Dems seem ready to extend wiretapping powers.

[jayhawk]

Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Power


By ERIC LICHTBLAU and CARL HULSE
Published: October 9, 2007

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after insisting that they would roll back broad eavesdropping powers won by the Bush administration, Democrats in Congress appear ready to make concessions that could extend some crucial powers given to the National Security Agency.

Administration officials say they are confident they will win approval of the broadened authority that they secured temporarily in August as Congress rushed toward recess. Some Democratic officials concede that they may not come up with enough votes to stop approval.

As the debate over the eavesdropping powers of the National Security Agency begins anew this week, the emerging measures reflect the reality confronting the Democrats.

Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.

A Democratic bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House would maintain for several years the type of broad, blanket authority for N.S.A. eavesdropping that the administration secured in August for six months.

In an acknowledgment of concerns over civil liberties, the bill would require a more active role by the special foreign intelligence court that oversees the interception of foreign-based communications by the security agency.

A competing proposal in the Senate, still being drafted, may be even closer in line with the administration plan, with the possibility of including retroactive immunity for telecommunications utilities that participated in the once-secret program to eavesdrop without court warrants.

No one is willing to predict with certainty how the question will play out. Some Congressional officials and others monitoring the debate said the final result might not be much different from the result in August, despite the Democrats’ insistence that they would not let stand the extension of the powers.

“Many members continue to fear that if they don’t support whatever the president asks for, they’ll be perceived as soft on terrorism,” said William Banks, a professor who specializes in terrorism and national security law at Syracuse University and who has written extensively on federal wiretapping laws.

The August bill, known as the Protect America Act, was approved in the final hours before Congress went on its summer recess after heated warnings from the administration that legal loopholes in wiretapping coverage had left the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack. The measure significantly reduced the role of the foreign intelligence court and broadened the security agency’s ability to listen to foreign-based communications without court warrants.

“We want the statute made permanent,” a spokesman for the Justice Department, Dean Boyd, said Monday. “We view this as a healthy debate. We also view it as an opportunity to inform Congress and the public that we can use these authorities responsibly. We’re going to go forward and look at any proposals that come forth. But we’ll look at them very carefully to make sure they don’t have any consequences that hamper our abilities to protect the country.”

House Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the bill in August and said the administration had been forced them into a corner.

As Congress takes up the new bills, a senior Democratic aide said, House leaders are working hard to ensure that the administration does not succeed in pushing through a bill that would make permanent all the powers it secured in August.

“That’s what we’re trying to avoid,” the aide said. “We have that concern too.”

The bill to be proposed on Tuesday by the Democratic leaders of the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees would impose more controls over the powers of security agency, including quarterly audits by the Justice Department inspector general. The measure would also give the foreign intelligence court a role in approving, in advance, “basket” or “umbrella” warrants for bundles of overseas communications, a Congressional official said.

“We are giving the N.S.A. what it legitimately needs for national security but with far more limitations and protections than are in the Protect America Act,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California.

Perhaps most important in the eyes of Democratic supporters, the House bill would not give retroactive immunity to the telecommunications utilities that participated in the eavesdropping. That has been a top priority of the administration. The temporary measure gave the utilities immunity for future acts, but not past deeds.

Private groups are trying to prove in federal court that the utilities violated the law by participating in the program.

A former senior Justice Department lawyer, Jack Goldsmith, seemed to bolster their case last week when he told Congress that the program was a “legal mess” and strongly suggested that it was illegal.

The House bill would also require the administration to disclose details of the program. Democrats say they plan to push the administration to turn over internal documents laying out the legal rationale for the program, something the administration has refused to do.

In the Senate, the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, is working with his Republican counterpart, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, a main proponent of the August plan, to come up with a compromise.

Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Mr. Rockefeller, said that retroactive immunity for the utilities was “under discussion” but that no final proposal had been developed.

The immunity issue may prove to be the crucial sticking point between whatever proposals the House and Senate ultimately pass. Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who was among the harshest critics of the temporary bill, said in an interview he would vigorously oppose any effort to grant retroactive legal protection to telecommunications utilities.

“There is heavy pressure on the immunity, and we should not cave an inch on that,” Mr. Nadler said.

Mr. Nadler said that he was worried the Senate would give too much ground to the administration in its proposal, but that he was satisfied with the bill to be proposed on Tuesday in the House.

“It is not perfect, but it is a good bill,” he said. “It makes huge improvements in the current law. In some respects it is better than the old FISA law,” a reference to the foreign intelligence court.

Civil liberties advocates and others who met House officials on Monday on the proposed bill agreed that it was an improvement over the August plan but were less charitable in their overall assessment.

‘This still authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without a warrant in far too many instances, and without adequate civil liberties protections,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, who was in the group that met House officials.

Caroline Frederickson, director of the Washington legislative office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was troubled by the Democrats’ acceptance of broad, blanket warrants for the security agency rather than the individualized warrants traditionally required by the intelligence court.

“The Democratic leadership, philosophically, is with us,” Ms. Frederickson said. “But we need to help them realize the political case, which is that Democrats will not be in danger if they don’t reauthorize this Protect America Act. They’re nervous.

“There’s a ‘keep the majority’ mentality, which is understandable,” she said, “But we think they’re putting themselves in more danger by not standing on principle."

See why I vote Libertarian?

Source.

[Firecat]

I'm not sure I care anymore. I figure the government will do whatever it wants any way.

[Blind_Io]

Bunch of spineless cowards.

I swear, at the next election I'm doing a write-in vote for Daffy freakin' Duck.

[jayhawk]

Originally Posted by Firecat

I'm not sure I care anymore. I figure the government will do whatever it wants any way.

Then I suggest you PM viper and have your avatar message say "doesn't give a shit." You should give a shit; do not think that because you are one voice that you cannot change the status quo. Have you ever read the book Common Sense? If not, please do! Thomas Paine was only one man, one man who in essence blew on the flames of revolution. The power of the individual to lead the masses cannot be dismissed.

Originally Posted by Blind_Io

Bunch of spineless cowards.

Exactly! I for one, do not subscribe to any Democrat, socialist or liberal ideology, but you can be DAMNED sure I will give them respect for standing up and speaking out for what they believe in, no matter if I agree or not.

[Firecat]

I agree with what you say, of course. I wasn't speaking in general terms, but to this issue specifically.

It's an issue that most Americans probably don't care about, and even if Congress did try to stop it (which they won't)...it will still be done, and nobody would know about it. Eventually it will be revealed that they overstepped their bounds even further, and then maybe there will be a change for real.

Wiretapping is a legitimate law enforcement tool. The feds are just being pricks going around doing it without warrants, but if they want a warrant...they will get them, whatever the case may be. And it will all be within the law.

[zenkidori]

Just goes to show you that it really doesn't matter who is i control of congress or who is in control of the white house, it's all pretty much the same.

The sad thing is that a lot of the time when I talk to people about BS like this and PATRIOTII and shit, one of the common replies is, "what do you care? what have you got to hide?". THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT!

firecat is right tho, with or without the warrant the FBI/whoever will get permission to tap. The problem I see with having no oversight is that someone in an agency that does these sort of things could use this for selfish purposes, either tapping for profit(from organized crime, foreign business, etc.) or to stalk someone, etc.

[Firecat]

And I think the only way for things to change is for the public to elect people that actually do believe in the constitution and have integrity. And these are the people that need to start running for public office. In a democracy (strong or weak), the revolution takes place with the ballot box.

[jayhawk]

It seems that Mr. Waxman is backpedaling on the issue. Apparently, his office was flooded with calls over the past few days. Is he lying, or not? Was it just a rumor?

(CNSNews.com) - Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) on Wednesday denied that he is conducting or ever planned to conduct a congressional investigation of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin and called on a conservative magazine to retract its report that he asked investigators to compile information on the popular conservative talk radio hosts.

"The American Spectator report about a congressional investigation into talk radio is completely false," Waxman, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said in a statement to Cybercast News Service. "There is no investigation."

Waxman was referring to a report Monday that he "has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows" to build a case for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

When asked if there had been ideas or plans to compile reports on the talk radio hosts, a spokesman for Waxman said, "No, there were not."

In his statement, Waxman called on the Spectator to "immediately retract the item and apologize for the confusion its fictitious report has caused."

In a posting on its Web site, an unnamed American Spectator author wrote that Waxman's denial "won't sway us from our reporting of earlier this week. And we stand by our story, which was conveyed to us by an Oversight Committee staffer."

"Further," the statement says, "we have been made aware of some conversations between staff on Oversight and career staff at the Federal Communications Commission about how best to approach oversight hearings on FCC policies."

The magazine accused Waxman of "looking for any opportunity to 1. Pursue and attack conservatives and the Bush administration; and 2. Gain gobs of publicity for Democrats in general and Rep. Waxman specifically. He accomplishes these lofty goals by using taxpayer dollars to investigate any number of individuals, organizations, government entities, corporations and industries."

Limbaugh came under fire from Democrats recently when he used the term "phony soldiers" in setting up discussion about Jesse Macbeth, an anti-war activist who was sentenced to five months in prison for falsifying his military records.

Macbeth claimed to have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and said in online videos that he witnessed U.S. troops committing atrocities there. But Macbeth never served overseas, having been in the Army only 44 days.

Limbaugh's comment set off a firestorm of criticism from Democrats in Congress and the liberal media critic group Media Matters for America, which claimed that Limbaugh used the "phony soldiers" label to describe all soldiers who oppose the war in Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democrats sent a letter to Clear Channel Communications, asking the broadcasting giant to force Limbaugh to apologize.

In the House, Rep. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) introduced a resolution that would have condemned Limbaugh.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who introduced his own resolution in support of Limbaugh, said Democrats' efforts to condemn the popular talk radio host were an attempt to lay the groundwork for bringing back the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine is a federal regulation that requires broadcasters to present both sides of a controversial issue. The rule was enforced from 1949 to 1987, when the Reagan administration allowed it to lapse.

Source.

[Firecat]

lol...Wrong thread?

http://forums.finalgear.com/political-discussion/possible-censorship-in-u-s-talk-radio-22016/

[tigger]

Originally Posted by Firecat

lol...Wrong thread?

Hahaa .

Originally Posted by Dean Boyd, Justice Department Spokesman

“We view this as a healthy debate. We also view it as an opportunity to inform Congress and the public that we can use these authorities responsibly."

Yeah, because I want to just let go and trust the government to do whats right for me. I can't even take these guys seriously anymore. What the hell is so hard about getting a warrant? Why can't they just do it legally? Man, it's beyond me. And of course the democrats are just going to do whatever they think will get them the votes. Damnit, grow a spine! Stand for something!

Originally Posted by zenkidori

The sad thing is that a lot of the time when I talk to people about BS like this and PATRIOTII and shit, one of the common replies is, "what do you care? what have you got to hide?". THAT'S NOT THE FUCKING POINT!

Exactly. I managed to convert my whole construction crew away blindly believing in that crap this summer, I was proud of myself . Told them about the whole erosion of civil liberties aspect, about how it sets a dangerous precedent for the future.