disgusted that they will finally be willing to vote independent or green in sufficient numbers.
Email Senator Dodd to encourage him to keep the lid on this compromise.
He can be emailed through Congress.org:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/?id=686
In Chalmers Johnson's latest book Nemesis he states that we can have an empire or we can have a democracy but we can't have both at the same time. The actions of the Democratic leadership in both Houses lead me to believe that they intend to walk in lock-step with the Republicans and turn the United States into a belligerent empire with "democracy for all" a "quaint" euphemism to be dusted off during Fourth of July parades and political speeches. Why is Reid and Pelosi enabling the Repugs by allowing legislation to come to the floor that clearly helps Bush? Why does Reid continue with the 60 vote rule when it clearly helps only Bush and not the Dems? What's he scared of? There was and continues to be a clear mandate for change! Why isn't Pelosi calling for the most impeachable President, VP and AG in our history to account for their obviously unconstitutional behavior? Do the Democrats want the Unitary Presidency (a concept we haven't heard of in 231 years) and feel that a trial might challenge the concept that shifts power to the Executive and away from the people's Houses? How nice for the Corporations to bypass Congress and go directly to the President and lobby one person only. These recent events that we are watching are starting to smell a whole lot like a defacto dictatorship.
"With Democrats like these..."
Why buy anyone else?
I'm hoping that Sen. Dodd does not back off and that Sen. Feingold has got his back.Who else is going to grow some?This is a turning point or the dems are just going to be a non issue and we the people better start looking else where. Tony
It seems that the main reason for Pelosi's keeping impeachment off the table is that it brings back the impeachment scandal of President Clinton and that would make the nomination of Senator Clinton nearly impossible.
DLC forever. Join the Club.