Senate caves to Mr. 25% on wiretapping

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

109th Congress = rubber stamp Congress
110th Congress = rubber stamp Congress

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/4/04858/29657?detail=f

[KEmperor]

Legitimate news source please.

[Silent Hunter]

Legitimate news source please.

Concur.

[riceowl]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20108672/

but its amazing how stories like this really fall fast on the front pages of msm sites...

[Silent Hunter]

Thank you. The bill expires in six months.

[Nym90]

109th Congress = rubber stamp Congress
110th Congress = rubber stamp Congress

So things are no better now than before? We might as well just put the Republicans back in the majority?

Not that I don't share your disgust with the Congress on this issue, but statements like the above don't help matters. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good.

[Democratic Hawk]

While the Democratic proposed Bill failed the House 218 - 207, well short of the two-thirds majority required for passage

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll821.xml

3 Republicans, Roscoe Bartlett and Wayne Gilchrest, of Maryland, along with Walter Jones of North Carolina voted for it; while 193 voted against

It was opposed by 14 Democrats: Earl Blumenauer, Michael Capuano, Bob Filner, Rush Holt, Jay Inslee, Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Michael Michaud, John Olver, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Peter Welch and Lynn Woolsey

So, I guess most Republicans opposed it because the Bill didn't go far enough; while a few Democrats voted against because it went too far

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While the Democratic proposed Bill failed the House 218 - 207, well short of the two-thirds majority required for passage

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll821.xml

3 Republicans, Roscoe Bartlett and Wayne Gilchrest, of Maryland, along with Walter Jones of North Carolina voted for it; while 193 voted against

It was opposed by 14 Democrats: Earl Blumenauer, Michael Capuano, Bob Filner, Rush Holt, Jay Inslee, Dennis Kucinich, Jim McDermott, James McGovern, Michael Michaud, John Olver, Pete Stark, Maxine Waters, Peter Welch and Lynn Woolsey

So, I guess most Republicans opposed it because the Bill didn't go far enough; while a few Democrats voted against because it went too far

Dave

That's not the bill. The House hasn't voted yet. Hopefully the House is the cooling saucer for the Senate's extremism here.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yesterday, the House voted On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007 by 218 votes to 207, which is what I assumed the msbnc article was referring to

Dave

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Yesterday, the House voted On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass Improving Foreign Intelligence Surveillance to Defend the Nation and the Constitution Act of 2007 by 218 votes to 207, which is what I assumed the msbnc article was referring to

Dave

No, the House has yet to vote on their version of the wiretapping bill.  The bill you linked to has aye votes from Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinch, Lynn Woolsey, and Pete Stark. That tells me all I need to know about that bill.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This diary is about the House vote, which is predicted to happen later today:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/4/15211/80769

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The House gave Bush's fascism a stamp of approval.
I really need to re-register as an Independent, I don't support either of the fascist parties. Maybe I'll fund some primary challengers.

[Rob]

There is a rather astounding statement in the New York Times article covering this:

Under pressure from President Bush, House Democrats on Saturday grudgingly prepared to move ahead with approving changes in a terrorist surveillance program despite serious reservations...

Yeah, read that first line again. Under pressure from President Bush...

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the Democratic Party?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There is a rather astounding statement in the New York Times article covering this:

Under pressure from President Bush, House Democrats on Saturday grudgingly prepared to move ahead with approving changes in a terrorist surveillance program despite serious reservations...

Yeah, read that first line again. Under pressure from President Bush...

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with the Democratic Party?

The Democratic party is not the friend of the American people that they pretend to be.  The reason they don't stand up to Bush is that they support him over the 71% of this country that disapproves of him.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This vote will forever overshadow Barry Bonds tying Hank Aaron's home run record of 755 runs.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Supreme Court wasn't batsh**t crazy right-wing, they could be expected to strike down this very unconstitutional law, but we're stuck with it for at least 6 months (when the Democrats will probably re-capitulate). So much for the 4th amendment.

[Ebowed]

The Democrats are such a joke.  I really don't see how any Republican could complain about these guys.  They bend over backwards to deliver practically everything Bush asks for, even if they pretend they'll oppose it.

All of the Democratic candidates running for President voted against wiretapping this week, but the Democratic leadership didn't stop it from passing.  What an interesting conflict.

[Democratic Hawk]

Time for another perspective

Surely, given the threats faced such measures are necessary to enhance freedom and protect civil society from those who seek to destroy it. Yes, terrorism is a real threat (rather than a hyped one), and all reasonable steps must be taken be counter such threats

Imagine if a terrorist attack was to succeed, which could have been prevented by wiretapping in the event of the executive not having the authority to do so, who would get the blame then? Think about it. Is it not better to be safe than sorry?

As to the constitutionality of it, as I understand it, it is for the Supreme Court to determine, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, whether it considers such to be "unreasonable" or not

Dave

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The democrats are a joke

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Time for another perspective

Surely, given the threats faced such measures are necessary to enhance freedom and protect civil society from those who seek to destroy it. Yes, terrorism is a real threat (rather than a hyped one), and all reasonable steps must be taken be counter such threats

Imagine if a terrorist attack was to succeed, which could have been prevented by wiretapping in the event of the executive not having the authority to do so, who would get the blame then? Think about it. Is it not better to be safe than sorry?

As to the constitutionality of it, as I understand it, it is for the Supreme Court to determine, in accordance with the Fourth Amendment, whether it considers such to be "unreasonable" or not

Dave

You totally miss the point. Current law allows for wiretapping without a warrant, they just have to find some friendly judge to get a warrant within a couple of days. That's not enough for the fascists who want to use this to spy on their domestic political opponents. This makes Watergate look like nothing. As for the Supreme Court, maybe you missed it, but the right-wing controls it.

[Umengus]

the angry of left is a real pleasure.

A victory for innocent people.

The oppositon of Clinton and others are amunition for rep candidates. "john Kerry remake".

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You totally miss the point. Current law allows for wiretapping without a warrant, they just have to find some friendly judge to get a warrant within a couple of days. That's not enough for the fascists who want to use this to spy on their domestic political opponents. This makes Watergate look like nothing. As for the Supreme Court, maybe you missed it, but the right-wing controls it.

Domestic political opponents?  Oh, like you.  Ok.

Watergate?  I dont recall the Congressional Democrats sanctioning Watergate, like they're sanctioning this program.

They will cave every time this issue comes up...

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Senator Frank Church of IDAHO is spinning in his grave at the death of the 4th amendment. Why did so few Senators and Representatives stand with the Idaho Senator and the 4th amendment?

[Silent Hunter]

Senator Frank Church of IDAHO is spinning in his grave at the death of the 4th amendment. Why did so few Senators and Representatives stand with the Idaho Senator and the 4th amendment?

I'd hardly call 29 Senators "few".

[Democratic Hawk]

The oppositon of Clinton and others are amunition for rep candidates. "john Kerry remake".

Indeed, this will allow the Republicans to play the national security card to great effect. More fools the Democratic presidential field walking into the trap by opposing it

Dave