The "Protect America Act"...

[bullypulpit]

...Has less to do with protecting America than it does with accruing more power to the Executive branch under the guise of national security. Let's look at some of it s provisions.

First is the retroactive immunity to lawsuits for those companies which participated in the electronic surveillance of US citizens without a court order/ warrant. If such behavior is legal, as the Bush administration asserts, why do these corporations require such immunity?

The report to the FISA court under this piece of legislation would detail only how the program deals with the intercepts of persons "reasonably believed" to be overseas. What becomes of those intercepts of electronic communications from ordinary Americans caught up in this fishing expedition is not detailed at all, let alone mentioned.

The bi-annual reports to congressional Judicial and Intelligence sub-committees will contain information only about the violations of the <b>secret</b> guidelines used by the Attorney General to target subjects of surveillance. Nor does the AG have to report on how many Americans' calls have been tapped, picked up incidentally or even how many Americans are official subjects of surveillance.

The current "sunset" clause of this pernicious law may be of little values as it will fall in the middle of a heated campaign season where there will be little, if any, enthusiasm for correcting the glaring deficiencies of this deeply flawed piece of legislation.

But most important is the nature of the "warrants"issued under this act. The Attorney General, not the court or other independent body, has the authority to issue warrants lasting up to a year against anyone "reasonably suspected" of being outside the US. The FISA court is cut entirely out of the loop. These warrants are also effectively "blanket warrants" which are a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and I quote,

<blockquote>...no Warrants shall issue, <b>but upon probable cause</b>, supported by Oath or affirmation, and <b>particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized</b>.</blockquote>

With the Legislative and Judicial branches effectively out of the picture oversight of the Executive branch becomes a polite fiction, at best. At worst, it becomes totally non-existent.

The Bush administration has repeatedly argued that the process of obtaining individualized warrants is "too time consuming". But under the FISA Act of 1979, the AG has 72 hours within which to retroactively obtains a warrant after the surveillance has started, and in that nearly thirty years, only four, count 'em, <b>FOUR</b> requests for warrants from the FISA court have been denied.

Surveillance of the citizens of a country absent effective judicial or legislative oversight is a police state tactic of benefit to no one but those holding the reigns of power. Such authority sought by the Executive branch, under the guise of national security, is little more than a power grab intended to stifle dissent and eventually identify those dissenters and target them for punishment.

The Constitution was not crafted to make abuses of power convenient for any one branch of government, particularly the Executive branch. The system of checks and balances was designed to prevent such abuses. The GOP controlled Congress of 2000 to 2007, however, shamefully placed loyalty to party and president above their duties to their constituents and the Constitution, when it rubber-stamped the Bush administrations' assault on the Constitution. But as far as Bush is concerned, "...It's just a god-damned piece of paper....", after all.

[bullypulpit]

What? No takers? I am disappointed.

[bullypulpit]

See above.

[Dilloduck]

Are you worried that Hillary will abuse this exectutive "power" ?

[hjmick]

Are you worried that Hillary will abuse this exectutive "power" ?

We all know she would never relinquish it. Of course, whoever the next President is, Dem or Repub, I doubt that they would be inclined to relinquish the new powers either. Everyone runs around acting as if Bush is the only President who would benefit by the consolidation of these powers. Reality check: The next President will have the very same access to these powers. No, actually, they will have the benefit of not having been the one to acquire them, Bush is saving them the trouble. Get a grip folks, once the office of the President has them, it won't let them go, no matter who sits in the big chair.

[typomaniac]

We all know she would never relinquish it. Of course, whoever the next President is, Dem or Repub, I doubt that they would be inclined to relinquish the new powers either. Everyone runs around acting as if Bush is the only President who would benefit by the consolidation of these powers. Reality check: The next President will have the very same access to these powers. No, actually, they will have the benefit of not having been the one to acquire them, Bush is saving them the trouble. Get a grip folks, once the office of the President has them, it won't let them go, no matter who sits in the big chair.

Unless there's some sort of "emergency" between now and 11/08 that causes Bush to "postpone" the elections. Which he can - sort of - legally do. :poke:

[hjmick]

Unless there's some sort of "emergency" between now and 11/08 that causes Bush to "postpone" the elections. Which he can - sort of - legally do. :poke:

:lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

I am worried over the government having too much control, or one branch dominating the others, I thought the intent was to balance ech other.

The names of bills are so b.s.


...Has less to do with protecting America than it does with accruing more power to the Executive branch under the guise of national security. Let's look at some of it s provisions.

First is the retroactive immunity to lawsuits for those companies which participated in the electronic surveillance of US citizens without a court order/ warrant. If such behavior is legal, as the Bush administration asserts, why do these corporations require such immunity?

The report to the FISA court under this piece of legislation would detail only how the program deals with the intercepts of persons "reasonably believed" to be overseas. What becomes of those intercepts of electronic communications from ordinary Americans caught up in this fishing expedition is not detailed at all, let alone mentioned.

The bi-annual reports to congressional Judicial and Intelligence sub-committees will contain information only about the violations of the <b>secret</b> guidelines used by the Attorney General to target subjects of surveillance. Nor does the AG have to report on how many Americans' calls have been tapped, picked up incidentally or even how many Americans are official subjects of surveillance.

The current "sunset" clause of this pernicious law may be of little values as it will fall in the middle of a heated campaign season where there will be little, if any, enthusiasm for correcting the glaring deficiencies of this deeply flawed piece of legislation.

But most important is the nature of the "warrants"issued under this act. The Attorney General, not the court or other independent body, has the authority to issue warrants lasting up to a year against anyone "reasonably suspected" of being outside the US. The FISA court is cut entirely out of the loop. These warrants are also effectively "blanket warrants" which are a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and I quote,

<blockquote>...no Warrants shall issue, <b>but upon probable cause</b>, supported by Oath or affirmation, and <b>particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized</b>.</blockquote>

With the Legislative and Judicial branches effectively out of the picture oversight of the Executive branch becomes a polite fiction, at best. At worst, it becomes totally non-existent.

The Bush administration has repeatedly argued that the process of obtaining individualized warrants is "too time consuming". But under the FISA Act of 1979, the AG has 72 hours within which to retroactively obtains a warrant after the surveillance has started, and in that nearly thirty years, only four, count 'em, <b>FOUR</b> requests for warrants from the FISA court have been denied.

Surveillance of the citizens of a country absent effective judicial or legislative oversight is a police state tactic of benefit to no one but those holding the reigns of power. Such authority sought by the Executive branch, under the guise of national security, is little more than a power grab intended to stifle dissent and eventually identify those dissenters and target them for punishment.

The Constitution was not crafted to make abuses of power convenient for any one branch of government, particularly the Executive branch. The system of checks and balances was designed to prevent such abuses. The GOP controlled Congress of 2000 to 2007, however, shamefully placed loyalty to party and president above their duties to their constituents and the Constitution, when it rubber-stamped the Bush administrations' assault on the Constitution. But as far as Bush is concerned, "...It's just a god-damned piece of paper....", after all.

[bullypulpit]

Are you worried that Hillary will abuse this exectutive "power" ?

Yes, no President should have such power vested in the office which is so inimical to the Constitution and the rule of law.

[bullypulpit]

We all know she would never relinquish it. Of course, whoever the next President is, Dem or Repub, I doubt that they would be inclined to relinquish the new powers either. Everyone runs around acting as if Bush is the only President who would benefit by the consolidation of these powers. Reality check: The next President will have the very same access to these powers. No, actually, they will have the benefit of not having been the one to acquire them, Bush is saving them the trouble. Get a grip folks, once the office of the President has them, it won't let them go, no matter who sits in the big chair.

Then they have no right to that "chair".

[bullypulpit]

I am worried over the government having too much control, or one branch dominating the others, I thought the intent was to balance ech other.

The names of bills are so b.s.

The Constitution was set forth a tripartite government with check and balances to ensure that too much power did not gather into the hands of too few people. This process was short-circuited when A, We forgot that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance; and B, when Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House from 2000 to 2006, congressional Republicans utterly abandoned their oversight duties and responsibilities. They placed loyalty to party and president above their duties to the Constitution and their constituents, and none who act in such a manner are worthy of the office the hold or seek to hold.

[trobinett]

Then they have no right to that "chair".

As usual, fault is found, yet no "cure" is forth coming, typical.

Does it NEVER change?:slap:

[bullypulpit]

As usual, fault is found, yet no "cure" is forth coming, typical.

Does it NEVER change?:slap:

There is only one cure...Restore the constitutionally established separation of powers. Unless our elected officials are willing to do this and we, the people, continue to hold their feet to the fire, no cure will be forthcoming.

[Dilloduck]

There is only one cure...Restore the constitutionally established separation of powers. Unless our elected officials are willing to do this and we, the people, continue to hold their feet to the fire, no cure will be forthcoming.

Are you really expecting the government to fix something? Get real, Bully.

[hjmick]

Then they have no right to that "chair".

They have every right that that huge bundle of cash they spend ten months out of every year (with the exception of election years when it's eleven months) raising buys them.

Bully, I get the impression that you are operating under the deluded notion that the people currently seeking political office, any political office, have the best interests of this country and it's population in their hearts and minds. The reality, unfortunately, is that their main interest is gaining power and keeping power.

I am of the opinion that the last two Presidents who were interested in what was best for this country and it's people were Carter and Reagan. Maybe Bush the elder. Prior to Carter, I think you have to go back to Eisenhower and his predecessors.

[bullypulpit]

Are you really expecting the government to fix something? Get real, Bully.

You've been drinking the GOP kool-aid for far too long. But, if the government under the next administration fails to even attempt to repair the damage done to the Constitution, the separation of powers and the checks and balances needed to prevent abuses of power, then we, the people will have to take up the responsibility upon ourselves which, after all, is where it ultimately rests.

[bullypulpit]

They have every right that that huge bundle of cash they spend ten months out of every year (with the exception of election years when it's eleven months) raising buys them.

Bully, I get the impression that you are operating under the deluded notion that the people currently seeking political office, any political office, have the best interests of this country and it's population in their hearts and minds. The reality, unfortunately, is that their main interest is gaining power and keeping power.

I am of the opinion that the last two Presidents who were interested in what was best for this country and it's people were Carter and Reagan. Maybe Bush the elder. Prior to Carter, I think you have to go back to Eisenhower and his predecessors.

I'm operating under no such delusion. Most Americans, however, have long since forgotten, if they ever knew, that the ultimate responsibility for the quality of our government rests with us, as citizens of this Republic. Most Americans take the freedoms they have enjoyed for so long for granted, assuming that they will always be there. But unless we wake up to just what is happening instead of fixating on the latest exploits of the celebretard of the minute or "American Idol" those freedoms will disappear. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom as Thomas Jefferson reminds us. e also said that "The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be refreshed by the blood of patriots...and tyrants. Unless people are willing to pay the price, do they really deserve the freedom they take for granted?

[red states rule]

Libs are delusional. They want to go out of their way to protect the "rights" of terrorists and try to fight a PC war

Not only do some on the left want to extend US Constitutional rights to terrorists - now we have to be carful not to insult them with "racist" terms

Colmes: Offensive to Call Terrorists 'Islamic,' Use 'Books Not Bombs' on Hamas
By Brad Wilmouth | October 14, 2007 - 04:13 ET
If you thought the proper way to refer to terrorists who commit violence in the name of Islam was by using such terms as "Islamic terrorists," "Islamic militants," or even "Islamic extremists," be on notice that you may be offending Alan Colmes. In fact, even if you refer to the terrorist group "Islamic Jihad" by that name, which is the name the group uses to refer to itself, you're still not in the clear. Such was the absurd view expressed by the liberal FNC host on Friday's "Hannity and Colmes" as he argued that the use of the word "Islamic" is an attack on the entire religion, and characterized the term "Islamo-fascism" as "hate speech" and as "demonization" of Islam. In response to a Hamas recruitment video targeting Palestinian children to become martyrs, Colmes further suggested that the best way to combat such terrorist groups is to use "books, not bombs," and "better education, not war." (Transcript follows)

During Friday's show, the topic of what Islamic extremists should be called was first raised by Colmes during a discussion with conservative author David Horowitz regarding the upcoming "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" at George Washington University. After Horowitz complained about liberal students creating a poster portraying conservative students as hating Muslims, with Horowitz accusing liberals of using a "hate campaign," Colmes commented that the phrase "Islamo-fascism" constitutes "hate speech." Colmes: "You talk about hate speech. The words, the phrase 'Islamo-fascism' is hate speech. It equates an entire religion with fascism. That's what people object to. It conflates the two, and it's wrong."

A later segment with terrorism analyst Steve Emerson featured discussion of a video produced by the terrorist group Hamas, and broadcast on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV, which depicts small children, including a two-year-old, being taught to embrace terrorism. (A clip of this video can be seen here, and a story run by InfoLiveTV giving background on the subject can be seen here.) During the discussion, Emerson explained that the video was an attempt to "demonize" Jews and Christians and to encourage children to grow up with a willingness to kill. Colmes used Emerson's comment as a springboard to accuse the terrorism analyst of "demonizing" Islam in using the term "Islamo-fascism." Colmes: "But, Steve, aren't you demonizing Islam? When you use words like 'Islamo-fascism,' it conflates an entire religion with fascism, and that's demonization, and it offends an entire religion?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/14/fncs-colmes-offended-calling-islamic-terrorists-islamic-use-books-not

[bullypulpit]

Libs are delusional. They want to go out of their way to protect the "rights" of terrorists and try to fight a PC war

Not only do some on the left want to extend US Constitutional rights to terrorists - now we have to be carful not to insult them with "racist" terms

Colmes: Offensive to Call Terrorists 'Islamic,' Use 'Books Not Bombs' on Hamas
By Brad Wilmouth | October 14, 2007 - 04:13 ET
If you thought the proper way to refer to terrorists who commit violence in the name of Islam was by using such terms as "Islamic terrorists," "Islamic militants," or even "Islamic extremists," be on notice that you may be offending Alan Colmes. In fact, even if you refer to the terrorist group "Islamic Jihad" by that name, which is the name the group uses to refer to itself, you're still not in the clear. Such was the absurd view expressed by the liberal FNC host on Friday's "Hannity and Colmes" as he argued that the use of the word "Islamic" is an attack on the entire religion, and characterized the term "Islamo-fascism" as "hate speech" and as "demonization" of Islam. In response to a Hamas recruitment video targeting Palestinian children to become martyrs, Colmes further suggested that the best way to combat such terrorist groups is to use "books, not bombs," and "better education, not war." (Transcript follows)

During Friday's show, the topic of what Islamic extremists should be called was first raised by Colmes during a discussion with conservative author David Horowitz regarding the upcoming "Islamo-fascism Awareness Week" at George Washington University. After Horowitz complained about liberal students creating a poster portraying conservative students as hating Muslims, with Horowitz accusing liberals of using a "hate campaign," Colmes commented that the phrase "Islamo-fascism" constitutes "hate speech." Colmes: "You talk about hate speech. The words, the phrase 'Islamo-fascism' is hate speech. It equates an entire religion with fascism. That's what people object to. It conflates the two, and it's wrong."

A later segment with terrorism analyst Steve Emerson featured discussion of a video produced by the terrorist group Hamas, and broadcast on Hamas Al-Aqsa TV, which depicts small children, including a two-year-old, being taught to embrace terrorism. (A clip of this video can be seen here, and a story run by InfoLiveTV giving background on the subject can be seen here.) During the discussion, Emerson explained that the video was an attempt to "demonize" Jews and Christians and to encourage children to grow up with a willingness to kill. Colmes used Emerson's comment as a springboard to accuse the terrorism analyst of "demonizing" Islam in using the term "Islamo-fascism." Colmes: "But, Steve, aren't you demonizing Islam? When you use words like 'Islamo-fascism,' it conflates an entire religion with fascism, and that's demonization, and it offends an entire religion?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2007/10/14/fncs-colmes-offended-calling-islamic-terrorists-islamic-use-books-not

What the fuck are you talking about? Oh, that's right, it's not you...Just another cut-and-paste non-sequitur from the "King of Cut-and-Paste". Have you ever had an ORIGINAL thought? And just how is protecting the Constitution from unwarranted assaults on the rights it guarantees to all AMERICANS incompatible with protecting America?

[red states rule]

What the fuck are you talking about? Oh, that's right, it's not you...Just another cut-and-paste non-sequitur from the "King of Cut-and-Paste". Have you ever had an ORIGINAL thought? And just how is protecting the Constitution from unwarranted assaults on the rights it guarantees to all AMERICANS incompatible with protecting America?

Try reading my post slowly

The left thinks it can fight and win a PC war

We can't insult them and we must protect their "rights"

You resemble that remark BP

[bullypulpit]

Try reading my post slowly

The left thinks it can fight and win a PC war

We can't insult them and we must protect their "rights"

You resemble that remark BP

I read your "post". It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Now, answer the fucking question..."How is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting America?"

[red states rule]

I read your "post". It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Now, answer the fucking question..."How is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting America?"

Once again, how is listening to terrorists phone calls, tracking their money, watching their movements, and blocking the use of successful interrogation methods used on terrorists going to win this war?

Again, libs are more interested in opposing Pres Bush, losing the war for political gain, and trying to fight a PC war - then winning the war

[bullypulpit]

Once again, how is listening to terrorists phone calls, tracking their money, watching their movements, and blocking the use of successful interrogation methods used on terrorists going to win this war?

Again, libs are more interested in opposing Pres Bush, losing the war for political gain, and trying to fight a PC war - then winning the war

There's nothing wrong with it as long as it falls within the four corners of the law. And, torture IS NOT a "successful" interrogation method> You've been watching "24" again, haven't you.

Opposition to Chimpy McPresident is secondary to protecting the Constitution, which is no different from protecting America. Absent the Constitution, there is no America.

Now, will you answer the fucking question..."How is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting ans defending America?"

[red states rule]

There's nothing wrong with it as long as it falls within the four corners of the law. And, torture IS NOT a "successful" interrogation method> You've been watching "24" again, haven't you.

Opposition to Chimpy McPresident is secondary to protecting the Constitution, which is no different from protecting America. Absent the Constitution, there is no America.

Now, will you answer the fucking question..."How is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting ans defending America?"

This may come as a shock to you BP - foreign terrorists are NOT covered by the US Constitution and the GC

Once again, your kind is trying to fight a PC war - one we can't win. Of course, that is what your party has set out to do from the beginning

[bullypulpit]

This may come as a shock to you BP - foreign terrorists are NOT covered by the US Constitution and the GC

Once again, your kind is trying to fight a PC war - one we can't win. Of course, that is what your party has set out to do from the beginning

Sorry dickweed. The SCOTUS in the "<i>Hamdan v. Rumsfeld</i>" case ruled that <a href=http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661&from_page=../index.cfm>Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions DOES apply</a> to alleged terrorist detainees in US custody. Since Military commissions derive their authority under Articles I and II and the UCMJ, your contention that the Constitution does not apply to these individuals is also on shaky ground.

Now...ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION! How is protecting and defending the Constitution incompatible with protecting and defending America?

[bullypulpit]

Chirp...Chirp...Chirp...

[hjmick]

I'm operating under no such delusion. Most Americans, however, have long since forgotten, if they ever knew, that the ultimate responsibility for the quality of our government rests with us, as citizens of this Republic. Most Americans take the freedoms they have enjoyed for so long for granted, assuming that they will always be there. But unless we wake up to just what is happening instead of fixating on the latest exploits of the celebretard of the minute or "American Idol" those freedoms will disappear. Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom as Thomas Jefferson reminds us. e also said that "The tree of liberty must, from time to time, be refreshed by the blood of patriots...and tyrants. Unless people are willing to pay the price, do they really deserve the freedom they take for granted?

I don't disagree with you. We, and I mean the population in general not necessarily you and I specifically, continue to elect the same people over and over again and I'm not sure why. Is it because it's easy? Because there is an impression that the incumbents know what they're doing? I find it strange that year after year these politicians continue to ignore and screw the constituents they purport to represent and we keep re-electing them. I shake my head in disbelief at times.

Oh, and I didn't really think you were delusional, it just sounded good. ;)

[bullypulpit]

I don't disagree with you. We, and I mean the population in general not necessarily you and I specifically, continues to elect the same people over and over again and I'm not sure why. Is it because it's easy? Because there is an impression that the incumbents know what they're doing? I find it strange that year after year these politicians continue to ignore and screw the constituents they purport to represent and we keep re-electing them. I shake my head in disbelief at times.

Oh, and I didn't really think you were delusional, it just sounded good. ;)

Not to worry, I didn't take it personally. I was just getting irritated with the dickweed. :cheers2:

[bullypulpit]

Hmmm...Still no answer. How are supporting and defending the Constitution incompatible with supporting and defending America?

[bullypulpit]

Come now, the question really isn't that difficult.

[SpidermanTUba]

Are you worried that Hillary will abuse this exectutive "power" ?
Yes.

[PostmodernProphet]

since Red is probably still in the hospital, I will pick it up for him.....defending the Constitution isn't incompatible with supporting and defending America....but the claims you have made about the statute in question are incompatible with claims of defending the Constitution......

[Immanuel]

Are you worried that Hillary will abuse this exectutive "power" ?

Yes, aren't you?

I am worried that whoever is President will abuse this executive power whether it is Hillary, Barack, Mitt, Ron, John, Joe, Sam, Chris, Bill, Dennis, Mike, Fred or who ever.

Immie

[bullypulpit]

since Red is probably still in the hospital, I will pick it up for him.....defending the Constitution isn't incompatible with supporting and defending America....but the claims you have made about the statute in question are incompatible with claims of defending the Constitution......

Howso, when the statute in question serve to undermine the rights of Americans.

Let me direct you here:

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31496leg20070829.html>Analysis of the Protect America Act</a></center>

[bullypulpit]

Yes, aren't you?

I am worried that whoever is President will abuse this executive power whether it is Hillary, Barack, Mitt, Ron, John, Joe, Sam, Chris, Bill, Dennis, Mike, Fred or who ever.

Immie

Indeed, no president should be granted the powers assumed by the Bush administration since 9/11.

[PostmodernProphet]

Howso, when the statute in question serve to undermine the rights of Americans.

Let me direct you here:

<center><a href=http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31496leg20070829.html>Analysis of the Protect America Act</a></center>
Because the analysis is wrong.....for example...

"U.S. persons are no longer protected from warrantless surveillance"....they weren't prior to the act either, so nothing has changed.....