Skip to main content

Sen. Rockefeller, chair of the Senate intelligence committee, has outlined what he would accept as a proposal to remedy what the administration calls an urgently needed fix to FISA. Not having seen what Director of National Intelligence  McConnell presented to Rockefeller and his colleagues, it's impossible from the outside to determine if there is any kind of real threat looming out there that requires this fix, or if the administration is just trying to draw attention away from the increasingly sticky problem of Alberto Gonzales.

Speaking of whom, that's who the administration wants to oversee the expanded program.  "When pigs fly," has been the utterly responsible approach of the Senate Dems. Senator Rockefeller:

"The Administration has offered a proposal that would instead permanently grant the Attorney General excessive surveillance powers by giving him sole authority to direct surveillance while completely removing the FISA Court from the process. That is simply unacceptable.  

"The FISA Court must continue to play an essential role in authorizing surveillance and overseeing its execution. They are the trusted steward of FISA, and they can and must be a part of any new streamlined approach.  The proposal we put forward maintains the essential role of the FISA Court while also giving our intelligence officials additional tools to strengthen their hand against terrorists. We need the Administration to act quickly if we are going to pass this critical piece of legislation in the next few days," Rockefeller said.

While it's important to hold the line against Gonzales gaining any more power over anything of any importance to the nation, particularly where our civil liberties are involved, there's still inadequate justification for this change to be rammed through. Even Rockefeller's limited fixes, which keep all surveillance authority with the FISA court, gives too much to the administration. While the administration is "targeting" the people overseas and incidentally listening to the Americans on the other end, there is most likely nothing in the legislation to make them stop and get a warrant when Americans are involved. Rockefeller's proposal again leaves it to administration guidelines to figure that out, in secrecy most likely, and we know what they do when no one is watching.

Hopefully the impasse over giving Gonzales control over the program will be enough to kill the entire proposal. FISA is and has been entirely adequate to answer the demands of legal surveillance. There is no need to give one inch to this administration on domestic wiretapping, of all things.

Stop this train before it wrecks completely.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:10 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  But Gonzales Has To (8+ / 0-)

      have something new to keep us safe because he has no recollection if FISA ever existed!

      And if it did he does not recall who was in charge of it or what it's purpose was.

      "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

      by talex on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:27:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  talex (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        talex, Luetta, GreyHawk, kraant, rylly

        Good one.

        Breadth of view is one of the essentials of our profession. The interplay of ideas and the oblique uses of knowledge are often of extraordinary interest. S.H.

        by Carnacki on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:31:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nancy's gonna do it! (12+ / 0-)

          "The proposal, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is designed to fix what the White House says is a glaring problem: the missing of significant foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks.

          To the extent that more flexibility is needed, as Director McConnell has indicated, we are prepared to make those accommodations under the law," House Speaker NANCY PELOSI said after congressional leaders met with Bush at the White House Wednesday. "We hope to do that this week."

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

          WHAT?  Are the Dems still afraid of being called soft on terrorism? Why do they always fall for this "bipartisan" crap?

          If they do intend to pass it, they damn sure better read it well to make sure a Patriot-Act-type last minute update is not inserted. And they better damn sure not allow ANY retroactive forgiveness of crimes already committed. Damn this makes me SO angry!

          •  Democrats: not fear, but (rotten) principle. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marina, kraant, Zero Carb Rob, rylly

            The Democrats, like the Republicans, care more about the care and feeding of the national security state than about the preservation of our civil liberties.

            This is no longer the party of Frank Church.

            For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

            by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:14:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  yep (6+ / 0-)

            Congress is completely broken.

            http://www.eff.org/...

            House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that Congress may take action this week on a bill that could rubberstamp the NSA's spying program. The Bush Administration is trying to sell its latest proposal as a serious compromise, but don't be fooled -- it represents an unprecedented power grab that endangers the checks and balances that define our democracy. Please call your representatives now before it's too late.

            Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

            by fugue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:40:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  What's Wrong with FISA (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            maxschell, kraant, madgranny, dewley notid

            What I have yet to see is anyone detailing what's wrong that needs to be fixed.

            One of the blogs posted a chronology of Bush refusing to ask Congress to update FISA several times since 2001. I thought it was Glenn Greenwald but I was unable to find it in his archives.

            Anyway, I've looked, and so far, I haven't seen any articles that detail what's wrong with FISA.  Only vague references that it needs to be modernized. Which makes me thinks is this dog barks a lot, but doesn't bite.

            Anyone seen the details (Yes, I read Rockefeller's statement).

            •  Rather than take up too much (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kraant, pearlegates, madgranny

              space here, I'll point to this diary I posted earlier today (immediately after which the site went down, and when I returned I was off the page) that dealt explicitly with these questions and referred readers to Mr. Greenwald's wealth of information on the subject. If you find the article helpful, please leave a comment, to which I promise a reply.

            •  I'll tell you what I think is wrong with it. (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Odysseus, maxschell, kraant, madgranny

              Here goes. The government doesn't know who it wants to  eavesdrop on. They know that somebody, somewhere may be planning something bad. They know that the best way to find out what the bad people are talking about is to listen in to what everybody is talking about, and somehow, through the use of computers, sieve through all the conversations and extract the ones that contain certain "watchwords", or phrases. Then, when they go back and listen closely to these conversations, they can figure out if it is just "academic" talk, or actual bad people planning bad things. Now, the problem with FISA is that if the government wants to create a database so that they can electronically pick out certain ones that will possibly turn out to be significant, they still have to get warrants for ALL of the conversations, either before or after. They basically need carte blanche to listen in everywhere, all the time, which would make individual warrants impractical if not impossible. There may be an argument for allowing the government to sift through all communications all the time, but that isn't the way the law stands now.

              Naturally, since they violated the law repeatedly and on purpose, they now are eager for a "fix". But if it is possible to fix the law now, why didn't they fix it before they broke it???

    •  Here are the questions: (17+ / 0-)

      How can Congress make an assessment of what the President needs to have if they don't know what he is already doing?

      What are these other programs?

      The Bush administration's chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.

      The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush's order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      No more powers should be given to the Bush Administration (ever) until they come clean about what they've already been doing.  

      •  Leahy Today (8+ / 0-)

        "The Congress is willing and able to responsibly reform FISA when changes are needed, and now is such a time. In the last decade alone, Congress has amended FISA on many occasions, and I believe we should make this targeted and responsible fix now. The reform we have proposed to the Administration will improve the government’s ability to collect intelligence, while protecting the civil liberties of Americans by maintaining oversight of the FISA Court when calls to or from the United States are involved. The Administration, instead, would shift this oversight role and additional authority away from the expert FISA Court to the Attorney General. It is essential to preserve the crucial role of the FISA Court in protecting civil liberties of Americans while providing our intelligence agencies the flexibility they need. It is not wise to expand the authority of this Attorney General – or any Attorney General – in this regard. I urge the Administration to support this reasonable solution that ensures checks and balances while strengthening our national security."

        "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

        by talex on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:35:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not good enough (10+ / 0-)

            Why is "now" such a great time to "reform" FISA?

          "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

          by Buzzer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:39:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well it has to be updated (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GreyHawk, kraant

            eventually. And it needs to be in a responsible way as Leahy is saying.

            I don't see any reason for it  not to be. It is better that it is so all the new technology can be rolled into it and be under the FISA courts supervision.

            But here is the real reason we need to do it. If we don't then Bush does the spying anyway under his terms. That is reason enough for me.

            It seems that the Dems are taking political advantage of Bush's sudden demand for a new program. Well if he wants one then give it to him. But it will be ours not his. And ours will both protect the country and protect civil liberties. The public will buy that 100%.

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:48:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ummm... (7+ / 0-)

              If we don't then Bush does the spying anyway under his terms.

                ...and if we DO reform FISA on Constitution-friendly terms, Bush will obsequiously follow the law?

                 I guess there's a first time for everything.

                 

              "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

              by Buzzer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:51:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not Necessarily (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GreyHawk, kraant, madgranny, dewley notid

                he won't. But at least the law will be clear. And then if he breaks it nothing will be ambiguous.

                "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

                by talex on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:56:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The law is pretty damn clear right now (14+ / 0-)

                    What part of "warrantless" does Congress not understand?

                  "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

                  by Buzzer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:56:57 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly (8+ / 0-)

                    The law is clear.

                    More importantly, for all the bedwetting and handwaving about how the intertubes and cellphones didn't exist when FISA was passed, to this day nobody has been able to present a single plausible example of something that FISA can't do, but could if it were "reformed."

                    FISA reform is, at best, a solution in search of a problem.

                    At worst it's an ex-post-facto legitimation of this administration.

                    And the Democrats will be overwhelmingly supporting it.

                    For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

                    by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:17:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I agree with you, but why? (5+ / 0-)

                      This thing was clearly sprung on us, and it looks like another "dead of night" nightmare-fait-accompli.

                      The question is, why?

                      Oh, and you may be right that the Dems will be overwhelmingly supporting it, but I'm going to fight.  I think we all should still try.

                      I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                      by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:39:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  The answer to the question of why is (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        marina, kraant

                        that the Dems are getting too close to Gonzales' criminal behavior now and the administration is trying to shift the debate over to DOJ responsibilities rather than how screwed up the AG and BushCult policies are.  That is why we should bring the discussion back to the screwed up policies and AG.

                        •  That is the reason why Bush is advancing this... (7+ / 0-)

                          ...but that is not the reason for the breadth of Dem support.

                          Why would the Dems give Bush anything at this point?

                          There are so many reasons NOT to give Bush any more power.

                          This situation looks a lot to me like the MCA.  This should be anathema to Dems, and yet they are supporting it.  Not one Dem has explained their vote, or their colleagues' vote on MCA to me adequately.  

                          What is going on?

                          I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                          by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:56:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The billion-dollar question (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maxschell, Simplify, kraant, pearlegates

                            Why would the Dems give Bush anything at this point?

                              You're likelier to find a cure for cancer than to come up with a credible and coherent answer to this question.

                              Sixteen months from now, we're going to hear from the Democrats, standing in the rubble of their massive electoral defeat, saying "Bush hoodwinked us. And we don't know why or how."

                              Great nations collapse for many reasons -- direct causes (Republican malfeasance) and proximate causes (Democratic enabling). This isn't Germany in 1938; this is the Soviet Union in 1990.

                              Oh well. 231 years. Not a bad run.

                            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

                            by Buzzer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:08:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Demoralizing. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kraant

                            I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                            by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:17:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I've read a number of accounts about this (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maxschell, Buzzer, kraant, dewley notid

                            and I've gotten the impression that the Dems are playing chicken with the Bush Administration.  I read today that it looked like Reid is going to string them along and probably delay, but who knows.  

                            I am pretty sure that Leahy has been dead set on stopping the illegal spying and for a while seemed a bit irritated with the US Attorney thing getting in the way until it came back around to the spying with the Comey testimony which seemed to inspire his desire to pursue all of this stuff in toto.  I think the quote talex provided shows that he is playing the spider to the fly with the administration.  Leahy has that way about him.

                            There is a dance going on here that is hard to interpret.  I think that people should call and tell their congressmen and senators to block any changes to FISA until they get the full story from the administration about what is really going on.  Beyond that because this is "secret squirrel" bs, it is hard to know what we are supposed to do other than express our lack of faith in the administration and perhaps even the congress to keep it in check.  

                          •  I hope they are laying a trap. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            inclusiveheart, kraant

                            But the MCA experience tells me they're not.

                            Further, reports about private control of "intelligence" like this one lead me to believe that there are at least some Dems who are beholden to nefarious interests.

                            If that's the case, the deck is heavily stacked against our Constitutional liberty and our democracy.

                            I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                            by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:22:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think the MCA experience shows Leahy (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maxschell, kraant, Mary2002

                            to be alright - although his Patriot Act past isn't so great and that is the law that those guys all have problems with in my mind.  But again, we'll see and I think we need to maket sure that we call our representatives on both sides of the Hill to make our views known on this issue.

                            mcjoan has it right.  The question is what is the rush, but the GOP already has an answer to that question which is that they say that there are threats that they have to follow up on and we need to make sure that we point out when we contact our representatives that BushCo knows about these threats and it is inconceivable that the FISA court would deny them access to information or tactics to follow up if these threats are credible.

                            We need to be the calm voice now.  We need to be the people who come into a situation that looks like it may be hitting another panic note and ask our representatives to be smart about focusing this administration on the effective measures that should be taken against terrorism rather than constantly reacting in fear to their doom and gloom scary stories that have little basis in reality.

                          •  Ordinarily would agree with the sotto voce. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            inclusiveheart, kraant

                            Esp. here.

                            But the problem is we can't trust our own to be the adults.  

                            MCA was sotto voce and look what happened.

                            Also, I don't know if I trust Jane Harman to be an adult, because she has already shown herself to be a shill for her hubbie (and his MIC friends).  I imagine she/he is interested in pushing this because of the "homeland security" intelligence contract that they (or their MIC friends, who will then "owe" them) might get.

                            I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                            by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:12:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I think I am talking about being (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maxschell, kraant

                            rational. If being loud but also clear and rational is called for, that is fine.  Sotto voce is not required for the rational and deliberate mission that I think we are entrusted with here.  I think this crowd has rationalized away many of the reasons not to pursue the course.  The way to counter that imo is to give them rational and meaningful reasons to get their sh*t together and take serious action.

                          •  OK, some optimism (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            maxschell, inclusiveheart, kraant

                             Thanks. I'm off to pack for Yearly Kos now with those  hopeful thoughts in my head.

                            "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

                            by Buzzer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:53:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I hope you have fun. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kraant

                            Wish I could go.

                          •  Hey buzzer... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kraant

                            ...take it to 'em...

                            ...seriously, I hope you can raise these points with some of our fellow Kossacks...(and maybe some of our representatives)...

                            I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                            by maxschell on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:03:52 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Uhh. Yeah, NO. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DelRPCV, kraant

              This is absurd.  If the Administration wants to amend FISA, they should present a legislative proposal, Congress should hold open hearings about the need to amend the statute and any specific proposals on the table, and in the immortal words of Earl Warren any amendment should be made

              WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED.

              Nothing faster.

              "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

              by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:16:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I do not want to buy anything (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kraant

              I all ready own the right to not have the government spy on me through FISA and there is nothing that says that this Senate will not sell it for whatever they might get in exchange  
              so I say waite for 2009 to change the FISA laws. what is a few more month, at least then a few more Democrats will be for the peoples rights

              Democrats Thank You, for the fight that you undertake on my behalf, I am just one American, just one of We The People.

              by Luetta on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:25:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  how about REPEAL FISA?? eom. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Simplify, kraant
        •  Leahy is being too subtle. (8+ / 0-)

          He is prodding them to come clean and get on the right side of the law.  But he needs to state clearly and publicly that the Bush Administration is being anything but forthcoming about what they are really doing; that much of what they are doing is likely outside the law; and that there is no way that Congress can adequately assess what the administration really needs to get the job done.

          BushCult members don't need any endorsements from Congress to do what they want as we all know - they are doing whatever they want anyway, but that is the point of making them come clean about what they are doing.

          The Bush Administration is baiting the Democrats and they need to make the public case for not taking the bait very, very clear - imo.

          •  Sometimes Subtle Is Called For (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marina, GreyHawk, kraant, madgranny

            There is no sense in bashing Bush when you are going to send him 'our' bill to sign.

            I posted the following in another post above:

            It seems that the Dems are taking political advantage of Bush's sudden demand for a new program. Well if he wants one then give it to him. But it will be ours not his. And ours will both protect the country and protect civil liberties. The public will buy that 100%.

            I think that is what is at play here.

            "You Have The Power!" - Howard Dean

            by talex on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:52:15 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not - not - not suggesting that he (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              maxschell, Simplify, kraant

              "bash" anyone.  I am suggesting that Leahy and other Democrats make very clear exactly what the situation is and be very specific about their terms which I trust would reflect the terms of "The People", the Constitution and current FISA law.  At the moment, we and they do not know about these "other programs" and if I was asked to write a law, I would want to be informed about how that law would affect current programs.

              The administration is trying to ride rough shod over the Democratic Congress to grab more power and distract from Gonzales; and the Bush Cult will accuse the Dems of not protecting "The People" if they do not give them everything they want unless the Democrats make an effective case now that the best and most effective laws can only be crafted when the Congress is legislating something they not only understand, but also have complete and full information on.

              The Democrats failed to set terms after 9/11 and in the run up to Iraq and I believe that their conditions would be welcomed by the public now that we know what happens when they don't - if only they would set them out that way.

              That is not "bashing".  That is clearly stating a framework for one's job and responsibilities.  That is taking full responsibility for their role in governing this country.

              •  Yes and..........YES! (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                inclusiveheart, kraant

                Why can't the leadership come out with a high-level position?

                LIKE:

                We are going to protect Americans but we will not destroy America to do it!!

                Or something like that.

                I'm so waiting.........................for someone in a leadership role to adopt some common-sense and public-friendly messaging...

                why isn't it happening?

                I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

                by maxschell on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:07:16 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  MoveOn (6+ / 0-)

          sent me an email that made it sound like the proposal is a done deal and to call to beg my representative to vote no....

          Politics is like driving...if you want to go backwards, choose R. If you want to move forward, choose D.

          by fireflynw on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:48:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This is the imperative discrepancy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kraant, Mary2002

          between what Leahy is proposing (for whatever reasons) and the Administration's:
          RE:

          It is essential to preserve the crucial role of the FISA Court in protecting civil liberties of Americans while providing our intelligence agencies the flexibility they need. It is not wise to expand the authority of this Attorney General – or any Attorney General – in this regard.

          'Ignorance is Strength'; just imagine what we don't know, then multiply that times "we'll never know" and add it to the universe of "things outside our sphere of influence"...

          Chertoff's gastro-intestinal rumblings aside, most of this is political posturing; but with immutable and grave consequences for this fading republic.

      •  Top Comments, inclusiveheart. (4+ / 0-)

        An important observation.

      •  Plus it seems clear that "gang of 8" (4+ / 0-)

        doesn't know the extent of these "other activities" either. Why now indeed.
        There is some really stinky crap going on right now and it all relates together some way in some gigantic way revolving around Cheney. And others. I haven 't felt this creeped out in, well, since forever.
        No way rush this. Unless Leahy has some super smart play here I'm missing. How can you propose a reform of something you don't even know about in the first place.

        •  I don't question Leahy's motives on this (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV, marina, kraant

          issue.  He is really pissed off about the spying - really pissed off.  I just think that he isn't doing battle in the public debate as well as he might.  He started this Congress with the intent mission of curtailing the illegal spying and his vision is not the GOP approach of actually making the illegal legal.  So I trust him to do the right thing and I hope that my trust in him is well founded.  But I think he needs to set the public debate up to make sure that the Bush administration can't claim "secret squirrel" and similtaneously claim that the Dems aren't allowing the administration to protect citizens.  The Democrats keep getting caught in that trap because they don't set the terms out at the front end.

      •  I cannot emphasize enough (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        inclusiveheart, marina, kraant

        how correct inclusiveheart's comment is.

        The administration is refusing to tell us what the hell is going on with the powers they have already unilaterally claimed... and yet we have the Democratic Congress preparing to hand them MORE powers.

        This is so completely insane that I cannot comprehend it.

        The scariest part of all is this:  If the Democrats are going to hand this to Bush/Gonzo/Cheney on a silver platter, then we can all forget the investigations, the calls for contempt prosecutions, the calls for aggressive oversight, and lastly of all the calls for impeachment investigations.

        The Democrats, if they pass this shit, are buying into the Bush regime.  

        The investigations will have been nothing more than political theater to placate the base of the Democratic party which has been screaming and hollering for justice.  

        There will be no justice.

        It's all just a Good Cop, Bad Cop routine.

        Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.

        by Mad Kossack on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:21:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  DON'T GIVE BUSH A GODDAMNED THING!! (19+ / 0-)

      RULE #1: DON'T GIVE BUSH MORE POLICE POWER.

      We should be taking police powers AWAY from Bush, not giving him MORE.  He will abuse them, and no one, NO ONE, in the Administration can be trusted with more power.

      FISA is fine the way it is.  There is NO CRISIS.  If there is another terrorist attack, it will be BUSH's fault for taking his eye off the ball and invading Iraq.

      Simple.

      This is a fucking outrage!

      The Dem leadership is going to cave to Blue Dog Democrats?  

      Fucking ridiculous.

      They don't have to cave to that ragtag bunch, led by none other than Nancy's Nemesis, and wife of a defense contractor, Jane Harman.  

      Remember Murtha and the Out of iraq Caucus?  It was WAY bigger than the Blue Dogs, and what did we get...ZIPPO!

      So don't tell me that all this "pressure" is being put on us by the Blue Dogs.

      Here's some advice Nancy: Just tell them to go fuck themselves, and give them a little copye of the U.S. Constitution for their offices.

      And then, introduce some fucking legislation to REIN IN Bush, not ENABLE him to continue destroying the American Way.

      Thank you.

      I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

      by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:36:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One Gazillion recommends for you (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, maxschell, marina, GreyHawk, kraant

        If I could...

        Politics is like driving...if you want to go backwards, choose R. If you want to move forward, choose D.

        by fireflynw on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:49:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Back 'atcha firefly.... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fireflynw, GreyHawk, kraant

          Everytime I think we are at least holding steady, rather than losing, the fight against these whackos, something like this happens.  It is incredible, and scary.

          Who's gonna put some good 'ol YearlyKos pressure on our elected officials about this over the weekend?

          I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

          by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:55:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Its probably a good thing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            marina, kraant

            I cant go to YK because I think I would be too much in their faces to the point of scaring them...I hope you all take an opportunity to hold all their feetsies to the fire, on everything.

            Politics is like driving...if you want to go backwards, choose R. If you want to move forward, choose D.

            by fireflynw on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:41:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Not just "caving to Blue Dogs" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant

        This represents the (appalling) values of the Democratic leadership.

        Deal with it.

        For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

        by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:18:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, if Harman is touting it... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, kraant

          ...I would question whether that's true.  We know that Nance expressly rejected her as head of Intell.

          On the other hand, it looks like the entire Dem Senate leadership is on board.

          We need to stop this.

          I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

          by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:41:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Act before we recess to clarify your authority? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, kraant

        The so-called Blue Dog Democrats announced their support for a compromise if it required individualized warrants for Americans.

        The interim deal proposed by the Democrats also would be limited to 180 days and then would require renewal or renegotiation to continue. It also would compel compliance by private companies and address their liability for past cooperation with the government.

        "We share your concern about the need for surveilling all foreign-to-foreign communications involving suspected terrorists, and believe Congress should act before we recess to clarify your authority to do this," the Blue Dog lawmakers wrote.

        my bold

        You still have to know who these "private companies" are. And put them under laws and regulations. Just what the administration is hiding in the first place. Well that and probably a lot more. Plus, I have doubt they will go to all the "inconvenience" to get the warrents.

      •  thank you for making sense (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, kraant

        There is no excuse for this. None.

        The Dems are under "pressure" from Mr. 28%??? Give me a goddamn break.  I'm really really really sick of this shit.

        Bush repealed Godwin's Law with a Signing Statement.

        by Mad Kossack on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:42:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Make it legal, make it moot." (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DelRPCV, marina, GreyHawk, kraant, Mad Kossack

      BEWARE.  They are out to write themselves a pass.  

      What I see here is: the Regime will slip in some vague language that contains a loophole that makes legal some or all of the illegal things they have done in the past in violation of FISA.

      The result would be that if any cases are brought, much less an impeachment or two or three, as a result of past FISA violations, the Regime will be able to say "Congress has just given us the permission to do things (a) and (b), so in light of this, these charges should be dismissed, and while we're at it let's also dismiss item (c) which was just a teeny-tiny violation anyway."

      By analogy, if recreational marijuana was suddenly legalized, and someone was on their way to trial for having been busted with a pound of it last year, their lawyer might argue to throw out the case and compromise by letting the defendant pay the sales tax plus interest.  

      Do Not let the regime get away with writing themselves a "Get Out of Jail Free" card.  

    •  We don't know what they did (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreyHawk, kraant

      And they want to FIX it? Fixing what? This is like Fixing Iraq.

      Intel committee is broken. They never ask as single thing and now they want to fix thing.

      Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

      by fugue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:57:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "NO!" .... or WHAT? (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pesto, baahl, kraant, Mary2002, Mad Kossack

      Leading Democrats have been selling out our civil liberties almost as eagerly as Republicans for decades (see, for example, the so-called War on Drugs).

      If they (entirely predictably) sell us out again, what are you going to do about it?

      Last fall seven Democratic Senatorial candidates voted for the Military Commissions Act that eviscerated habeas corpus and authorized torture.  But were Kossacks willing to withhold support from the torture Democrats? Of course not.

      Until and unless grassroots Democrats are willing to punish Dems in power for this kind of thing, our civil liberties are, slowly but surely, doomed.

      For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

      by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:12:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  All of a fucking sudden? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, kraant

      All of a sudden they need this changed? This week is so different than next month exactly how?

      This hasn't been hair-on-fire important until just now, I think it can damned well wait to be given a good, thorough looking at, and then get tossed into the round file where it belongs.

    •  That sounded a bit like Ted Stevens! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, kraant

      Where is that Daily Show clip... ah, here it is:

      NO!  

      ;D

    •  See new Isikoff MSNBC article on this (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, kraant, Nimbus

      and this diary.

      It's like when your kid keeps breaking all your dishes, you sit down with him and promise to lower the cabinets so he can reach better.

  •  So much for the '06 election changing things (20+ / 0-)

    Same old song and dance from Capitol Hill Democrats. I think I'm going to throw up.

    "I call 'em as I see 'em."--the late Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:07:12 PM PDT

  •  This "quick fix" stinks of trying to justify past (17+ / 0-)

    crimes and misdemeanors by the Cheney administration.  What's the damned hurry?  I am so sick and tired of all the secrecy about these, to my mind, blatantly illegal wiretapping, etc. activities.  They could easily tell us all about the "program" without telling us in whom they are interested, or the details.  The secrecy is sinister, to say the least.  And AGAG in charge?  I'll be outraged if this passes.

    •  Just like MCA2006 retroactive legalizing torture (13+ / 0-)

      Democrats were eager to pardon the administration then.  And they are eager to pardon them again now.

      It was a crime at the time.  But instead of impeachment they are trying to make it all legal.

      Stinks.  Is this really our party?

      •  No, It's Not Our Party (9+ / 0-)

        But they believe that we are their voters.

        And it appears that a great many primary challenges are needed to convince them otherwise.

        •  Primary challengers aren't going to convince them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kraant

          ...unless those primary challengers win.

          And that would be very, very difficult to do.

          November challenges that threaten to squeeze militarist Democrats from the left while the GOP squeezes them from the right would be a lot more sobering for them.

          For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

          by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:23:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You wanna use Nader as a model? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kraant

            That was a total disaster.

            Let's assume you get challengers from the left, such as the Green Party, in the general.

            The Republican wins.

            How does that help us?

            I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

            by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:43:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not True (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kraant

            Tight races in primaries, especially for House Seats, put members on notice that they're losing their grip and need to adapt to a changing reality.

            In the general election, third party challenges are really only useful in otherwise safe seats, which provide an opportunity to demonstrate the fact of a disgruntled left vote without throwing the race to the GOP.

            I've heard this heightening the contradictions logic since 1968, when some on the left were sure that if Nixon were elected, that would make things bad enough that the people would realize how bad things were, and then real change would be possible.

            Bush is much, much worse than Nixon, and the truth is that aside from a few comparatively minor victories, the progressive left has been losing ground by almost every measure since 1968.

            I'm not eager to make that mistake for a fifth decade in a row.

    •  Get ready to be outraged (8+ / 0-)

      Call me cynical.

      This whole administration is sinister, if you ask me. I agree, the "hurry up" is awful suspicious. This whole thing stinks.

      "What will a wingnut do? A wingnut will step over his dying mother to stab his own father in the heart." - kanaan

      by MaskedKat on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:11:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Get ready to leave. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pesto, kraant

        Outrage won't do any better than it did when the Democrats enabled Bush's tax cuts, voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, helped bring about the Iraq War, rolled over in the face of GOP threats over court nominees, etc. etc. etc.

        Outrage is simply not enough.  It never was and it never will be.

        Either except that this is the party you're going to get if you'll settle for anything but the GOP, or understand that this Democratic Party is itself a critical part of the problem.

        For a different perspective, check out Green Commons!

        by GreenSooner on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:26:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  And the legislation to immunize AT&T (8+ / 0-)

      and other private companies who collaborated with the warrantless wiretapping.

      http://origin.arstechnica.com/...

      Bush administration proposes retroactive immunity for phone companies

      By Nate Anderson | Published: May 04, 2007 - 01:33PM CT

      Retroactive immunity from prosecution is a beautiful thing if you're a major telecommunications provider in the US, and phone companies are about to receive it if the Bush administration gets its way. The administration's new appropriations request for intelligence agencies was recently disclosed at a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and it includes a massive gift to the phone companies who have been (can we drop the "allegedly" at this point?) helping the NSA and other agencies. Prepare yourself for the longest single sentence you have ever read:

      •  what a effing assholes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant, BehereBenow

        So this is about retroactively protecting corporations. The exact same corporations that eff everybody.

        This is big money/lobbying talk. CYA type of legislation.

        Use Tor and PGP on the net. (google it)

        by fugue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:43:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Sopranos moved from HBO to the White House (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant
      •  Any company or Corporation that has spyed........ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant

        .......on Americans, without court approval needs to loose its liscense. No matter who authorized it. they can read the Constitution just like anyone else. The FISA laws are infringement enough.

        Any politician that allows spying without cause needs to be put on trial for treason.

        We are a free people and this trumped up 'war on treason' is still no excuse to infringe upon our freedoms.

        They slam thru these laws and not nearly enough consideration is put into it. Never mind that us citizens are not even informed.

        This secrecy stinks!!!! Stop playing fast and loose with fundamental rights.

        The war on terror is far more like war on Americans. Who is it that has to take their shoes off just to get on a plane...........while luggage and airport personal just come and go at will. There isn't any real security. It is a headfake, and Congress is falling for it.

        Disgusting!!!!

  •  If I didn't laugh, I'd cry (10+ / 0-)

    In that spirit, this line doubles me over

    The Administration has offered a proposal that would instead permanently grant the Attorney General excessive surveillance powers

    Seriously...this attorney general.  I might laugh so hard I will cry

    Yeah, I'm trying out this blogging thing, too.

    by MLDB on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:07:26 PM PDT

  •  The irony of the FISA Court is (9+ / 0-)

    the second Bush used it as a public ploy, it lost its true purpose for allowing for court approved wiretapping of suspected criminal activity under a veil of secrecy.

    The second Bush said FISA, it lost its purpose because the very people it was being hidden from now know it exists.

    We should have never known this court existed, and for a quick political point, Bush ruined one of the most essential tools in our fight on terrorism.

    A secret court, which was kept secret from the intelligence of terrorists, that approved wiretapping still under the guidelines of the rule of law.

    The irony of this seem lost on everyone in Washington.

    -4.63 -5.28 - Gandhi & I's score!

    by pinche tejano on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:08:13 PM PDT

    •  I don't know that the existance of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      court was ever secret. It's deliberations and findings were, of course, and that's all that's needed.

      •  It was actually a freaking State Secret (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant

        none the less.

        See the purpose was to keep it secret so intelligence arms of terrorists, international drug dealers and other notorious individuals would not know they were being wiretapped.

        Their long arms could have penetrated known court systems, and then they would have been able to adjust their methods of communications when they saw a warrant for tapping their lines.

        Since the FISA was secret, yet Constitutional because it required to same proof of burden to get a warrant as a publically known courts, FBI and other agencies were able to get wiretapping permission outside the realm of intelligence arms of the bad guys.

        That was its sole purpose, and when Bush opened his big mouth about it, he exposed a state secret.

        Brilliant show on all parts.

        -4.63 -5.28 - Gandhi & I's score!

        by pinche tejano on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  A Signing Statement (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, MaskedKat

    should be more than enough to halt any change.
    He can't ignore FISA now and any changes will give him a chance to ignore what he wants.

  •  I coudn't agree more, McJoan (8+ / 0-)

    Stop this train now. Period.

    Bush wants more authority for the Attorney General to spy on Americans? Start by giving us a different Attorney General.

  •  NEVER ! (14+ / 0-)

    Senator Rockefeller,

    The Congress of the United States does not need to legislate a diaper to cover this Administration's ass.

    This is a sorry attempt to grandfather legality for what this administration has been doing illegally.

    I repeat, NEVER!

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:11:52 PM PDT

  •  Give Them Nothing Here (6+ / 0-)

    ...and nothing anywhere else.

    Congress' approval ratings aren't low because they're forcing the Administration to restrain its worst instincts, they're low because Congress is accurately seen as continuing to enable the Administration's worst instincts.

    We've kept our powder dry for too long. A shot across the bow won't do it at this point.

    It's time to say "no more."

  •  No compromise on this (10+ / 0-)

    There is no way George Bush should be granted any more power. Not one drop.

  •  Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse (5+ / 0-)

    Just when we're putting pressure on to impeach him, they want to give Gonzo the right to oversee a spying program - unsupervised?

    There are no depths to which this Cabal will not stoop.

    Investigate. Issue Subpoenas. Convict. Rinse. Repeat.

    by moosely2006 on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:13:37 PM PDT

  •  So many dots (5+ / 0-)

    There is no reason for this to even be considered after  the recent report citing systemic abuse of national security letters. That was another "desperately" needed tool for law enforcement that has not been used to catch a single accused terrorist.

    Why is Congress even listening to the White House anymore? Seriously, why?

    "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow" Abraham Lincoln

    by Thirsty on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:13:49 PM PDT

  •  I have just e-mailed Jay Rockefeller (8+ / 0-)

    I told him not to give this administration any more power.  His argument did not convince me.

    Not only did we beat the British now we have to beat the Bushes.

    by libbie on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:13:54 PM PDT

  •  A simple question (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, Heterodoxie, suburi, moosely2006

    Does anyone in Congress know the full scope of the Bush Administration's post-9/11 intelligence gathering activities?

    If not, why has this information not been demanded by the Congress?

    We are producing an increasing number of useful goods and services for increasingly useless people. -- Ivan Illich

    by ANKOSS on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:14:07 PM PDT

    •  The BIGGER Question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, kraant

      is does anyone know about this Administration's pre- 9/11 intelligence gathering that obviously was no good and was just as obviously (knowing the players as we now know them) illegal then?

      They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

      by Limelite on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:19:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rockefeller (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, moosely2006

    Did the right thing.  By tying the whole thing to Gonzales, he makes the problem one for the President.  No one in their right mind would agree to giving the Attorney General more oversight authority right now.  Keeping the FISA courts should not even be up for discussion.

  •  Grrrrrr! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox, enough already, Northstar, kraant

    Is it something in the water? Have these people gone completely boffo? Are they on the dope? Or are they just too damn stupid to hold public office?

    Anyone even considering fucking around with FISA right now needs to resign; they don't have the mettle to represent a democratized society.

    Time flies, whether you're having fun or not.

    by Kimberley on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:17:27 PM PDT

  •  Are we to assume that FISA "reform" (4+ / 0-)

    will render moot the admitted multiple, continuing violations of Title 50, USC Ch. 36, SC 1, Section 1800 et seq. committed by the Bush Administration?

    A free pass?  For thousands of felonies, each one of which carries with is up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000.00 fine??

    Just so Pelosi and the rest of the Dems can appear to cooperate with Bush??

    It's crazy . . . the asshole is down . . . now is the time to put the boot in him . . . and keep kicking til he can't get up.

    A free pass for Bush?  Forbid it Almighty God!!! I know not what course others may take . . .

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:17:35 PM PDT

  •  I've never understood why there should (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, Buzzer, kraant, Mad Kossack, junta0201

    be any discussion of changing the FISA system. It was certainly set up to give as many powers as possible to the intelligence community including retroactive warrant powers (which puts paid to the administration's arguments that it wasn't fast enough). The only reason to change it is that the adminstration wants to conduct illegal surveillance that wouldn't pass FISA scrutiny.

    Why anyone in Congress feels the need to debate this is beyond me.

  •  Why did we put the Democrats in power again? (6+ / 0-)

    I can't stand the way that they cave to EVERY LITTLE ISSUE.  They need to grow a &$^&ing backbone and stand up for our rights.  

    As it stands they can get warrants for wiretapping 3 days AFTER the wiretap starts.  Now they want to do away with individual warrants?

    And exactly how many other completely unknown NSA programs have been put in place anyway?  Where is the oversight?

    I'll still vote for them but I'm going to give them hell every chance I get.

  •  Operation - Retroactive Cover Your Ass (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox, cdreid, kraant

    This is a fucking sham!  They are trying to cover their illegal activity as they did with the Torture bill passed last year.

    This is breathtaking in that 33 Dems and Reid are ok with this final shredding of the 4th Ammendment.

    I swear by God any official that signs this is a traitor to the Constitution, should be run out of office, charged, and if found guilty hung.

  •  Two things (10+ / 0-)
    1.  FISA needs no "reforming".  It simply needs to be enforced.
    1.  I'm trying to "get" how a surveillance regime and system of protocols that even allows for the retroactive application for a warrant in any way, shape or form hobbles the Justice Dept/NSA.  {See, link, 50 U.S.C. 1805(f)}

    Check this out, from a Libertarian outfit.

    BenGoshi
    ___________________________________________________

    The distinction that goes with mere office runs far ahead of the distinction that goes with actual achievement. H.L. Mencken

    by BenGoshi on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:20:46 PM PDT

    •  "reform" = abandonment. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, marina, kraant

      "Our knobs go up to 11."

      by Cartoon Peril on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:27:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I could not agree more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, kraant

      Makes me so furious when smirky, bushco, et al say "FISA was written in 19", "FISA was pre-9/11", etc.

      Make very minor tweaks if necessary, but DON'T re-write, DON'T give bush MORE latitude to assault civil rights, and DON'T say Americans can't be protected unless this regime gets more power.

      P.s. and the retroactive application everyone (the media, bushco, etc.) seems to conveniently forget to "recall".  The line "we need to adapt and be flexible after 9/11" is crap.  You have 72 hours after you believe you have uncovered anything to comply and get a warrant.

      I'm even MORE pissed now!

      It is the province of knowledge to speak And it is the privilege of wisdom to listen. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. US Jurist

      by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:42:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Add a fucking "If used against political (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Buzzer, kraant, BehereBenow

    opponents over domestic issues, all personnel connected to such surveillance and their supervisors will suffer life in prison without parole, and all their assets seized as penalty" and then maybe I'd think about giving Bush anything at all on this.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:24:59 PM PDT

  •  I Name It the Patriot Screwing Act 3 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    We don't need this kind of screwing a third time, burn me uhh, do me uhh wrong one time... uhh

    -8.63 -7.28 Ask " The Question "

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:25:34 PM PDT

  •  Is there some type of radiation (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paradox, Cartoon Peril

    permeating Capital Hill? Why are our Democratic Representatives being so unbelievably stupid?! Sure, not all of them have jumped the shark, but sadly enough I think more have than we care to think.

    And Pelosi still keeps impeachment "off the table" while they do this shit. I am beginning to wonder what type of "remedy" Pelosi is hoping for. Does some random citizen need to completely snap and take matters into their own hands? Is that her plan? F&XIK!!

    btw, Joe Lieberman is an ass

    by ejbr on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:26:45 PM PDT

  •  How did this train ever get started???!!!! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, kidcharles, jello5929

    I'd shout if it would make a difference.  I want to know who the freak ever though acceding to Bush demands to alter FISA was in any way a good idea.

    It simply makes me livid.  I am so betrayed....you fucking wimps, you terrible weak sycophants, how dare you allow yourselves to get pushed around like this!

    Then some fuckers on this site will cluck at me that I'm not loyal and that we work for Democrats.

    I am so disgusted.........I rue every dime I gave to the party.  What a waste.

  •  Agreed, what the F are the Dems doing (5+ / 0-)

    Several places on the web today I've read how the Dems are "scrambling" to acquiesce to bushco demands:

    President Bush is pressuring Democrats in Congress to expand his administration's authority to eavesdrop on international communications without a warrant and Democratic leaders seem more willing to give him at least part of what he wants, the New York Times reports.

    (Emphasis Me)

    The bold type is wrong on SOOOoooo many grounds.  Like mr. 25% has no political capital, and short of TRUE National Security issues, F/U sir.  Second, the Dems are rushing to give the most corrupt, dishonest, civil liberties challenged leader of the free world MORE authority to do warrantless spying on Americans?  

    What is wrong with this?  What is wrong with these leaders?

    It is the province of knowledge to speak And it is the privilege of wisdom to listen. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. US Jurist

    by Oliver W Holmes the 3rd on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:28:13 PM PDT

  •  The data and evidence call out NO ! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fugue, kraant, junta0201

    The FISA is about the most stealthy form of oversight possible. It accommodates the needs of the investigating agency while it protects and documents the oversight.  Any less has no place in a democracy.

    Gonzales has proven (along with most, nay all, of the other Bush appointees) that he cannot be trusted any farther than he can be physically thrown by Helen Thomas.  

    The historical data show that all but a handful of FISA requests have been honored; those were returned for rewrite and were eventually granted.  It allows 72 hours before the FISA application has to be made.

    If these assholes can't do the job they should do in advance, within a 3 day window, they're unprepared and in the wrong line of work.

  •  This train left the station back in 2000, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RevJoe, enough already, kraant

    and has been a wreck ever since--leaving thousands in its wake!!!!

  •  neat clock (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    a few things missing like when Bush leaves office but still fun http://www.poodwaddle.com/...

    -8.63 -7.28 Ask " The Question "

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:19 PM PDT

  •  mcjoan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enough already, kraant

    I diaried this at West Virginia Blue too where I know someone in his office reads us occasionally.

    I'll post a link to your latest diary as well.

    Breadth of view is one of the essentials of our profession. The interplay of ideas and the oblique uses of knowledge are often of extraordinary interest. S.H.

    by Carnacki on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:30:58 PM PDT

  •  First of all, it's not critical legislation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    Secondly, I can't believe that Rockefeller is working to ram this new legislation through.  


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:31:03 PM PDT

    •  Gang of eight (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      They are all leading the charge in a strange direction.  

      Impeachment: off the table - pelosi
      FISA: forget about it - rockefeller
      MCA2006: vote their conscience - reid

      Maybe they agreed to something so outrageous that they know that any impeachment investigations, or other investigations into torture/wiretapping/etc will cost them their careers.

      So they are trying hard to legalize all the illegal activity that they knew president bush was doing.

      Note, this is a hypothesis.  Not a tinfoil statement of "fact."

  •  Dems.. (6+ / 0-)

    Don't even let it get to the floor. No more Republican bills should ever make it to the floor. Just stop it all.

    Freeze the government, because everything the Bush administration and his enablers do is evil. Deadlock is the best we can do for now.

  •  Jay Rockefeller, December 2008 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, junta0201

     "We were hoodwinked."

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:37:25 PM PDT

  •  Just remember (0+ / 0-)

    Whatever the Dems do now in terms of FISA will be what the next President (a dem most likely) will be forced to work with.  

    If we weaken the ability to wiretap INCOMING calls from bad countries just because we hate Bush in may come back to haunt us.

    •  Yeah, but... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      whatever power we give to this administration is abused and used against the unalienable rights of WE THE PEOPLE.

      I'm not worried about hampering the next president; we've got to STOP this one first.

      If we have Dem majorities, we can try to make the laws fair and sensible...but all we can do now is PREVENT additional powers going to this evil government.

    •  We hate Bush? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      I suspect you mean "You" hate Bush...

      I'm reading some of your comments, and I can feel your concern.

      "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" George Orwell

      by wrights on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:02:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Rockefeller is selling us out for later (7+ / 0-)

    After reading his letter and thinking about for a few mins, I'm thinking Rockefeller is setting us up for a bigger fall. From what I read, once the traps are in place, who is going to be watching the watchers ? Nobody, that's who. They will be able to trap anything they want and go thru in at anytime once it's stored.

    We cannot allow this to happen. Once it does, no Uero conversation is safe either. Who are we to spy on and break the Laws of other countrys ? Stop and think about this a few mins. This really is the ultimate slippery slope to Big Brother.

    -8.63 -7.28 Ask " The Question "

    by OneCrankyDom on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:38:51 PM PDT

  •  Are they kidding!? (4+ / 0-)

    On what planet do Bush/Cheney live? Through what magical set of circumstances do they envision Democrats granting Alberto DUMB-ZALES limitless authority to do anything?  And bypass FISA!?  Are they just seeking to codify something that they're already doing?

    If the Dems don't have enough time to investigate perjury by the Attorney General, they surely don't have the time to make changes to a program that they can't even get an honest answer to.

    I have no words for the utter brazenness of these guys.  

  •  You say "Stop" but to whom are you talking? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    If you want me to take action, please put action link and talking point ...easy to spot.

    I have to dash....but if there's an action alert.....I'll make calls ...whatever.....

    Thanks.

  •  Pointless (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    maxschell, kraant, Nimbus

    I wrote my Senators (I'm from Ohio) and urged them to oppose any FISA reform. This is ridiculous. The government can already commence surveillance without having to contact FISA. It's not as if FISA prevents the government from stopping terrorists or whatever. All the Justice Department, or any other part of the Executive, has to do is contact FISA within 24 hours of the start of surveillance. WE DON'T NEED REFORM.

    •  Exactly, remember Social Security.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      There is NO CRISIS.

      This fear is ginned up over and over and over again...why haven't our representatives learned anything?

      Tell Bush to go to hell.

      I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

      by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:00:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gonzales in charge (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lysias, maxschell, marina, kraant, junta0201

    The mere fact that this "administration" would even suggest that Gonzo have his power expanded in light of the recent goings on is of great concern to me. Seriously. Coupled with Cheney going on Larry King last night with a laughable, lying performance? I smell a rat.

    Success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has had to overcome. Booker T Washington

    by Spoonfulofsugar on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:49:45 PM PDT

  •  Just because (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, kraant

    we have secret courts authorising secret warants along with secret arrests, secret imprisonments and secret executions of US and foreign citizens is no reason to think the State has enough power to protect us from "them!".

    /Snark

    "All you have to do to qualify for human rights is to be human" An 11yo Girl. Unbossed.com

    by cdreid on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:52:36 PM PDT

  •  Why are the Democrats compromising on this? (6+ / 0-)

    WHY?

    I'm sick of hearing Pelosi tell us the Democrats are "working closely with the administration," on how they're making it so they can "only violate the Constitution a little."

    I'm sick of that.  I'm sick of bipartisanship.  I'm sick of compromise.  Right now, bipartisanship and compromise with the Republicans is like bipartisanship and compromise with the Nazis.  It doesn't work.  They'll continue to take and destroy until there's nothing left.  Any agreements with them will be hollow, like Chamberlain's peace in our time.  You can't have peace with these vipers.  They will not respect civilized boundaries.  They'll stab us in the back at the first opportunity.

    We must go to all out legislative and political war with the fuckers.

    War.  Not in the literal blood and gore sense, but we can't work with those sociopaths anymore.

    Bring all business in the government to a halt.  No more appropriations, no more authorizations, nothing.  They get nothing else.

    We should be fighting all out, with everything we've got.  Every time one of the GOP's politicians gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar, we jump on it and eviscerate him.  Every time we see an advantage, no matter how small, no matter how "dirty", we must jump on it.  You know Rove would.  Certainly, impeachment, being one of the few potent weapons we have left, should be on the table.  If we have a "nuclear" option, it's time to push the button on it.

    Show them no quarter, because we will receive none.  I'm tired of acting civilized.  It's time to break them.  When this is over, the GOP should go the way of the Whigs and be completely wiped out as a political force in DC.  It's come to that.

    We must destroy them before they destroy us.

    Waster of electrons, unlawful enemy combatant.

    by meldroc on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 02:57:59 PM PDT

  •  Why? Why? Why? (6+ / 0-)

    Why rush this through?  Why give power grabbers more power?  

    I thought Schumer realized the Dems have been hoodwinked before.  Isn't this what got us Iraq, the Patriot Act, the MCA, NCLB, Roberts, Alito, etc.  How can they do this again?

    It will be tough times for politicians at Yearly Kos if they fall for this again.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:04:14 PM PDT

    •  Talk about lost credibility. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      Schumer and the other Dems crowing about credibility have gotten hoodwinked again, and again, and again.

      Are they claiming to forget about Iraq? Patriot Act I and II?  The MCA?

      They are pulling a Gonzo.  We gotta call them on it.

      p.s. I still have never received an answer from our darling Barbara Boxer about why she voted for Patriot Act II.

      I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

      by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:47:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  WITH ALL DELIBERATE SPEED (0+ / 0-)

    Is how FISA should be amended, if at all.

    "Terror is nothing other than justice...; it is ... the general principle of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs." M. Robespierre

    by Bartimaeus Blue on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:18:12 PM PDT

  •  What the F___ are the Dems thinking?!!! n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socks, kraant, Heterodoxie

    "Fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush

    by RevJoe on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:26:23 PM PDT

  •  Who are these Democrats? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, Heterodoxie
  •  I'm sceptical, given Rockefeller's (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    history but maybe, just maybe, this could be good. From the release,

         Reinforce that foreign-to-foreign collection is not covered by FISA, consistent with current law;

    Ø      Ensure that the FISA Court, not solely the Attorney General, has an oversight role where foreign target surveillance touches on individuals inside the U.S.;

    Ø      Grant FISA Court new authority for court orders covering certain aggregated foreign collection while protecting rights and privacy of U.S. persons;

    Ø      Ensure continued FISA Court approval of guidelines and procedures for minimizing U.S. identities and determining the point at which initial foreign collection transitions to cover U.S. persons of interest (thereby triggering individual probable cause warrant requirements);

    Ø      Maintain FISA Court authority to compel compliance from telecommunications companies; and

    Ø      Set forth a firm legislative sunset date to ensure continued action on more lasting comprehensive FISA reforms.

    First is benign, restates current law.

    Second might undue the legal premise for TSP, which was BS to begin with but would now be restated explicitly.

    Third, this may be a problem.

    Fourth, seems to undo parts of TSP.

    Fifth, restates current law.

    Sixth, sunsets some or all of FISA. This could be the best part.

    It seems all except the third one are good things, and if it does not do too much damage this could be a good bill on balance. The Dems always need a counter to the Bush PR machine and this could be it, subject to my caveat at the beginning.

    •  Disagree. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, kraant

      The sunset is bullshit...we had the same thing with Patriot Act I and look where that got us: Patriot II enabled Gonzo to fire the USA's and replace them with cronies of his choice?  Almost every Dem, including Boxer, voted for Patriot II.

      WTF?

      I don't like sunsets and I don't think this President should be trusted with any more power.  Period.

      The FISA statute is perfectly clear the way it is.  And just because Bush flunkies are spreading fear by saying it's not is in no way sufficient justification for a change.

      I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

      by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:51:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush will be gone when this sunsets. And there (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant

        is pending litigation regarding TSP. Maybe, maybe, this would resolve those issues without the risk of SCOTUS issuing a pro-Bush ruling that we would have to live with for a long time.

        •  180 days? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kraant

          I believe the sunset is 180 days.  That's January '08.

          BushCult would then still have 1 more year to listen into your phone calls.

          Your point is well-taken, but I say, let SCOTUS issue a ruling, THEN take legislative action to correct it.

          This demonstrates a really problematic issue: we are basically going to have to retain control of the Congress and Presidency until a conservative (Kennedy?)member of SCOTUS retires.  

          I. Lewis Libby's worse than G. Gordon Liddy. This is Worse than Watergate. IMPEACH! Now.

          by maxschell on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:05:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Who Decides? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    While the administration is "targeting" the people overseas and incidentally listening to the Americans on the other end, there is most likely nothing in the legislation to make them stop and get a warrant when Americans are involved.

    Who decides whether wiretapping Americans without a warrant is "incidental"? No one can be trusted to decide that, certainly none of the (at least passively) collaborating losers running our government.

    Which is exactly what the Constitution is all about. There is no magic generation of politicians or government that can be trusted with that power.

    That's why the Fourth Amendment says

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    We have these rights. We create a government to protect them. Which, using the Constitution to create it, cannot violate those rights.

    There's no "incidental" clause in the Constitution. There's no incidental exception to our rights. The FISA itself is an infringement on the human rights the Constitution goes into detail to (partially) enumerate, whether or not those humans aren't Americans, to ensure government does not violate them, but rather protects them.

    Because even by 1787, our founders knew governments cannot be "trusted", that "incidental" is a worthless fig leaf. The past 220 years have proven no different, even with a fundamentally limited government in recognition of that impossible trust.

    And given the events of the past 6 years, to say nothing of the past 6 months, 6 weeks, 6 days, we'd have to be actutely masochistic suicides to ignore everything good and American to give our enemies - the government - any more "exceptions".

    That Rockefeller could entertain anything but tightening down FISA, especially after his cowardly tacit approval of this exact program, is an outrage. The best explanation is that Rockefeller is benefitting from the spying, or is blackmailed by it. But either way, Rockefeller is against us.

    Stopping him from conducting this trainwreck is just the first step. The next step is to derail Rockefeller and the "Anarchy Express" in which he's washing the trough in the dining car.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 03:47:37 PM PDT

  •  The 'Polite' Sen. Leahy (also - what's the rush?) (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    I only WISH I could have heard what Sen. Leahy said in private about the idea of handy over more control to AG AG.    
    Sen. Leahy's statement was firm, but kinder than, "Are you nuts?"

    Also...what's up with this sudden 'RUSH' to amend FISA?  The Shrub pushed in his Sat. radio speech, and now the Dems. are agreeing with the need?  
    Did Chertoff have more to that 'pain' than we realized?

  •  Why they're doing it now (6+ / 0-)

    I saw this on TPMMuckraker

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

    Behind the Surveillance Debate

    A federal judge's secret ruling restricting the intelligence community's surveillance powers helped spur a Capitol Hill bid to grant Bush new authority.
    By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
    Newsweek
    Updated: 3:17 p.m. ET Aug 1, 2007

  •  I called all of my reps today (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, kraant

    And gave them an earful over this.  If you haven't called (and my congresscritter's aide admitted a lot of us are calling) send them a little phone spine tomorrow.

  •  Looks like the FISA court recently ruled (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Voodoo, marina, baahl, kraant, JML9999

    that the administration's program is illegal under FISA as it now stands:  Newsweek: Behind the Surveillance Debate: A federal judge's secret ruling restricting the intelligence community's surveillance powers helped spur a Capitol Hill bid to grant Bush new authority.

    This administration is not to be trusted in interpreting the limits that congressional legislation like FISA puts on it.  And certainly this Attorney General is not to be trusted.

    Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

    by lysias on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:07:59 PM PDT

  •  IMHO, the reason this is moving so fast is... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Voodoo, kraant, junta0201
    because Congress itself is guilty of not exercising oversight in the past, and so is complicit with Bush's so far unrevealed, massive, illegal wiretapping of Americans (meaning, citizens, politicians, reporters, corporate entities, attorneys, medical staff, etc.).

    The other diaries here regarding 'Deep Throat' give hints of this.

    I'm saying that Congress is in on what Bush has been doing with NSA, contractors, and other agencies to spy illegally.  

    A guilty Congress is moving quickly to hide the evidence by making the activity legal after the fact.

  •  It's on the Senate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    floor right now.

    •  What's on the floor? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kraant

      Are they having a debate?  Is there already a bill before them?  Or can they have a debate without a bill?

      Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

      by lysias on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:28:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "Modernizing" FISA (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kraant

        I don't know yet if there is actual legislation on the floor but they are talking about it.

        Reid:

        We got the bill late this afternoon. Ours is almost completed. Could take a while before we file it.

        We're going to come back with a proposal that will meet the expectations of the people. We trust Admiral McConnell. B/c of this we think we can work something out on this.

        We're going to proceed in good faith and hope we can get something done.

    •  No time for impeachment, FISA needs gutting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina, kraant, junta0201

      I guess this is what our leaders in congress considers to be the important business that can't be slowed down by messy impeachment proceedings.

      Great.  Just great.

  •  When anyone talks about "any kind of real threat" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant

    looming out there that requires a fix from THIS government, my first thought is that the "fix" is the real threat.  They're looking to expand wiretapping authority, email intervention and data mining...and I'm going to stop right there because the logical progression from achieving those powers is too tinfoil-hatty.

    And it sounds like Mike McConnell is in a BIG hurry to get this done before the impending (or has it already begun?) 'recess'!

    "...our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East...are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas." Kurt Vonnegut - 2005

    by mooshter on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 04:28:44 PM PDT

  •  If it ain't broke, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, junta0201
    don't "fix" it. Maybe they think since they broke the law, they ought to try to fix it. You can't fix it that way. But you can prosecute the lawbreakers. Works for me.
  •  Is THIS Breaking????? on FISA?? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, socks, baahl, kraant, OWTH, junta0201

    Does this explain the frenzy to reform FISA?

    A secret ruling by a federal judge has restricted the U.S. intelligence community's surveillance of suspected terrorists overseas and prompted the Bush administration's current push for "emergency" legislation to expand its wiretapping powers, according to a leading congressman and a legal source who has been briefed on the matter.

    The order by a judge on the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court has never been publicly acknowledged by administration officials—and the details of it (including the identity of the judge who wrote it) remain highly classified. But the judge, in an order several months ago, apparently concluded that the administration had overstepped its legal authorities in conducting warrantless eavesdropping even under the scaled-back surveillance program that the White House first agreed to permit the FISA court to review earlier this year, said one lawyer who has been briefed on the order but who asked not to be publicly identified because of its sensitivity.

    They've been caught with their hand in the cookie jar . . . breaking their own modification of FISA.  It's a freaking felony - so of course they want Congress to kiss the boo-boo and make it well.

    The Democrats cannot be lazy or stupid enough to let this go, can they?  --- file the Articles!

    "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" Dwight D. Eisenhower

    by bobdevo on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 05:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Retroactive cover your ass. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kraant, OWTH, junta0201

    They're trying to make legal what they've done that is illegal so they can then use that to cover their sorry asses. You know?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site