NSA Bill Performs a Patriot Act! -- This IS 1984!!

[Breeze54]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71778-0.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

NSA Bill Performs a Patriot Act

By Ryan Singel| Also by this reporter
15:30 PM Sep, 13, 2006

A bill radically redefining and expanding the government's ability to eavesdrop and search
the houses of U.S. citizens without court approval passed a key Senate committee Wednesday,
and may be voted on by the full Senate as early as next week.

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB2453,
the National Security Surveillance Act (.pdf),
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/s2453.pdf
which was co-written by committee's chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania)
in concert with the White House.

The committee also passed two other surveillance measures, including one from
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), one of the few senators to be briefed on
the National Security Agency program. Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored
before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments
and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

In contrast, Specter's bill concedes the government's right to wiretap Americans
without warrants, and allows the U.S. Attorney General to authorize, on his own,
dragnet surveillance of Americans so long as the stated purpose of the surveillance
is to monitor suspected terrorists or spies.

Lisa Graves, senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the bill "stunning."

"The administration has taken their illegal conduct in wiretapping Americans without court orders,
in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Constitution,
and used it as springboard to not only get FISA changed to allow the Terrorist Surveillance Program,
but to actually, going forward, not give protections to Americans' privacy rights," Graves said. <--snip

That program has recently been declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Detroit,
and is being challenged by more than 20 lawsuits across the country.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,71610-0.html

The bill:

* Redefines surveillance so that only programs that catch the substance of a communication need oversight.
Any government surveillance that captures, analyzes and stores patterns of communications
such as phone records, or e-mail and website addresses, is no longer considered surveillance.
"WTF?!?!?! So... guess that gets AT&T off the hook, eh?

* Expands the section of law that allows the attorney general to authorize spying on foreign embassies,
so long as there's no "substantial likelihood" that an American's communication would be captured.

* Repeals the provision of federal law that allows the government unfettered wiretapping and physical searches
without warrants or notification for 15 days after a declaration of war.
The lack of any congressional restraint on the president's wartime powers arguably puts the president
at the height, rather than the ebb, of his powers in any time of war, even an undeclared one.

* Repeals the provision of federal law that limits the government's wartime powers to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches to a period of 15 days after a declaration of war.

* Repeals the provision of federal law that puts a time limit on the government's wartime powers
to conduct warrantless wiretapping and physical searches against Americans.
Under current law, the president has that power for only 15 days following a declaration of war.

* Allows the attorney general, or anyone he or she designates, to authorize widespread domestic spying,
such as monitoring all instant-messaging systems in the country,
so long as the government promises to delete anything not terrorism-related.
AG can monitor anything he damn well wants to as long as he "promises..."?
:wtf:

* Moves all court challenges to the NSA surveillance program to a secretive court in Washington, D.C.,
comprised of judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Only government lawyers would be allowed in the courtroom.
More secrets?? Just what we DON'T need!!! :grr:

* Allows the government to get warrants for surveillance programs as a whole, instead of having
to describe to a judge the particular persons to be monitored and the methods to be used.

:puke: :wtf: :nuke: :grr:

[truebrit71]

1. Got Fascism?

We will soon enough....

[The2ndWheel]

2. Really? The NSA?

A giant secret agency? They would do this? Get outta town.

You're telling me, an agency designed to spy, around the world, wasn't going to come back eventually to where it started?

And obviously the NSA won't go anywhere, because we think we can reform it, just put the right people in charge, and everything will be fine.

[Breeze54]

27. In the words of JFK...

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically
opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of
excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it."

-- President John F. Kennedy (27 April 1961)

in a speech before the American Newspaper Publishers Association (27 April 1961)

[Breeze54]

3. Tell President Bush to do the Right Thing!

Tell President Bush to do the Right Thing

Last week, a Federal District Court judge in Detroit ruled that President Bush's

policy of wiretapping without judicial review was unconstitutional and illegal.

The ruling came as no surprise to most attorneys and Constitutional scholars.

It has been obvious since this program was revealed that it stood in stark violation of the law.

That is why I am asking you to forward an email to President Bush, asking him to abide by the court's decision.

It's time to send this President a clear message that we will not give into fear,

and we will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.



It's time to send this President a clear message that

we will not give into fear, and we will not sacrifice our fundamental freedoms.


SIGN THE PETITION/LETTER HERE!!!

http://ga3.org/campaign/bush_wiretap_ruling?rk=W1wGhfE1QzrKE

[Breeze54]

4. Stop spying on us!

Stop spying on us!

President Bush recently made a shocking admission:

The President admitted to personally authorizing a secret domestic eavesdropping
operation inside the United States almost 40 times since 2001 --
a program that operates without warrants and without judicial review.

Still more shockingly, President Bush defiantly vowed to continue this illegal
clandestine operation, despite clearly violating the Constitution and federal law.

Well in the United States, the President is not above the law -- even during a time of war.

It's time for him to end this warrantless program of spying on Americans.

Email President Bush now, demanding that he protect our civil liberties and

stop spying on Americans outside our clearly established laws and without court review.

SIGN HERE!!!
http://ga3.org/campaign/stopspying/

[Nikki Stone 1]

5. Kick

:kick:

[bdamomma]

7. if he spies on us can we spy on him.

[EFerrari]

6. What bullshit! We have to have a call in day and shut down

the Capitol switchboard!

:wtf:

This IS 1984!

[originalpckelly]

8. This law would be unconstitutional, read the 4th amendment:

"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."

You cannot have a general warrant, and in fact a general warrant was one of things that prompted the colonists to declare their independence from Great Britain. At the time general warrants were called writs of assistance:
"Role in the American Revolution

The writs played an important role in the increasing difficulties that led to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States of America. In 1760, England began to enforce some of the provisions of the Navigation Acts by granting customs officers these writs. In New England, smuggling had become common. Massachusetts' new governor, Sir Francis Bernard, ordered the writs be created for the customs collectors. While the Navigation Acts might affect only external commerce, the customs duties were viewed as an internal tax.

The colonists had several problems with these writs as they were applied. They were permanent and even transferable: a writ holder could assign them to another. Any place could be searched at the whim of the holder, and searchers were not responsible for any damage they caused. This put anyone who had such a writ above the law. When the writs were challenged in court, Bernard's attorney general James Otis resigned rather than defend them. In fact, Otis became the lead attorney for the other side.

The arguments advanced colonial thinking about rights and their relation with Britain. While some use of the writs was suspended, their role in raising tax revenue was later supplemented by taxes on sugar, tea, and the Stamp Act. Further efforts to enforce them a decade later led to martial law. Boston was occupied and General Thomas Gage became the military governor in 1774.

In response to the much-hated writs, several of the colonies included a particularity requirement for search warrants in their constitutions when they declared independence in 1776. Several years later, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also contained a particularity requirement that completely outlawed writs of assistance (and all general search warrants) in the United States."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writs_of_Assistance

[Breeze54]

9. Thanks for posting that!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

:applause:

[LibertyorDeath]

10. and if the Constitution meant jack shit to these thugs you'd have a point

as it is America is on a fast track to Authoritarianism..

[obreaslan]

11. OH yeah, I thought there was once a document that we had somewhere...

That was supposed to protect the common person from this kind of stuff. The Constitution, that's what I was thinking of. In fact there is an entire center devoted to this particular document right here in Philly if I remember correctly.

THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER, PHILADELPHIA, PA


Perhaps Senator Spector should visit it sometime. It's right in his home state. :grr:

[treestar]

47. I highly recommend it to Shrub and Cheney

They seem to have missed learning about that document in high school history.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

31. awesome

[treestar]

48. Great stuff! Just shows how these sobs are not in sync with the

very spirit of the USA.

[Ioo]

12. Bill Stalled in House - And as Soon as signed, will be sued.

Just know that ALL bills have to be okay by the constitution.

This bill will never pass that, it kills the 4th amendment, and all the laws in the world can not break this other than an amendment.

I pray it dies in the house....

[Breeze54]

13. I HOPE you're right!

Cheney helped Spector to write that bill! :grr: Figures!

But we still should bombard them with e-mails and phonecalls, imho!

;)

[bigluckyfeet]

37. Call the Bastards in Congress

and raise hell.I am!

[Breeze54]

38. Kudo's!

Me too! I'm calling and I've sent e-mails, so far.

And I've been passing the word. ;)

Tell your Reps to FILIBUSTER!!!!!!!!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[treestar]

44. Pisses me off that the sheeple have elected representatives who

even try to pass laws so blatantly unconstitutional.

[Hosnon]

53. Some countries in Europe have Constitutional Courts that review

proposed legislation and have to sign off on its constitutionality before it can become law. Not sure what effect that has on future challenges though.

I think a court like that could do some good here.

[hootinholler]

14. This one only has 3 Recs?!?!?!

:wtf:

-Hoot

[redqueen]

15. Four now...

and yeah... :wtf:

[Breeze54]

16. Thanks! I want

to try to get everyone to send a couple of e-mails with the links above! ;)

[redqueen]

21. Related thread...

might give it a kick or three. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2128322

[Breeze54]

24. You hot s**t... er... ticket! lmao!

:hi:

888-355-3588 <-- Is this the number to the Senate? I saw it in the other thread. ;)

888-355-3588
888-355-3588
888-355-3588
888-355-3588
888-355-3588

Call them!!!

[StrictlyRockers]

17. K & R Fug this shite man. I'm moving to France.

Or maybe it's not too late to fight this bill. It sounds pretty awful. Big Brother's Iron Heel manifested in paper form. Can we fight it in the House?

[Breeze54]

19. Well.... sign these; and call 888-355-3588 !!

sign these; (posted above) for starters and call your Rep!

http://ga3.org/campaign/bush_wiretap_ruling?rk=W1wGhfE1QzrKE

and this

http://ga3.org/campaign/stopspying/

===================

Find info, phone numbers etc for your rep here!

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

* Congress
* Federal Agencies
* Supreme Court
* State Officials
* Local Officials
* Take Action on Issues
* Soapbox: Raise an Issue
* Hand Deliver Your Letters
* Read Letters to Leaders
* Power Rankings
* Vote Monitor
* Search Recent Votes
* Search Current Bills
* Add Us to Your Web Site
* Send to a Friend
* Capitol Hill Basics
* Media Guide
* Books on Congress
* Register to Vote

Welcome to DU! :hi:

And pass these petitions/letters to everyone you know!
;)

[Nickster]

18. Someone tell me again how good and moderate Specter is again?

How many times will people fall for Specter's crap? He's a lapdog just like the rest of them!

[Breeze54]

20. He's an asshole!

Arlen Specter
U.S. Senator (PA)
Nickname: "Peach Fuzz"
http://www.whitehouse.org/kids/nicknames.asp

More like TRAITOR!!!!!!
:grr:

[redqueen]

25. Who falls for that bulls$&t act?

Nobody here, I hope!

:wtf:

[Breeze54]

22. Keys to Spotting the Traitors! <snark> lol

I must be a traitor than! :sarcasm:

[Straight Shooter]

23. America, home of the not-very-free and land of the scared-shitless-bushies

This is disgusting.

[Rex]

26. One word in the bill makes it unconstitutional

Spies - how can anyone be sure if a citizen is a spy or gets set up and arrested for being a 'spy'? Makes ya laugh? Sure, why not. It ain't fascism until they knock down your front door! Right? That's how it works?

Citizen, you act in a weird and suspicious manner. You could be a 'spy', so we will have to hold you.

For questioning?

No.

The law says we don't need a reason anymore.

Welcome to 1984.

[Breeze54]

41. Good find!

I missed that... thanks! :hi:

[Breeze54]

28. Forgot to add:

From the same article in the OP....

Sep, 13, 2006

Specter has moved to have his bill voted upon next week by voice vote,

called a unanimous consent motion, according to the ACLU's Graves.

Such a procedure would leave no record of who voted for or against the bill. :wtf:

I want to fucking know who votes for this!!!!!!!!! :grr:

It does just take one person to object to unanimous consent to stop the voice vote,
so we need to be calling our senators day and night and tell them to vote this sucker down,
and then filibuster when it gets entered the normal way.

Keep calling... Capitol Hill Switchboard... Senate and Reps! 888-355-3588

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[akushuki]

30. Dont worry, ever watch c-span?

A senator will just yell out that they want the vote recorded. Controversial stuff they always want on their record.

[Breeze54]

32. I'm not worried...I'm pissed!

This is total BS!! :grr: But I hope you're right!
And yeah...I catch C-Span on the net as much as possible! ;)
But I want the votes recorded and postable!

:hi: Welcome to DU!!

[mom cat]

29. FILABUSTER!

[Breeze54]

33. Sam Sedar is discussing this now on Majority Report.... with

Glenn Greenwald, proprietor of the blog Unclaimed Territory
and author of the New York Times bestseller "How Would a Patriot Act?"
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/09/specter-bill-much-closer-to-being.html

http://www.majorityreportradio.com/weblog/index.php

Listen here.... might have to go to archives now? :shrug: Or the repeat show.
http://play.rbn.com/?url=airam/airam/live/live.rm&proto=rtsp

[madmusic]

34. your appendix is more likely to kill you!

But despite the never-ending litany of warnings and endless stories of half-baked plots foiled, how likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack?

Comparing official mortality data with the number of Americans who have been killed inside the United States by terrorism since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma reveals that scores of threats are far more likely to kill an American than any terrorist -- at least, statistically speaking.

In fact, your appendix is more likely to kill you than al-Qaida is.

With that in mind, here's a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005 (extrapolated from best available data).

S E V E R E
Driving off the road: 254,419
Falling: 146,542
Accidental poisoning: 140,327

H I G H
Dying from work: 59,730
Walking down the street: 52,000.
Accidentally drowning: 38,302

E L E V A T E D
Killed by the flu: 19,415
Dying from a hernia: 16,742

G U A R D E D
Accidental firing of a gun: 8,536
Electrocution: 5,171

L O W
Being shot by law enforcement: 3,949 WATCH OUT!
Terrorism: 3147
Carbon monoxide in products: 1,554

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71743-0.html?tw=wn_index_3

We sacrifice the Constitution for this "danger"?

[treestar]

43. Don't give them any ideas

The "War on Auto Accidents" will have Bushie claiming he needs to monitor every auto trip! All our phones calls, so the police can listen in and see who might be about to drive drunk/upset/while old, etc.!

[Breeze54]

46. Hmmm, actually...

What's that device that comes pre-installed now?

It finds your car if stolen? :shrug: I forget the name of it...

That's it!! LO-Jack!!

www.lojack.com/find-stolen-car.html

[Swamp Rat]

35. Good bye America!

:hi:

[Breeze54]

36. Awesome pic Swamp Rat!

:hi:

;) (Why are you smiling?) lmao!

[Danger Mouse]

39. Well shit.

Bye, America. Was nice knowing you.

[Breeze54]

40. You said it...unless we can stop it!

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[treestar]

42. I wonder if anyone has ever stopped to ask

If the hijackers ever received any phone calls from abroad.

The government probably doesn't have enough Arabic translators to decipher all those greeting to mom and dad back home in time to get through to the terror messages, having alienated the population from amongst whom the bilingual could be recruited. It didn't have enough to get the chatter translated right before 911.

[Breeze54]

45. That's probably "classified info"......

:sarcasm:....

I think I recall that being discussed at some point. :shrug:

Let me know if you find any info about it!
;)

[Jcrowley]

49. It's there for all to see

K&R

[Breeze54]

51. Love the pic!

;)

Welcome to DU!! :hi:

[earth mom]

50. The founding fathers are rolling over in their graves!

:grr:

[Breeze54]

52. My head is hurting from this and

that moron's press screaming conference today! :grr:

I agree with you! unbelievable!!! :grr:

[cyberpj]

54. WHO VOTED HOW? I can't seem to find that out. Here are members:

By a 10-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB2453, the National Security Surveillance Act

Wonder when they actually held any vote - since this was posted on the site:

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE HEARING CANCELLATION
The hearing on "Intelligence Information Sharing" scheduled by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office Building has been cancelled.
By order of the Chairman

Here are the Members and a link:
(Anyone know how we can find out how each one voted?)

MEMBERS

Arlen Specter
CHAIRMAN, PENNSYLVANIA

Orrin G. Hatch
UTAH

Charles E. Grassley
IOWA

Jon Kyl
ARIZONA

Mike DeWine
OHIO

Jeff Sessions
ALABAMA

Lindsey Graham
SOUTH CAROLINA

John Cornyn
TEXAS

Sam Brownback
KANSAS

Tom Coburn
OKLAHOMA

Patrick J. Leahy
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, VERMONT

Edward M. Kennedy
MASSACHUSETTS

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
DELAWARE

Herbert Kohl
WISCONSIN

Dianne Feinstein
CALIFORNIA

Russell D. Feingold
WISCONSIN

Charles E. Schumer
NEW YORK

Richard J. Durbin
ILLINOIS

http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm

[Breeze54]

56. This may explain the confusion.--

Wash. Post article on congressional debate over wiretapping, detention ignored approval of bipartisan Feinstein bill

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609150003

Fri, Sep 15, 2006 12:23pm EST

Summary: Washington Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a GOP bill that would essentially codify the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. But Weisman ignored a bipartisan bill passed by the same committee that would reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for all domestic eavesdropping for foreign intelligence purposes.

In a September 14 article, Washington Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman reported that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved along party lines a GOP-sponsored, White House-backed bill to essentially codify the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. But Weisman ignored a bill sponsored by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein and passed by the committee on a bipartisan vote to reaffirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- which requires court approval for all domestic eavesdropping for foreign intelligence purposes -- as the "exclusive means" by which the government can conduct domestic electronic surveillance.

In the article, Weisman covered recent developments on Capitol Hill relating to both the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and the debate over how to prosecute terrorism suspects. On the NSA program, Weisman reported that on September 13 -- after "prodding from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.)" -- the Senate Judiciary Committee passed Senate Bill 2453, the measure crafted by committee chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and modified after negotiations with the White House. As currently written, the bill would explicitly recognize the president's "inherent authority" to approve warrantless eavesdropping, thereby annulling FISA's central requirement -- that it "shall be the exclusive means" by which the government conducts domestic electronic surveillance. Further, it would give the president discretion over whether to submit the program to the FISA court for legal review. If the FISA court ruled that the warrantless spying program was illegal, the attorney general would then have the option of submitting an unlimited number of new applications to request that the program, or a modified version of it, be approved.

From the September 14 Post article:

With prodding from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 along party lines to approve a bill negotiated with the White House to allow -- but not require -- Bush to submit the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program to a secret court for constitutional review.

That bill, which could come before the Senate next week, is considered by many to be a ratification of the administration's current surveillance program, which monitors the overseas phone calls and e-mails of some Americans when one party is suspected of links to terrorism. The program has been attacked by Democrats and civil liberties advocates as an excessive encroachment on Americans' privacy.

"The committee took the important step of acknowledging the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), an ardent Bush ally.

Absent from Weisman's article, however, was any mention of the separate surveillance bill sponsored by Feinstein and Specter, which the committee passed that same day with bipartisan support. Indeed, the eight Democrats on the committee, along with Republican members Specter and Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC), approved Senate Bill 3001 on September 13 by a vote of 10-8. The Feinstein-Specter bill would reaffirm FISA as the "exclusive means" for domestic electronic surveillance. Further, it would address concerns that the current FISA process is too cumbersome by expanding the "hot pursuit" surveillance period from three days to seven days, devoting more resources to the processing of FISA warrants, and allowing the president to authorize warrantless surveillance for a period of 15 days following a congressional authorization of military force or a terrorist attack on the United States.

[cyberpj]

58. Thank you so much for this. It would appear though, that confusion

would be the underlying problem - whereby one gives permission and one takes it away so wouldn't that be a sort of "confusion loophole" if they both got passed?

I guess what we need is for only the Specter/Feingold bill to be approved, yes?

[Breeze54]

65. No!

I don't want ANY of it!! :grr:

But maybe... Feinstein's the way to go; if we have to, as her's requires individual warrants
and FISA court oversight. Oversight being the key word. Checks and balances and records!!!
Bush and his ilk want carte blanche, to ride rough shod over all our rights in the Constitution!
:nuke:

[Breeze54]

57. Conflicting Bills - (S. 2453); (S. 3001); (S. 2455)

Conflicting Bills on Warrantless Surveillance Advance in Senate

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/09/conflicting_bills_on_warrantle.html

The Senate Judiciary Committee set the stage for further congressional debate over warrantless electronic surveillance by reporting out competing bills that are mutually contradictory.

A bill (S. 2453) sponsored by Committee Chairman Arlen Specter would sharply diminish judicial oversight of intelligence surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and expand unilateral presidential authority. On the other hand, a bill (S. 3001) sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein would reaffirm that FISA is the exclusive mechanism for conducting domestic intelligence surveillance, while making certain modifications in the Act. A third bill (S. 2455), sponsored by Sen. Mike DeWine, was also reported out.

"The bill makes compliance with FISA entirely optional, and explicitly validates the President's claim that he has unfettered authority to wiretap Americans in the name of national security," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in a critical commentary.

"I have been briefed on the terrorist surveillance program," said Sen. Feinstein, "and I have come to believe that this surveillance can be done, without sacrifice to our national security, through court-issued individualized warrants for content collection on U.S. persons under the FISA process."

"So I have offered this provision to ensure that the program is carried out under the law and to make it clear that FISA remains the exclusive authority for the content collection on U.S. persons," she said.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) charged that the Bush Administration had deliberately withheld information about the surveillance program from Congress to frustrate congressional oversight.

"This refusal to respond to legitimate information requests from the Oversight Committee, combined with the administration's over-restriction of member and staff access to the NSA program, is part of a cynical White House strategy to prevent Congress from either acting or forcing it to legislate on vital national security and privacy issues in the dark," he said.

Sen. Russ Feingold concurred that due to excessive secrecy, "The Judiciary Committee was left to legislate in the dark, with many members blindly seeking to legalize illegal behavior without even an understanding of whether those changes are actually necessary."

Meanwhile, in the House, a bill sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM) faced opposition from the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies, as well as from civil libertarians.

The bill was examined in detail in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. See "H.R. 5825 (109th Congress): 'Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act'" (pdf), September 8, 2006.

The various competing bills were discussed, and notably analyzed by James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, in a September 6 hearing of the House Judiciary Committee on "Legislative Proposals to Update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act."

The full hearing record of three Senate Judiciary Committee hearings earlier this year on "Wartime Executive Power and the National Security Agency's Warrantless Surveillance Authority" has just been published (908 pages).

[cyberpj]

59. Yep. That's exactly what I thought. How will John Q. Public understand?

It all makes our government processes look ridiculous.
Well, MORE ridiculous.

Breeze - you should post that last entry as a separate entity and maybe we can get it voted up and onto the Greatest page for more people to see.

[Breeze54]

60. I don't even think the Senate understands!

Do you mean this one? "Conflicting Bills - (S. 2453); (S. 3001); (S. 2455)"?

or this one?

"Wash. Post article on congressional debate over wiretapping, detention ignored approval of bipartisan Feinstein bill"

DONE! ;)



It appears to me that a lot of people are confused and I'm still trying to find how they met!!

I can see why reporters may have been confused also! Gheesh!!

[Breeze54]

62. Done!

;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2829786

[cyberpj]

66. Great. Thanks. Now let me go recommend and add some info...

ps - I'm happy for your son's safe return. I pray he can avoid ptsd. Peace.

[Breeze54]

67. Thanks, He's doing A-OK!

;)

[Initech]

55. That's it, Feinstein is gone. I'm tired of this shit.

Argh. :argh:

[Spiffarino]

61. I think you may have misread the article

From the article:
Feinstein's bill, which Specter co-sponsored before submitting another bill, rebuffs the administration's legal arguments and all but declares the warrantless wiretapping illegal.

[Initech]

63. Yeah, that was kind of confusing...

[Spiffarino]

64. I think it's Feinstein who's confusing

She comes off as conservative on so many issues it's a little hard to catch when she stands up for Democratic ideals. I think this is one case where she is mostly on our side, though I would like to see her take a tougher stance on Constitutional grounds. Still, I give her a lot of credit.