I think the "it's OK if the Attorney General says so" provision is already law but I don't see why the compromise would be offered if the only effect is to keep the say-so memo out of open court. Ashcroft doesn't have a reputation to protect.

Not congress so much as republicans but this should surprise no one.

"May I see your papers Comrade?"

Secret courts... Harsh interrogation techniques... Domestic eavesdropping... The erosion of checks and balances and governmental accountability and transparency...

Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Right?

Daddy State America.

I thought having Dmeocrats in power would stop all this. Insead we get more of the same:

"The legislation would require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries - and not suspected of anything - to send their prints to the feds. The database and fingerprint mandates were tucked into housing and foreclosure assistance bills that on Tuesday passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 19-2."

Link (new window)

keylock71: Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

I have a three year old. So I'm really getting a kick out of weeping into my palms.

hasty ambush: I thought having Dmeocrats in power would stop all this. Insead we get more of the same:

"The legislation would require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries - and not suspected of anything - to send their prints to the feds. The database and fingerprint mandates were tucked into housing and foreclosure assistance bills that on Tuesday passed the Senate Banking Committee by a vote of 19-2."

Link (new window)

Do you know who put inserted that clause into the bill? Was it a Democrat or a Republican?

Also, you do understand that once something like this is inserted into a bill the bill needs to either be voted up or down in total, right?

So, how does this shift in power change anything or are you trying to promote that ridiculous talking point that Congress is now run in some kind of totalitarian fashion by the Democrats?

Jesus.

How can you live in this country and be an American and hear the term "secret courts" and not say at the top of your lungs "Maybe in Russia, Maybe in the Third World, but NO. Not HERE. This is not the way."

All hail the almighty dollar!

for good or for awesome: keylock71: Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

I have a three year old. So I'm really getting a kick out of weeping into my palms.

4 year old here. it's hard telling her about fairness and about what America should be when she hears us frustrated about how it is.

Among her first phrases: "No more war!"

I'm scared that any sane person could ever think that this was a good idea.

/Weeps bitterly in a corner

DFWPhotoGuy: "Maybe in Russia, Maybe in the Third World, but NO. Not HERE. This is not the way."

I've been saying this for about six years now.

All hail the almighty frightened pants-pissers. What was that about trading liberty for safety?

yay for the military-industrial-media complex. another win for the corporations who really hold the power. Now to turn on Fox News for my two minutes of hate.

ZAZ: I think the "it's OK if the Attorney General says so" provision is already law but I don't see why the compromise would be offered if the only effect is to keep the say-so memo out of open court. Ashcroft doesn't have a reputation to protect.

He saved himself from eternal damnation though with this:

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

House and Senate Republicans on Thursday unveiled their latest proposal aimed at resolving the roughly 40 civil lawsuits filed against telecommunications companies that allegedly cooperated in the so-called warrantless wiretapping program.

So called? Were there warrents? No. So this is not a so-called warrentless wiretapping program. This is a warrentless wiretapping program.

So how would I go about investing in the manufacture of guillotines? I get the strange sensation that sales are going to skyrocket.

/You have 2009, elected officials.
//Don't at least show progress toward fixing this nation? 2010 is mob rule.

st.theresa: for good or for awesome: keylock71: Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

I have a three year old. So I'm really getting a kick out of weeping into my palms.

4 year old here. it's hard telling her about fairness and about what America should be when she hears us frustrated about how it is.

Among her first phrases: "No more war!"

Aww! Sounds like an adorable little peacenik.

st.theresa: Among her first phrases: "No more war!"

See if you can teach her, "No mercy for traitors!"

We're gonna need that one.

KeatingFive: ZAZ: I think the "it's OK if the Attorney General says so" provision is already law but I don't see why the compromise would be offered if the only effect is to keep the say-so memo out of open court. Ashcroft doesn't have a reputation to protect.

He saved himself from eternal damnation though with this:

In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced, sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's presence in the room, turned and left.

God damn, second thing I've seen that suggested Ashcroft, contrary to all my expectations, was actually the most moral and upstanding member of the administration. I would have thought Powell, but it was Ashcroft.

What the fark is wrong with this administration?

eddyatwork
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Right?

You have nothing to hide. Yet.

What happens if / when someone gets into power and decides your calls, web searches, and library books support terrorist activities.

Say you are reading up on Venezuela because you are a geology major studying rain forests. You are planning field study, so you Orbit a plan ticket and hotel. You call the embassy for work visa requirements. You check out a few manuals about the culture so you can be a good visitor.

The US decides that Venezuela is an enemy state and goes through its database looking for sympathizers. Your IP address and library card comes up. You get a one-way ticket to Gitmo, but you haven't been charged, can't call a lawyer and you sit there for five years hoping for your chance in secret court.

No, you have nothing to hide. You also have no one to call, so you are hidden, whether you want to be or not.

You are also the reason Congress gets away with this shiat. Pick up the phone and biatch at your representative and tell him/her that you will vote his/her ass out of office if they don't protect your rights and the fundamental backbone of these here United States.

/I did.

Why aren't the Democrats just digging in and telling Bush that if he wants A SINGLE one of his measures to pass, AT ALL, then they get their agenda?

Why are Democrats such weaklings and cowards, willing to be the butt-monkeys of GWB?

Who is worse, GWB or a Democratic party that is willing to bend over and say "Please, sir, give me some more--and I LOVE the chunky peanut butter!"?

hasty ambush: I thought having Dmeocrats in power would stop all this. Insead we get more of the same:

"The legislation would require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries - and not suspected of anything ...

No, this is the standard operating procedure for the US government and Industry. Low Regulation until you f*ck up (and the mortgage industry did f*ck up) then you get regulations to avoid the f*ck up and regulations to punish and humiliate you for the first f*ck up.

That's the deal, everybody agreed to it.

Komplex: hasty ambush: I thought having Dmeocrats in power would stop all this. Insead we get more of the same:

"The legislation would require thousands of individuals working even tangentially in the mortgage and real estate industries - and not suspected of anything ...

No, this is the standard operating procedure for the US government and Industry. Low Regulation until you f*ck up (and the mortgage industry did f*ck up) then you get regulations to avoid the f*ck up and regulations to punish and humiliate you for the first f*ck up.

That's the deal, everybody agreed to it.

Finger printing real estate agents is going to avoid future f*ck ups? Why not the defaulting home buyers who are equally if not more responsible?

I could see if you were accepting money from the government for a bail out-with government money comes government control but the legislation does not target just those accepting a bailout. It targets everybody "even tangentially" working in the industry.

the new law would be the exclusive authority to conduct electronic surveillance - essentially outlawing a revival of the warrantless wiretapping in the future

FISA already did that. Warrantless wiretaps are already illegal. Let's prosecute the farkers.

Silly_Sot: Why aren't the Democrats just digging in and telling Bush that if he wants A SINGLE one of his measures to pass, AT ALL, then they get their agenda?

Why are Democrats such weaklings and cowards, willing to be the butt-monkeys of GWB?

Who is worse, GWB or a Democratic party that is willing to bend over and say "Please, sir, give me some more--and I LOVE the chunky peanut butter!"?

That is an important question. What does he have on them, has he used the surveillance against members of the Congress or Senate to get dirt? Seems like he might as well have if he was going to be breaking the laws anyway, right? It seems to me the only logical conclusion. The hate between these parties runs deep and I believe if they could, they would have brought boosh and party down, but without veto majority, most of the damage was controlled. This telecom issue is further proof of that.

We may never know how deep this rabbit hole went.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the FISA courts have rejected one request for a warrant ever.

I bet if they were public they might put a little more effort into making sure it's worthwhile.

Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

Yeah, life here is truly hell.

I note, however, that this was done by a Congress overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats. Guess they weren't the solution after all.

Yukon Callmeal: I note, however, that this was done by a Congress overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats

Now where did I save my Inigo Montoya pic...

Yukon Callmeal: Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

Yeah, life here is truly hell.

I note, however, that this was done by a Congress overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats. Guess they weren't the solution after all.

Didn't say that... just think we've been on a very slippery slope for the last 8 years, politically, not to mention the state of the environment.

To quote George Carlin:

I love this country. I wouldn't live any other place at any other time in history. But, say what you want about America - land of the free, home of the brave - we've got some dumb ass motherfarkers floatin' around this country... dumb ass motherfarkers.

... and unfortunately those dumb ass motherfarkers are the folks in charge a lot of the times. What party those dumb ass motherfarkers belong to is irrelevant to me.

DFWPhotoGuy: How can you live in this country and be an American and hear the term "secret courts" and not say at the top of your lungs "Maybe in Russia, Maybe in the Third World, but NO. Not HERE. This is not the way."

This. In farking Spades.

you know, i would really, really like to know what is so hard about GETTING A farkING WARRANT.

Life in Amerikkka

FTFA: "There's not a whole lot farther you can go without seriously damaging" national security,

Oh noes! What would we do without the almighty and all knowing government to protect us from evil terrorists!?

Dear Republicans: It's getting old. Really, really, really old. Maybe you should go back to the "It's for the children" philosiphy because at least that one was mildly palpable. But the whole, "ZOMG Terrorist!" isn't working anymore. Not for most of us. At this point, anyone who has been paying attention is ten times more afraid of the government than of angry Muslims in caves 8000 miles away.

It's nice to see that Constitutional and Unconstitutional could see past their differences and come to an agreement.

Secret court? fark off

keylock71,

Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

So are we.

America: We get the government we DESERVE.

/farking losers

We're going to be forced to quarter British soldiers?

This legislation makes me terribly angry.

I don't care if the President of the United States comes to you, puts a knife in your hand, and instructs you to stab someone to prevent them from speaking. I don't care if the Attorney General personally asks you to torture information out of someone. I don't care if Congress fellatiates you on bended knees to go through your neighbor's mail and listen in on their phone conversations without a warrant. If you are responsible for violating the rights that are explicitly laid out in the constitution and you are not following the process for handling exceptions to the said rights (such as a warrant), you are responsible.

The phone companies involved had a bevy of lawyers to let them know that their actions were wrong and reprehensible. However, either their lawyers were deeply incompetent or the phone companies decided the government buck from this administration was more important.

This doesn't absolve the people in the government who encouraged or asked for these violations.

This is why I despise the Republicans and this administration. They repeatedly violated the law whenever it was convenient to them, and then they try to classify or pass laws to absolve themselves of any responsibility to the people. The Democrats may be contentious, fractious buffoons, with several corrupt members. However, they don't ban together to institutionalize the corruption party-wide. The Republicans have repeatly voted in lockstep for horrible legislation. There are a few small exceptions.

I want the court system to put the screws down so hard, that any company who faces a similar deal with a future administration of any party thinks twice. Only Q-West refused to participate in this travesty of law. It's been said that the people shouldn't fear the government, that the government should fear the people. Companies should also fear the people when they are knowingly assisting the government against the people.

/This Republican attempt to screw everyone else... makes me ranty.

KwameKilstrawberry: eddyatwork
If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Right?

You have nothing to hide. Yet.

What happens if / when someone gets into power and decides your calls, web searches, and library books support terrorist activities.

Say you are reading up on Venezuela because you are a geology major studying rain forests. You are planning field study, so you Orbit a plan ticket and hotel. You call the embassy for work visa requirements. You check out a few manuals about the culture so you can be a good visitor.

The US decides that Venezuela is an enemy state and goes through its database looking for sympathizers. Your IP address and library card comes up. You get a one-way ticket to Gitmo, but you haven't been charged, can't call a lawyer and you sit there for five years hoping for your chance in secret court.

No, you have nothing to hide. You also have no one to call, so you are hidden, whether you want to be or not.

You are also the reason Congress gets away with this shiat. Pick up the phone and biatch at your representative and tell him/her that you will vote his/her ass out of office if they don't protect your rights and the fundamental backbone of these here United States.

/I did.

We know who you are and where you are at. We would like to ask you a few questions, but we will have to take you to a special place where no one can find you. And no you can't talk to an attorney. Your congressman is concerned about your safety and would like to know why you hate America.

Signed,
Homeland Security

InferiousX: FTFA: "There's not a whole lot farther you can go without seriously damaging" national security,

Oh noes! What would we do without the almighty and all knowing government to protect us from evil terrorists!?

Dear Republicans: It's getting old. Really, really, really old. Maybe you should go back to the "It's for the children" philosiphy because at least that one was mildly palpable. But the whole, "ZOMG Terrorist!" isn't working anymore. Not for most of us. At this point, anyone who has been paying attention is ten times more afraid of the government than of angry Muslims in caves 8000 miles away.

Actually "its for the children" is reserved for the democrats

xbattlewax: Actually "its for the children" is reserved for the democrats


Touche.

bigmatty87: keylock71,

Not to get all dramatic, but I'm really glad I don't have any children.

So are we.

Is that supposed to be the royal "we", Mark Twain?

FTFA: The companies allegedly allowed the government to eavesdrop in the United States on phone and computer lines for nearly six years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks without the permission of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court created 30 years ago precisely for that purpose. Those lawsuits are pending before a single federal court.

Being somewhat in the telecom industry, I kinda feel sorry for the telco providers in this. I've received some of these "requests" from the government. They aren't requests at all. They are orders. It pisses me off the the corporate big wigs didn't fight to protect the rights of their customers, but if you've ever read one of these letters, I know I certainly wouldn't want that fight. I'm 50/50 on this one. 50% government's fault 50% telco fault. I say sue them both.