Glenn Greenwald has the details on how House Democrats surrendered to the Bush Administration today, also reminding us why the Democratic-led Congress has a higher approval rating among Republicans than Democrats.
From the Roll Call votes, Adam Smith, Norm Dicks, and Brian Baird all voted to give the President greater powers, as Ryan Singel at Wired explains (emphasis mine):
Under the proposal, the intelligence community will be able to issue broad orders to U.S. ISPs, phone companies and online communications services like Hotmail and Skype to turn over all communications that are reasonably believed to involve a non-American who is outside the country. The spy agencies will not have to name their targets or get prior court approval for the surveillance.
Under the longstanding rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the government was free to engage in dragnet wiretapping outside the United States, but in order to tap communications inside the country, the government needed court approval and individualized warrants if an American’s communications would be caught.
Additionally, the bill grants amnesty to the nation’s telecoms that are being sued for allegedly breaking federal wiretapping laws by turning over billions of Americans’ call records to government data-mining programs and giving the government access to internet and phone infrastructure inside the country. The bill strips the right of a federal district court to decide whether the companies violated federal laws prohibiting wiretapping without a court order.
Obama’s response so far has been pretty pathetic, especially when compared to one of his opponents this November.
So you really think I should vote for Bob Barr?
No, did I say that? I’m just pointing out that Barr’s position is better.
I really just don’t fuckig get Nancy “al Qeada bitch” Pelosi. Hope you’re reading this you fucking traitor cunt!!
Fuck you! And FUCK ALL OF YOU PUNK ASS MOTHER FUCKERS who voted for it. ALL OF YOU!
That’s it for me, I’m getting out of the Demcoratic Party. Going back to being unaffiliated.
Not a fucking dime from me, either. Those coffers just dried up.
I sent a quick note to Norm Dicks.
We’re all a little less free in the land of the free thanks to your vote to grant immunity to telecoms that broke the law and the granting of greater (and completely unneeded) domestic spying.
Norm, you’ve been a congressman for a long time and have done good by the people in our district. Maybe it’s time to make the ’08 election your last election.
m @ 4
I, too, sent a quick note to Norm… thanking him for his vote.
@5 I sent a note to Norm warning him that you’re an America-hating fascist traitor. He replied, stating that he was already familiar with your treasonous fascist bullshit.
@5
I’m looking forward to the day when it finally dawns on you that this bill means that a Democratic administration could use this power in the name of gun control and you start demanding its repeal.
Alas, we vote for a politician and according to this wingnut, it looks like a pretty good one is going to win this November:
http://tinyurl.com/6o8bxr
Lee, Lee, Lee…
Relax. I was just funnin’ with you kids. Watching you get all worked up into a lather over your own people. Don’t presume that you know my real position on this bill, FISA, gun control or anything else.
But I know what YOUR real concern is… That the “non-American outside of the country” that they want to spy on is your BC weeeeeeed connection.
@5
You’re on a roll, you busted me pretty good yesterday too.
Don’t presume that you know my real position on this bill, FISA, gun control or anything else.
I thought it was the “centrist” position. You know the one that says give Shrubya and his noise machine whatever the hell they want.
The “far left” position being the one that says don’t spy on a citizen without probable cause and a warrant and those who break the law should be held accountable.
Ah well it was a good day for the bad guys.
Unfortunately too many Democrats did not have the spine to object when this activity first began. They were briefed, and were silent. Their silence was effective consent. To condemn now is to condemn theirselves.
This is enormously disappointing. I’d wager that if Obama follows the trajectory of presidents of the last 28 years and continues the compromise of individual rights/liberties for corporations and elites, despite Democratic control of Congress, there is going to be hell to pay. The political capital the Democratic party has built up since 04 will evaporate, the Republicans will remain in the toilet where they are and where they belong, and who knows who will run the country. Ron Paul?
More and better Democrats, I say.
YLB @ 11
Let’s see… You clearly know nothing about the Center — either Center-Left or Center-Right or just plain Center.
Hmmm… FISA talks about spying about FOREIGN agents. I don’t remember, were you a 9/11 “we brought it on ourselves” kook or an “inside job” kook?
Go tell some WTC mom that her child’s life is worth less than the privacy rights of some foreign agent.
Besides, isn’t Big Government the Democrat solution to EVERYTHING? You want people to send their kids to public schools with a “just trust us” about curriculum, but we’re not supposed to trust the police when they want to monitor, what, maybe 1/1,000,000th of the population that happens to get calls from Tehran on a regular basis?
Mark @ 14- there was a system in place which allowed monitoring, it just required judicial review. And it even allowed that review after the fact within a reasonable time. What was wrong with that? Tell me what problem was solved by this?
And don’t you question my 9/11 credentials. I know folks who ran through the courtyard when the bodies fell. My brother saw the second plane hit (no inside job). I have been to youth hockey games where the jersies of fallen firefighters were behind glass.
I also believe in our COnstitution.
14 – Surreal you ignorant dolt. FISA was formed to prevent another Nixon which that chimpanzee you voted for twice might very well be. Well that chimp hero of yours, ignored the law, BROKE THE LAW, and lied about it. So bad a FISA judge resigned.
The police? You mean like the local constabulary? You ignorant dolt. NO. We’re talking about CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, TIA and any other three letter agency with the means and opportunity to poke their nose into stuff they have no business with like say oh Democratic political campaigns? Freaking Homeland Security was caught snooping on vegans picketing a honey-baked ham outlet. Great use of my tax dollars!
I’m sorry. I’m a citizen. You show probable cause and get a warrant if you want to spy on me.
Just like that “far left” document the 4th amendment tells you.
K @ 15
I have no issue with you, your opinions (at least not this one) or your 9/11 credentials.
My point wasn’t that I agree with the bill. Instead, my issue is with those that twist FISA and present it as “spying on citizens” instead of “spying on foreign nationals,” which is what it is.
Also, unless you think that ECHELON is spying on every phone call that everyone makes, the chances of you being spied upon are next to zero.
YLB @ 16
I used the term “police” in the most general sense, which could include the three-letter law enforcement agencies.
I could see how the Dems might be worried because of all of the illegal Chinese donations to Hillary. What the Chinese don’t realize is that the DNC is already bought-and-paid-for by Big Labor.
And NOBODY cares about you or your phone calls.
I don’t get it.
This present crop of Democrats absolutely refuse to do the very things that they promised if elected (or re-elected as the case may be) and you guys keep voting for them time after time after time.
They chump you guys out and you come back for more. At least you could vote for somebody will do what they say they will.
Talk about gluttons for punishment.
It now is starting to look like Obama is either pissing backwards on a number of issues or at best flopping around, which puts into question his trust in carrying out the leftist agenda. If he’s true to form for Democrats generally these days,I doubt he’ll take guys seriuosly once he’s elected. Kind of a “Hurray for me and fuck you” kind of a deal.
Perhaps some perspective is in order.
It’s only been the most recent incumbent Republican President and the DeLay led insurgency in Congress that sought to grant the drooling trogs at their party’s base their fondest wishes.
And that hasn’t turned out so well for them.
For years the Xtian right was mocked for carrying Republican water while getting nothing in return. Along comes a Republican President and Congress willing to play their tune, and the result looks to be the complete political collapse of movement conservatism on the national level for the foreseeable future.
I’m not so sure I can envy that. And while I wish to the FSM that Reid and Pelosi would sack up and rally the troops just once to humiliate the boy-king, I’m willing to concede to the longer term political realities.
Real enduring shifts in the political landscape are geological in nature. They occur slowly over long time periods. We’re just waking up to the reality that the successful rise of modern movement conservatism has been an ongoing process dating back at least to AuH2O in ’64. The truth is we lost a helluva lot of ground to these guys throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, even with Democratic majorities in Congress. And we should say a tiny prayer of thanks to Nixon for Watergate having delayed the Republican Revolution by a good ten years. I’d hate to think what Reagan would have done with a Republican Congress. Just because the momentum is going in our direction right now, doesn’t mean we are going to get all the change we want right away. There’s just way too much ground to be made up.
GBS: With a foul mouth like yours, I can’t imagine the Democratic Party will miss you very much.
18 – And you don’t care about the guy you voted for twice breaking the law.
How “centrist” of you.
@9
Relax. I was just funnin’ with you kids. Watching you get all worked up into a lather over your own people.
So this is your stock response for when I catch you being a hypocrite? I see.
But I know what YOUR real concern is… That the “non-American outside of the country” that they want to spy on is your BC weeeeeeed connection.
No, my real concern is that when you give the Executive branch of the government this kind of power, they can use it to subvert the Democratic process and to maintain unjust laws. But please keep thinking that it’s just about weed. It perfectly illustrates how retarded you are.
@14
Let’s see… You clearly know nothing about the Center — either Center-Left or Center-Right or just plain Center.
Considering that this issue is one that’s fought for by both liberals and conservatives alike (is Bob Barr on the far-left?), I think you’re the one who’s a bit unclear as to what constitutes “The Center”.
Hmmm… FISA talks about spying about FOREIGN agents. I don’t remember, were you a 9/11 “we brought it on ourselves” kook or an “inside job” kook?
It TALKS about spying on foreign agents, but if you actually read the post above carefully (I know that’s difficult for you), it doesn’t require the intelligence agencies to prove it in any way.
Go tell some WTC mom that her child’s life is worth less than the privacy rights of some foreign agent.
So when a gun control advocate tells you to “tell some mom whose kid was shot that their child’s life is worth less than the gun rights of some redneck”, is that an effective argument?
Moron.
Besides, isn’t Big Government the Democrat solution to EVERYTHING?
No, it’s not. Are you really that retarded?
You want people to send their kids to public schools with a “just trust us” about curriculum, but we’re not supposed to trust the police when they want to monitor, what, maybe 1/1,000,000th of the population that happens to get calls from Tehran on a regular basis?
Um, no. The problem isn’t about the basic function of our intelligence services, it’s about oversight and accountability. We want it for schools and we want it for law enforcement.
Are you finished humiliating yourself yet?
@19
Yeah, like the Republicans gave the right wing fundies (“the base”) everything they wanted when they had control of the White House and both houses of Congress, right? You must be stupid to think that politicians are not going to act like, uh, politicians.
Let me help you get it. The democrats lied to you to get elected. Watch and listed to a democrat even admit it.
17 TRM
What does FISA have to do with waht the Bush administration has been doing, which is monitoring phone calls and e-mails regardless of domestic or foreign, terrorist or innocent. And the lawsuits against the telecoms the administration wanted qauashed because it would reveal their illegal activities.
That is what this bill is about, and the rollback of our constitutional guarantees of civil liberties and the enabling of untrammeled executive abuse of power that it represents.
19 G J
More Democrats voted against this bill than voted for it. But we do need some better Democrats in there, it’s true. We will get them.
Admittedly lifted from DailyKos:
Why do so many people care so much about a mere technical issue such as whether such-and-such is legal or illegal?
I can count three reasons.
1. It goes to the heart of illegal actions by this administration. The Bush administration has broken law after law, and been enmeshed in scandal after scandal, and been met with no substantive actions. There are investigations that never end; there are stern letters that are never answered; there are subpoenas that are simply ignored. So to respond to a clearly illegal act by, of all possible things, writing legislation that offers retroactive immunity for those acts, maintains the secrecy of those acts, and declares that the Bush administration itself will be responsible for the future integrity of those acts — it is patently asinine. It is an insult. It demonstrates a complete lack of regard for the law, and for the very responsibilities of each branch of government. In this, it is symbolic of the entire current Congress, which has proved itself all but nonfunctional when it comes to checking abuses by the executive branch — or even by their own branch.
2. It is a Constitutional question, and of a sort that the administration has fought long and hard to cripple. Among the more basic premises of the Bill of Rights is the notion of probable cause; your government may not conduct searches or seizures without a warrant, and the judicial branch shall judge the merit of those warrants. But the Bush administration wishes simply nullify that entire concept, if those searches are electronic in nature. It takes no imagination at all to observe that once one type of widespread, warrantless, causeless electronic search is deemed to be outside of 4th Amendment protections, an entire series of other electronic searches will follow. That is, after all, the entire reason the Bush administration pursued these searches illegally, rather than attempting to change FISA law in advance; they have every intention of creating a precedent for future searches, and they now have been given exactly that.
3. It was easy. I mean, Jesus H. Christmas, it has been the easiest thing in the world — all they had to do was not do it. It’s not freakin’ rocket science — but thanks to the efforts of a number of Democrats, not just Rockefeller and Hoyer but people like Reid and Pelosi, they just couldn’t not put immunity in. We were never told why it was so all-fired important — they would never grace us with any non-childish, non-condescending, non-flagrantly-insulting explanation. But instead of just not passing bills granting immunity, we had Reid treating Dodd more shabbily than he ever treated any Republican, and Hoyer apparently going around Pelosi, and all manner of prodding and dealing by Democrats to get immunity for these acts. It is baffling, and the only rationale available seems to be the most cynical one — it is merely doing the bidding of companies that provide substantive campaign contributions. No other explanation would seem to suffice.
“What does FISA have to do with waht the Bush administration has been doing, which is monitoring phone calls and e-mails regardless of domestic or foreign, terrorist or innocent. And the lawsuits against the telecoms the administration wanted qauashed because it would reveal their illegal activities.”
Orrrr, the other possibility is that the phone companies were doing their patriotic duty..Right after 9/11….
Now, years later, John Edwards types are chompin at the bit to SUE the phone companies becuase they know that a fat settlement is in the making…..
“Now, years later, John Edwards types are chompin at the bit to SUE”
Bullshit. The only point of interest in the “corporate immunity” issue has been the prospect of Congress being able to force the telcos to reveal exactly who the administration told them to spy on and why.
Also, there’s sort of another “possibility” for why the telcos, and in particular AT&T, were so willing to play ball. In case you haven’t noticed, AT&T is now operated by a bunch of good ‘ol Texas boys, and is in the process of reconstituting itself as a national telecommunications monopoly. Betcha that there was some back-room discussion about how the feds would grease the skids for this in return for their help with the neocons’ cloak-and-dagger fun and games.
@25
He’s a pro-war Democrat, dummy.
Oh. So that means he a liar and can’t be trusted?
Or was he just pointing out how democrats ran on a policy to get out of the war and then flip-flopped.
I guess that’s why the democrat led congress has even a lower approval rating than bush.
Whatever disgust the country has for bush, they obviously have more for the democrat controlled congress.
@32
Oh. So that means he a liar and can’t be trusted?
No, it means you can’t divine whether or not anti-war Democrats were blowing smoke, or whether they ran into political realities that prevented them from doing what they pledged to do.
When they have been asked about it, how do they answer?