Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping (or weak on terrorism)

[rodeodance]

Source: nytimes




August 1, 2007
Democrats Scrambling to Expand Eavesdropping
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, July 31 — Under pressure from President Bush, Democratic leaders in Congress are scrambling to pass legislation this week to expand the government’s electronic wiretapping powers.

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

........

In the past few days, Mr. Bush and Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, have publicly called on Congress to make the change before its August recess, which could begin this weekend. Democrats appear to be worried that if they block such legislation, the White House will depict them as being weak on terrorism.

“We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said in a statement Monday night..........

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/washington/01nsa.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

---

[Demeter]

1. In the Name of the Constitution--WHY?

Shakes head, goes to get alcohol at 8 am.

[ixion]

2. what pressure from Bush? I don't get it...

he's one of the most unpopular preznits in history, and yet they bow to the "pressure" exerted by this chump.

Some opposition. :eyes:

[rodeodance]

4. well, the Repugs stand behind him-------so, technically it IS bush YET?

[yurbud]

12. Bush still equals the businesses behind him and they probably want it

[JDPriestly]

15. Why would they want it?

Many of them would be the subjects of the eavesdropping. This makes no sense.

[yurbud]

16. Thom Hartmann mentioned yesterday: find out about upstart competitors and keep plebes in line

they still want the framework of the fascist state even if they can't have it now.

[Popol Vuh]

57. The "Corporate Party"

Like I have been saying for years... There is but one party in our country - the (C) Corporate Party. This party comes in two flavors (R) & (D). They serve but one master....the Corporation.

The very few true Democrats there have been in recent times have been reduced to irrelevance in the court of public opinion because of the use of our 'Corporate' media.

Vote them out? HA! Not on our 'Corporate' ran elections...

[rodeodance]

3. at least the Dems are Opposing giving Gonzo Oversite!!:

.....Representative Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico and a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said, “Admiral McConnell has made the case that this change is needed and that it is a serious problem. This is too serious for political games.”

One obstacle to a deal this week is a disagreement between Democrats and the White House over how to audit the wiretapping of the foreign-to-foreign calls going through switches in the United States.

The Democrats have proposed that the eavesdropping be reviewed by the secret FISA court to make sure that it has not ensnared any Americans.

The administration has proposed that the attorney general perform the review, but Democrats are unwilling to give that kind of authority to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is under fire for what some lawmakers describe as his misleading testimony about the dismissals of federal prosecutors and the wiretapping program.

[sazemisery]

5. This ties in with kpete's post on Greatest page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1479959

If they are illegal programs then why are they being continually funded?

Why is * and McConnell urging Congress to expand the programs?

Fuck the fear of being labeled "weak on terrorism" and stand up to the real terrorists that occupy our White House and Executive Branch (and whatever branch Cheney belongs to this week).

[OzarkDem]

34. Since they're illegal programs

the Dems also know about them because they're funding them, so why are they letting them continue?

[OnyxCollie]

6. If there is a false flag attack this August,

and there are no adjustments to eavesdropping, bushco and the repubs will blame the Dems for partisan bickering instead of protecting national security.

[Supersedeas]

17. something is in the works...the timing is very suspicious

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Reichstag Fire, part 2 (the Sequel) -- soon appearing at a venue

near you!

[guruoo]

7. Story needs a fact-check

I seriously doubt that Reid said this....
"rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security,”

[EFerrari]

11. Another way would be to check the articles this guy has written.

I agree -- there's something wrong with this story.

[mzmolly]

19. One important point is that the new program requires previous court approval.

That's not something that we should have an issue with. :hi:

[EFerrari]

23. I have no problem with Reid. My worry was that the media

could be joining the Thuggery (again) to entrap Democrats. :)

[mzmolly]

38. I totally agree sfexpat.

I meant not to come across otherwise. :hi:

[EFerrari]

50. Harry Reid and Nancy are between the Thuggery and their media

and their pissed off base.

But, I can't think of two people who can so ably meet this challenge. These are some strong, centered people. And I'm glad they're in the leadership. :hi:

[mzmolly]

53. Me too sfexpat.

They are indeed between a rock and a hard place, but I trust them very much.

:)

[guruoo]

68. Lots of experience between those two. n/t

[guruoo]

67. That was my first thought when I read this n/t

[OnyxCollie]

20. James Risen was the reporter who blew the lid off the domestic surveillance.

He, along with Eric Lichtblau, won the Pulitzer Prize in 2006 for their reporting of the domestic surveillance.

http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2006/national-reporting/

[EFerrari]

21. I wonder when these two knew about the story. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

66. The original story, or this latest story?

The NYT first learned about the NSA wiretapping in 2004. Vicki Toensing, in her testimony during the Plame case, gave cover to both the NYT and bushco. From her testimony:

"They certainly knew, the CIA, how to go and send the top people when they didn't want, in December of 2005, when they didn't want The New York TImes to publish the NSA surveillance program."

But that's not exactly what happened. In 2004, The NYT was threatened by Bushco with the possiblity that publishing the story could result in a terrorist attack. The NYT decided to sit on the story for a year. According to The Times' editor Bill Keller in a December 16, 2005 CNN article:

"A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security.

"Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions.

"As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time."

Had The Times received the leaked information before the '04 election? If it had been published it likely would have changed the outcome. Instead, The NYT cowered and allowed Bushco to steal the election. And it doesn't appear that the CIA determined what was finally published.

"Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record."

[sazemisery]

24. Here's the quote - from his own website

http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=280058

Press Release of Senator Reid

Reid: Democrats, Republicans Must Work Together To Modernize FISA, Make America Safer

Monday, July 30, 2007

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the following statement today in response to the Administration’s call for Congress to modernize FISA:

“Although it is unfortunate that the Bush Administration’s refusal to treat Congress as a partner on critical national security issues has led to the urgent situation we face today, I am committed to giving our intelligence community the tools they need to fight terrorism and am working very hard with the most senior members of the Administration to do that as soon as possible.

“This is a huge and complex undertaking that will require working in a bipartisan manner if we are to get it done right. We hope our Republican counterparts will work together with us to fix the problem, rather than try again to gain partisan political advantage at the expense of our national security. Democrats and Republicans should work together on this to make America more secure and I pledge to do just that.”

[donkeyotay]

59. The dems went from conducting an investigation to being stampeded

into accommodating bush, again, and being seen as weak on defense, again.

"...the Bush Administration’s refusal to treat Congress as a partner on critical national security issues has led to the urgent situation we face today..."

[Doctor_J]

8. Good. The sooner this reign of terror (by the government) reaches

the tipping point, the better.

Remember what the MP said in Sicko - in Europe, the government is afraid of the people. In America (as in Nazi Germany and Franco's Spain), the people are afraid of the government. Eventually the federal government will push us too far, and then the catharsis can begin.

[dkofos]

9. Doing a heck of a job nancy.

[sutz12]

10. I guess it's better to be weak on upholding the Constitution.

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

13. These are the "fearless leaders" that are going to get this nation back on track?

Who are they kidding? You? Is there any limit to the number of excuses some are willing to make for these collusionists?

[HughBeaumont]

14. Different party: Same Rubberstamps.

Great. "The Party of Change" is nothing more than the "Party of Failure Fuhrer Blank Checks".

Is there NO one who'll care about the PEOPLE?

[The Stranger]

25. Ralph Nader was right. So now is Cindy Sheehan.

[mzmolly]

37. Yes, he was right when he said Gore = Bush, and Cindy was right to say that

she regrets her vote for John Kerry. I wonder if she ponders the fact that the soldiers would be home were it not for Bush's re-selection? Eh, probably not.

[The Stranger]

47. See the prior post -- they are correct that the Democrats act like Republicans once elected.

They stand for what the Democrats should stand for all along -- not just to get elected.

[mzmolly]

54. They are incorrect.

A comparison of the Clinton administration and the Bush administration ALONE demonstrates that quite well.

"The differences make a difference..." ~ Paul Wellstone

[The Stranger]

60. The subject is the Democrats' inexplicable capitulation to illegal/unconstitutional wiretaps.

Of course, you could also throw in their refusal to stop funding the war (crimes), their refusal to include in legislation the requirement that Bush get approval before unilaterally attacking Iran, their continuing to support propaganda regarding the "War on Terror" -- which is essentially a Republican re-election campaign, their refusal to even consider impeachment (as it is "off the table") thereby covering for ongoing Republican crimes, and I could go on.

(For example, I could also point out that Leiberman has become the most war-mongering whore there is on either side of the aisle, and he ran as Gore's running mate -- so the canard that Nader somehow doomed the nation by running for President is exposed for what it really is. He would have had the nation fucked into at least as many illegal wars as Bush has -- had he only been given the opportunity.)

These are not the same Democrats that ran and were elected. These people all of the sudden look a lot like Republicans.

[mzmolly]

61. Sorry limiting Bush's authority and removing Gonzo from the oversight picture is not

capitulation. Requiring a court approval where none exists, is not capitulating. As for the other "points" you raise, we'll discuss them in a thread on the individual subjects.

These are the same Democrats that were elected and they don't look a damn thing like Republicans.

[The Stranger]

62. Given the recent revelations about possible additional illegal eavesdropping programs,

why is she rushing to rubberstamp Bush's crimes? All of this shit needs to stop and we need to get to the bottome of it before one fucking piece of paper of legislation is passed regarding wiretapping.

And Gonzo is not being removed from the oversight picture -- there are whole other "pictures" of illegal activity he is obscuring. That is what is being learned from Mueller's telling stammering before the Senate and the revelations from the blogger tapped as the "New Deep Throat."

[mzmolly]

64. You use language like "rubber stamp" as if it's true.

It's not. Read the article in full for starters.

[mzmolly]

18. Note to reactionaries:

"Such a step now requires court approval." The REASON the previous program was illegal is that they went outside the legalities of the court system.

[Exiled in America]

28. No. The ACLU says this "change" does not protect civil rights, and opposes it.

And I trust the ACLU a lot more than this administration for these fucking democrats in congress.

The primary reason they are doing this is not some stealthy, super-slick maneuver to curtail the anti-democratic activities of the administration. It is simply a demonstration of their fear and cowardice, and their willingness to make any sort of compromise to avoid the threat that conservatives would paint them as "weak." Unfortunately, they only show themselves to be truly weak in the process.

[mzmolly]

36. We now have court approval.

We did not before.

"these fucking democrats in congress." Interesting comment.

[Exiled in America]

39. .

[mzmolly]

40. Did you jump up and down while you typed that?

:eyes:

[Exiled in America]

43. Yes I did. And the fact that you're not is pretty much indicative of everything wrong

with this country.

[mzmolly]

45. Oh puleeze, "save the drama for your mama..."

:P I don't have a problem with court approved activity. As to the ACLU, while I support them, they defended NAMBLA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA so I don't always agree with them either.

[Exiled in America]

42. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.

Such a step now -- that means currently, as in BEFORE Democrats do anything, -- requires court approval. Democrats are working to make it "easier" for the NSA to eavesdrop on some "purely foreign" telephone calls.

And once again, I repeat - the ACLU opposes the proposals being suggested by congressional democrats.

Yes, I'm glad you think saying "these fucking democrats" is an interesting comment. You'll be hearing it a lot more as these pathetic fucks continue to make me *ASHAMED* to be a Democrat and continue to fail the American public.

I am sick of their cowardice. I am sick of their inaction. I am sick of the sniveling apologists who defend them. They are a disgrace to the legacy of a once noble party.

I am a patriot first, and I am a democrat proud of what my party once stood for. When I see pathetic cowards totally failing to defend the constitution of the united states against an out of control tyranny, I don't just roll over and give them my blind support. I speak out against cowardice and FOR what I believe the Democratic Party should (and used to) stand for.

That is all.

[mzmolly]

46. I see you've moved the tantrum and expanded on your rant?

As to the ACLU they do not support warrant-less wiretapping, the Dems approve of a measure that involves court authority. I don't know that the ACLU has commented on "this" yet?

[EFerrari]

29. There is a potential here for the Dems to lose either way.

1. They appear to be cooperating with Bush and their base objects.
2. They appear to be uncooperative and they can be accused of obstruction and being weak on terra.

I'm very curious to see how the Republics will spin this.

[mzmolly]

41. Indeed there is. That's the nature of being reasonable I guess.

We're stuck in the middle of extremists. ;)

[Exiled in America]

44. What exactly is reasonable about failing to defend the constitution of the united states?

[mzmolly]

48. The constitution gives the courts authority.

And, it gives the legislative branch authority as well. The previous issue was with the lack of approval by either before the Bush admin started to monitor citizens.

From the article: " Under the program of wiretapping without warrants, which began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, the N.S.A. eavesdropped on the transit traffic without seeking court approval. But in January, the administration placed the program back under the FISA law, which meant warrants were required for surveillance of the transit traffic.

In the Senate, talks were under way on Tuesday on proposed legislation among members of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as Mr. Reid and the Senate leadership, Congressional aides said. Similar talks are under way in the House.

Mr. McConnell sent Congressional leaders a new legislative plan last Friday, one that was more limited than an earlier administration plan."

[EFerrari]

49. We stuck with manipulators. And I for one am happy that

Reid and Pelosi are SMART people who can see it coming a mile away. I don't always agree with them, but I respect their skill very much. :toast:

[LanternWaste]

58. That's what I'm afraid of, too.

That's what I'm afraid of, too. It's going to be very tight rope walk for the Democrats until Nov of next year, and I'd hate to the undecideds alienated en-mass.

[NashVegas]

22. Unnamed Sources Say ...

That I'll believe this when the legislation passes, and when it does, I'll know the Dems are doing everything in their power to keep Bush in office through January 09.

[Exiled in America]

30. Yeah. I'm furious right now, but I'll do my best to wait and see if this happens. If it does,

I will be livid and wild-eyed with absolute pure rage and total disgust. If this actually goes through, I may seriously be done with this party. I am totally fed up, and I have just fucking had it. :(

[The Stranger]

26. Treason.

[damntexdem]

27. Screw these so-called Democratic, so-called leaders.

Maybe this country truly is beyond redemption. Or maybe it can only be saved by destroying both major parties. Personally, I would not vote for any so-called Democrat who pushed further expansion of spying on Americans -- including anyone who might end up as the Democratic candidate for president.

[rudy23]

31. Gee, you think the Repubs are going to paint Dems as weak on terror anyway?

Now they're weak on terror, AND weak on Neocons.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OzarkDem]

33. Why are Dems helping Bush cover his tracks?

Why on earth would Dems agree to something like this? Its tantamount to letting Bush and DOJ off the hook for the NSA spying scandal.

[formercia]

35. The Administration is going to do it anyway

so why cut them any slack.

If it was such a big issue, why didn't it get addressed long ago?


I smell a rat.

They will change the wording on the bill between the time Congress votes to approve it and when Junior signs it. They've done it before.

[ProudDad]

51. Is sounds to me like they're

letting bush off the hook...

And making sure that the next Dem pResident gets the same power bush has taken for himself...

When it comes to warmongering in support of the capitalist Empire, there IS NO DIFFERENCE between the two Right-wings of the Business Party.

[formercia]

55. Perhaps Junior isn't the dictator to be.

The real dictator will come once the laws are all in place. Junior is just clearing the brush, so to speak. He likes to do that.

[bluestateguy]

56. Government has always had wiretapping powers

Long before this gang came to Washington. Just show probable cause to the FISA court, get a warrant--which is almost never denied--and wiretap away. You can ever start the wiretapping 72 hours before you get a warrant. That's been the law for 30 years and it should be satisfactory.

[tyne]

63. seriously

Why all the fuss?

Many are acting as though you're against legal wiretapping. Sheesh!

[formercia]

65. They just don't want any oversight

none of those pesky questions.

[LIVESIPOG]

69. Sad to say, but democrats have turned out to be whimps

I hate to say this because i voted democrat this time to
remove the Evil that dwells in the White House and on the
Hill.  But so far, democrats are batting  a 2.  Lots of lip
service and theatrical politics, but little substance and even
less keeping any campaign promises. This is just more proof
that as sad as it is for us Americans, the democrats are doing
little to stop the demise of the America as we know it.  They
bark loud, but when Satan or his minion even whispers boo,
democrats tuck their tails, pee themselves and roll over
waiting for their bellies to be scritched.   I just wish
somehow the democratic party would grow even small gonads, and
start to show the people like myself who supported them , that
they can and will keep promises.  
I know, I dream big dont I .