Wartime power grabs require beautiful sunsets »
Posted By STONERS 1 year, 11 months ago in NewsWhen it's OK to monitor certain phone calls, e-mails, faxes and text messages between foreigners and U.S. residents. Such surveillance can go on for a year. Left on the books long enough, this is not just an invitation to abuse, history suggests it is a guarantee.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
76 Views Share Story 18 Comments Report
Submitted By:
STONERS
Welcome to my profile...I've started a ""STONERS Daily News Group"" Please stop by and have a look and join if you like it ...
Who Also Submitted:
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 43 of 45 Comments (view all)
-
0%
STONERS1 year, 11 months ago
"In fact, the law itself is evidence of the tendency of those in power to overreach. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress amended, long ago provided means to monitor terrorists. It set up a secret court to grant warrants quickly â;; even retroactively â;; for legitimate surveillance, and that system has been widely viewed as effective. Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution â;; provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants â;; the new law just short-circuited the process."
Reply-
0%
STONERS1 year, 11 months ago
"It's dangerous to give any administration permanent powers to fight a temporary war, even one that could last as long as the one against Islamic extremism. It's just as dangerous to trust an administration to police itself without court supervision."
"A skittish Congress allowed itself to be stampeded last week into granting the president unfettered surveillance power. When it returns to Washington, it should do what it can to make sure that the sun goes down on this flawed measure."
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 11 months ago
"Since 9/11, demands on the system have increased, but rather than adopt the obvious solution â;; provide more resources for the court and those who seek its warrants â;; the new law just short-circuited the process."
I fail to see what is so urgent and essential that the police cannot take the time necessary to show cause as to why a warrant is needed. After all, these secret kangaroo courts will issue the warrant no matter what. At least give the American people the false belief that our liberties are not being stripped away. Bushco has no shame in letting the people know that "we don't need no stinkin' rights."
Reply -
0%
Shadowolf1 year, 11 months ago
"The only new thing under the sun is the History that you don't know."
President Harry S Truman
Reply -
0%
Shadowolf1 year, 11 months ago
This regimes conduct proves beyond shadow of doubt that they CANNOT be trusted. This just goes to prove that Congress no longer feels that they work for the American people.
And we were naive enough to expect otherwise???
Reply -
0%
Locky121 year, 11 months ago
The dems run congress. Why don't they just de-fund the war? Because they want it to end, but they don't want the blame! But now they agree with the president on this FISA issue so we can set up quick wiretaps on those making phone calls to Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as known/potential extremists groups right here at home. BTW Email was NEVER confidential. It was always considered as sending a postcard.
Would the leftist loonies on this board please explain to me how YOU would keep us safe and fight a war on terror?
I don't see any ideas, I just see whining.
Reply-
0%
toph19731 year, 11 months ago
You speak of this Wiretapping as a critical tool to catching terrorisits. How many has it caught. None that I can remember. The government has already said they were spying on Americans that had no contact abroad. This is basically Bush spying on people that he doesn't like. Peta, Vegans, Anti war citizens, disstenters.
How would I keep us safe? I'd pull troops out of Iraq and redeploy some of them to Afganistan where the terrorism problem is much worse than the insurgency in Iraq The troops that were not redeployed are to immediately brought back to the US. This country need to be protected, not fighting people that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Reply -
0%
ryan6011 year, 11 months ago
"The dems run congress. Why don't they just de-fund the war? Because they want it to end, but they don't want the blame!"
Actually, I think that the Dems that actually voted for this law (which, BTW, was a MINORITY of Democrats; 16 in the Senate and 41 in the House) are the ones who are still scared sh!tless about being labelled as "soft on terror". Just goes to show how the hard-right has been able to dominate the discussion on foreign policy- if you label anybody who opposses you as "soft" or "appeasing the terrorists" or as "traitors", you effectively eliminate dissent. Nobody will dare stand up to you, or present alternative viewpoints.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
toph19731 year, 11 months ago
Imagine that. You fail to mention the current administration that is guilty of treason, war crimes, torture, kidnapping, rendition, murder, violation of human rights, violation of the Geneva Convention. I love how you cons rail on the left as being crooks, which they are but conveniently leave out anything your Monsters you put in office has done.
Reply -
-
-
0%
GODIMMAD1 year, 11 months ago
Good art...It does show something strange about how our govt works... You pat mine, Ill smack yours. Its not a party thing...its government. I like what the Gov. of AR, or what ever his is. "I have a picture on the wall. It changes every couple days. It has a picture of someone from AR on it. It helps remind me and my staff of who we work for." Even though I dont politicians, it gives me something that I could say, "I voted for him" with pride. Any other canidate can you do that??
Reply -
0%
ryan6011 year, 11 months ago
I like this letter from a reader to the NYTimes on this issue:
"I have no objection to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.
We could start with records of the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq; continue with the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney's energy conference; include phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys and ascertain who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support.
After all, these are matters of national security."
Reply-
0%
ryan6011 year, 11 months ago
Also this one, which sums up MY feelings about this subject nicely:
"Our courts decided that the methods used by the White House for tracing calls were illegal. So the Bush administration sets out to change the procedures just enough to avoid the legal restrictions and allow it to do what it wants to do.
Then it has the audacity to put the completely discredited attorney general in the loop to approve its new procedures!
Congress goes limp with reputation paralysis and lets the measure pass. When will this Congress get the political courage to say "Enough!" to this hubris-sodden imperial presidency?"
Reply
-
-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS1 year, 11 months ago
Another step closer to losing all that the Constitution guarantees. Don't guess they learned anything from the last time.
Reply -
-
-
0%
ryan6011 year, 11 months ago
"The constitution does say that the President may use executive powers to ensure (domestic tranquility)."
Yes, but within the limits of the Constitution. Keep in mind that the Constitution ALSO specifically says that the right to Habeus Corpus "shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." It's hard to see how enemy combatants picked up in a foreign country, or on a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan, represent either a "rebellion" or an "invasion".
Reply-
0%
joeblowe1 year, 11 months ago
As regards U.S. citizens who, we presume, have signed on to accept the RESPONSIBILITIES of being a citizens as well as the rights - this is 100% correct. As far as a non-citizen who is not even actually IN the Unites States, I'm not so sure. We can't enforce our Constitutional rights and guarantees on EVERYONE. There are a LOT of other governments on the planet who would tend to resent that. China comes to mind right away. And practically ANY middle eastern country. Imagine trying to enforce the 1st Amendment on a Muslim country. Not pretty.
Reply
-
-
0%
toph19731 year, 11 months ago
Still surprised your on here after a few days ago. I got an email that they were going to ban you for all of your profanity. I'll just have to search for some more so I can report you. Actually I did find more profanity. You've been reported again.
Reply -
0%
ryan6011 year, 11 months ago
Oh, I agree completely that the Prez's first and primary responsibility is to protect the US, and that we should do all we can to prevent terrorists from attacking us. I just think that we can do that without stripping away our civil liberties or granting the President powers that are considered unconsitutional. Especially when one considers that their are other countries in the world that have been seriously fighting terrorists a lot longer than we have, and that have managed to do so successfully without suspending civil liberties or granting "executive powers".
Reply -
0%
joeblowe1 year, 11 months ago
But one thing we aren't really clear on is: WHY do these terrorists want to attack us. I mean really - not the B.S. about how they hate our freedoms and the like. Is it simply because we aren't Muslim? Is it because we have military bases for no really good reason all over the middle east? Is it because we have a tendency to interfere in the internal politics of other countries? Let's face it honestly, we CANNOT possibly kill them all. Do you agree? Since we CANNOT possibly kill them all - shouldn't we see if just MAYBE there isn't some other, better way to solve this problem? I'm not saying we should all start bowing to Mecca, just thinking that MAYBE, just MAYBE, if we left them alone, they would leave us alone? If they really, really hate us because we (theoretically) support Israel -- that's easy too. Stop supporting Israel. I'm not really sure why Israel is any of our business anyway. It's not like they have a lot of oil or anything.
Reply
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.