Senate Backs Wiretap Bill to Shield Phone Companies

New York Times ^ | 9 July 2008 | By ERIC LICHTBLAU

[shrinkermd]

WASHINGTON — More than two and a half years after the disclosure of President’s Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program set off a furious national debate, the Senate gave final approval on Wednesday afternoon to broadening the government’s spy powers and providing legal immunity for the phone companies that took part in the wiretapping program.

The plan, approved by a vote of 69 to 28, marked one of Mr. Bush’s most hard-won legislative victories in a Democratic-led Congress where he has had little success of late. And it represented a stinging defeat for opponents on the left who had urged Democratic leaders to stand firm against the White House after a months-long impasse.

“I urge my colleagues to stand up for the rule of law and defeat this bill,” Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, said in closing arguments.

But Senator Christopher S. Bond, the Missouri Republican who is vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said there was nothing to fear in the bill “unless you have Al Qaeda on your speed dial.”

Supporters of the plan, which revised the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, said that the final vote reflected both political reality and legal practicality. Wiretapping orders approved by a secret court under the previous version of the surveillance law were set to begin expiring in August unless Congress acted, and many Democrats were wary of going into their political convention in Denver next month with the issue hanging over them—handing the Republicans a potent political weapon.

So instead, Congress approved what amounted to the biggest restructuring

[envisio]

Because he wants the same unchecked power.

...and thats a good thing.
He is not listening to you to find out what your plans are at grama's house this weekend. He's listening to people that want to kill you.

Can you understand that? He's listening to people that want to kill you. They want you and your family to die. period. They don't want your land. They don't want your women. They don't want your plasma TV. They want you and your family to die because you are not muslim. That is what their "god" tells them.

...and you bleeding hearts want to take the tools away from people that are trying to protect you.

[Popman]

Stop being so naive

The government can violate your fourth amendment right every day.

At this moment your IPS service has a sniffer packet mandated by the government that potentially will track:

* Which Web sites you visit
* What you look at on the site
* Whom you send e-mail to
* What's in the e-mail you send
* What you download from a site
* What streaming events you use, such as audio, video and Internet telephony
* Who visits your site (if you have a Web site)

If the FBI has reasonable cause, they will get a court order to have the ISP monitor and back up your info.

[PastorTony]

If the FBI has reasonable cause, they will get a court order to have the ISP monitor and back up your info.

And therein lies the major difference between your example and the FISA bill - the court order.

[Popman]

And therein lies the major difference between your example and the FISA bill - the court order.

Please point out where in the FISA bill a court order is not required ?

Every "search" still needs a court order, though the only difference is the timing.

AQ in the ME is calling AQ suspect in LA, we don't have the luxury of waiting for a court order three days later. The "search" is still reviewed.

You calling your mother for her meatloaf recipe is not being monitored unless her meatloaf is highly explosive and she lives in Pakistan

[PastorTony]

I am not concerned about them listening to my conversations with my mom. I am concerned about giving the government more powers than the Founder’s believed they should have.

There is a huge difference betwen you and I. You believe the government is good and has our best interest in mind. I believe the government is not always good and can be used against the people. These powers that the government have now, can easily be turned on anyone that they may label “terrorist” since the definition is very broad. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist whether it be pro-life protesters, Christians speaking out against homosexuality, gun dealers, or a myriad of other groups.

So in an almost paranoia state of fear over ME terrorists the government now has been granted powers far greater than they should have. This “timing” of the court order goes against the plain reading of the 4th Amendment.

[Popman]

I am concerned about giving the government more powers than the Founder’s believed they should have.

You are a little late, Mr. Abe Lincoln is your chief problem, he started the ball rolling taking more government powers.

There is a huge difference between you and I. You believe the government is good and has our best interest in mind.

I'm sorry, that is so stupid a premise, it is not even worthy of a response. You have absolutely no idea what I think about the government.

Think classical liberalism and look it up the definition before you embarrass yourself thinking I'm a liberal

[amchugh]

Not that I’m necessarily disagreeing, but if there were no rights infringed prior to this, why is retroactive telecom immunity needed again?

[PastorTony]

As a classical liberal then why are you so willing to give even more power to the government? While Lincoln surely started the ball rolling, are we just supposed to give up and surrender all rights because of an irrational fear of Muslims?

[PastorTony]

By the way you jumped into the accusing me first of being naive. I am well aware of what the government already has the power to do. Many of those powers are overreaching as it stands already. I believe we need to roll things back substantially. My point is in this whole topic is that we do not need to give them even more power than they already have. The ones who are being naive are those that think that this cannot be used against them one day. The 5th is there for a reason, further trampling of it for the sake of the “WOT” is not wise and conservatives should be opposing it.

[envisio]

...if there were no rights infringed prior to this, why is retroactive telecom immunity needed again?

Lets say I am the telecompany, and the local police office is the govmt.
The local police knocks on my door and tells me that there have been some robberies in the neighborhood and to look out for a red chevy. I see a red chevy the next day and, in the interest of my family's safety, I report that I just saw a red chevy to the police. The police then pull the chevy over but it is the wrong chevy and they go on about their business.

Am I responsible for the red chevy owner's inconvenience?

[mysterio]

I don’t trust the government. While I certainly have nothing to hide, it’s a slippery slope. We can only hope that the precident doesn’t allow some future president to justify more overt spying techniques.

Well said.

[amchugh]

Obviously not, but if you aren’t, and it is obvious, what is the immunity for?

[envisio]

These powers that the government have now, can easily be turned on anyone that they may label “terrorist” since the definition is very broad. Anyone can be labeled a terrorist whether it be pro-life protesters, Christians speaking out against homosexuality, gun dealers, or a myriad of other groups.

Good Lord, man.
I bet you go through like 6 rolls of tinfoil a week.

[envisio]

Because some bleeding hearts that want to do anything to stop this act will sue the telecoms therefore creating a precedent that will allow the telecoms to refuse to supply the govmt with the info. That way, the bleeding hearts have cut off the supply line, in effect stopping the process.

By granting immunity to the telecoms, they are leaving the lines open, without consequence.

This way the telecoms will continue to supply info without the fear of being sued.

[envisio]

...because of an irrational fear of Muslims

[PastorTony]

The FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in Phoenix, AZ published a brochure which was sent out to local law enforcement agencies. Included on their list of potential domestic terrorists were “defenders of US Constitution against federal government and the UN”.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg

No tin foil hat here. I just prefer not to give the government more powers that the Constitution allows them.

[PastorTony]

Oh and also, if you are a “property rights activist” Virginia considers you a terroristic threat.

http://www.virginianewssource.com/images/VATerrorismManual.pdf

Pennsylvania believes anti-government groups, such as people who believe that “U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered to the U.N., World Court, and World Bank” are terrorists.

http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/index.asp

Ditto for Alabama

http://web.archive.org/web/20060110071648/www.homelandsecurity.alabama.gov/tap/anti-gov_grps.htm

So it’s not only those Muslims that you fear so much. I bet a lot of the comments here on FR could be considered domestic terrorism under these broad and subjective definitions.

[PastorTony]

So let me ask you then, how far are you willing to go so you feel safe at night? How many of your rights are you willing to give up?

Would you give up the right to free speech to feel safe? How about religious freedom? Maybe we need a government run church so that no Muslim doctrine can get out there.

How about the 2nd Amendment. Why not ban all guns so those Muslims can’t get them. The government will surely keep us safe.

How many rights are you willing to give up to feel safe?

[M203M4]

http://www.pa-aware.org/who-are-terrorists/domestic-5.asp

I recommend everyone start from page 5 of the "domestic terrorists" section.

A prominent link declares, connected to a section on domestic terrorism, "A 'patriot group' is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center as opposed to the “New World Order” or advocating or adhering to extreme antigovernment doctrines."

Typical beliefs of domestic terrorists:

Gun Control is a conspiracy to enslave us starting with the removal of our ability to either defend ourselves or forcefully change our government.

The first ten amendments of The Constitution are God given and all others are temporary, invalid or outright fraudulent.

All judicial authority resides with the people. The jury, not the Judge, directs trials and can nullify laws they do not approve of.

U.S. sovereignty is being surrendered to the U.N., World Court, and World Bank, with the U.S. becoming an economic region of this New World Order.

A symbol of anti-government domestic terrorism:

And YES, this is a GOVERNMENT WEBSITE:

Terrorism Awareness and Prevention is provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency in partnership with the Pennsylvania Department of Health as a Crime Prevention & Safety Initiative.

[djsherin]

Thank you. I think this is getting to be too much of a democrat vs. republican debate.