« Milton Nascimento and Lenine | Main | The Great S&M Amusement Corp. »
August 18, 2007
Congress in Big Hurry to Start Vacation, Hands Fox Keys to Henhouse
By Deborah Newell Tornello a.k.a. litbrit
Oh, this is just great. Way to go, Dems:
Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.
Administration officials acknowledged that they had heard such concerns from Democrats in Congress recently, and that there was a continuing debate over the meaning of the legislative language. But they said the Democrats were simply raising theoretical questions based on a harsh interpretation of the legislation.
They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.
The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought. It also offers a case study in how changing a few words in a complex piece of legislation has the potential to fundamentally alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a landmark national security law. The new legislation is set to expire in less than six months; two weeks after it was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president.
“This may give the administration even more authority than people thought,” said David Kris, a former senior Justice Department lawyer in the Bush and Clinton administrations and a co-author of “National Security Investigation and Prosecutions,” a new book on surveillance law.
August 18, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
It appears from the article that the Administration has no intention to use the law in the way some fear it could be used, that they don't agree that it can be used that way. If people are worried about it, though, it will have to be fixed in September.
It's interesting that though the Administration continues to refuse to renounce its view that it has constitutional authority to act without the new law, it has committed to act in accord with the law and the signing statement attached to the law doesn't assert any authority to ignore the law.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 4:37:54 AM
I am just incensed that Congress would pass legislation containing such broad and dodgy Constitutional implications, without bloody reading through it with a magnifying glass.
Or is this another case of the wide-eyed immigrant thinking government is supposed to work with an eye toward the benefit and rights of the people and dreaming about ponies? (No answer needed!)
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 19, 2007 8:31:20 AM
They also emphasized that there would be strict rules in place to minimize the extent to which Americans would be caught up in the surveillance.Because this administration is totally known for its rigorous, conscientious commitment to following the rules. No serious person would suggest otherwise. Just trust the president and everything will be fine, as far as you know.
Posted by: Chris | Aug 19, 2007 8:47:00 AM
The Democratic party is dead to me until this is repealed. Not replaced or reworked, but completely and utterly destroyed. As far as I'm concerned, the Democrats aren't just weak, they are downright evil
There is simply no way they got "rolled" on this. They knew what they were doing, and they wanted everything in that bill to become law. Those that say otherwise are lying. There is no other way someone with an understanding of parliamentary procedure and American politics can look at this and see anything else. This is just proof that the Greens are right. There is no difference worth noticing between the parties. They are both beholden to corporate scum who want to turn this country into a police state. More and Better democrats my ass. We need an entirely new party.
Posted by: Soullite | Aug 19, 2007 10:15:20 AM
We need an entirely new party.
Start one, soullite. You can call it the Everything Sucks Party.
I saw a poster and a T-shirt based on an old anarchist poster last night, one you might like. Shows a cop beating a man's head with a stick and says, "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government will get in."
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 12:45:28 PM
Soullite, if it's any consolation, they just lost me. I'll be an Independent, even if it means forgoing the primaries in Florida, which sucks, but there you are.
They are, as the husband says, afraid of their own shadows. They are, as the husband also says, and as you said, dead to me now. This is simply unforgivable.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 19, 2007 3:30:32 PM
This is how Bush won Florida and became President in 2000. Voters who should have known better stayed home or voted for Nader, the biggest mistake they'll ever make. Folks, you're taking a too simple view of how politics works, and greatly exaggerating the harm from this bill.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 19, 2007 4:57:17 PM
Sanpete, I don't intend to sit out my first-ever vote, and I certainly don't intend to throw it away in order to feel a sense of moral righteousness. I will vote for the candidate I believe to be the better/best one. What I will not do is join a party that is party to this sort of thing (trampling the First Amendment). There is a difference.
If the Dems impress me by demonstrating some semblance of cojones in the months ahead, great. Until and unless they do, however, I cannot, symbolically, join their ranks.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 20, 2007 6:14:37 AM
Litbrit, the problem is that if the Democrats satisfy you, they'll lose far more others whom they need to stay in office. You have to figure that with only two major parties to cover almost the entire political spectrum in the country, neither party will be able to please anyone very completely without turning off another part of its base. You have to to take your disappointments with the rest of us. (Rather like marriage.) In terms of particulars, impeaching the President, cutting off funding for the war, and blocking the FISA bill all would produce marginal or outright harmful results (in my view and theirs), ultimately making the Democrats look worse than they do now to most voters. If there's a problem with the FISA bill, they'll fix it before the country falls to pieces.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 11:39:14 AM
I'm still going to register Independent. I can vote for a Democrat, or some Democrats, but until the party more accurately represents what is important to me--like respecting the nation's central legal document, for example--I can't, and won't, call myself "one of them". Same thing with marriage. To paraphrase another female writer: The contract may be fluid in some respects, but certain things--in her case, they were fidelity and personal hygiene--are going to remain non-negotiable.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 20, 2007 4:31:39 PM
You know it's probably worth noting that something like thirty-five Democratic senators and like a hundred and eighty Democratic representatives voted against this ridiculous law.
I mean, just saying.
Posted by: Dawn | Aug 20, 2007 4:47:22 PM
Litbrit, I'm not really trying to get you to do otherwise, just explaining why I think otherwise. I think if you compare legislation, the most well known metaphor for which is making sausage, to personal hygiene, you'll never be very happy with it. Fidelity is important, but this isn't a marriage to you only and can't only satisfy you. It's Big Love!
Anyway, I was registered as an independent for a long time after I started voting straight Democrat, but I got tired of not voting in primaries.
Dawn's right that most of the Democratic Senators and Representatives opposed the FISA bill, by the way, though it was easy to do with all the Republican support.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 5:13:06 PM
Okay, Sanpete, I concede the Big Love analogy :-)
But only because I respect your smarts, Sir. I'm well aware that there are plenty of Dems who have their heads on straight, who voted against this bill; however, I'm terribly frustrated that such an urgent and clear message as the one conveyed by the 06 elections ten months ago remains unheeded still.
Call me impatient; it wouldn't be the first time I've heard that.
Posted by: litbrit | Aug 20, 2007 5:27:44 PM
You're lucky, litbrit, that your first vote will probably actually hold some possibility of making a difference. Here in Utah, my vote for President will be a blue drop in a red sea. Best wishes for the occasion when it arrives. You'll be an excellent citizen, and maybe you'll make the rest of us speed up some.
Posted by: Sanpete | Aug 20, 2007 5:48:19 PM
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
Posted by: judy | Oct 11, 2007 7:42:07 AM



