by Mark Silva and updated
President Bush is complaining that Congress has taken a 10-day recess without extending the Protect America Act, the law supporting his "Terorrist Surveillance Program.''
But Bush insisted that he would not accept another extension of the law -- he insisted upon a permanent enactment of the law "moderning'' the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
. After Congress initially enacted the law last summer with a six-month "sunset,'' leaders agreed to extend it for another two weeks. But tonight, at midnight, that extension expires, and Congress is gone. And so is Bush. After saying that he might have to delay his trip to Africa if Congress didnt finish work on the surveillance bill, the president has left for Africa for six days.
Bush maintains that American safety is jeopardized in the absence of the surveillance law. Yet, if the president had agreed to another extension while differences on Capitol Hill. are resolved, the law would not have expired. Bush played hardball on this won, and whiffed.
Now the president, blaming Congress for the lapse, is calling on Congress to step up to the plate again, soon.
"At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire,'' the president said with his weekly radio address, taped for delivery today after his departure. "Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to.''
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell complained today about the decision by Democratic leaders to recess without taking action: "âWhat will happen at midnight tonight is much more significant than stump speeches, steroids or superdelegates.
"On Sunday, the terrorist tracking program the Director of National Intelligence tells us has led âto the disruption of planned terrorist attacksâ no longer will be fully operational because of Congressional inaction,'' says McConnell (R-Ky.) âWhat is most distressing is that the terrorists havenât ceased their activities, but weâve conceded the capability to fully track them because the House Democrat Leadership blocked a vote on a bipartisan solution and then chose to close up shop and go home without completing their work.''
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), delivering the Democratic Party's radio response to Bush today, said: "This week, instead of working with Congress in a calm, constructive way, the president, unfortunately, has chosen to manufacture a sudden and unnecessary confrontation over reauthorization of our foreign surveillance laws.''
"The Senate passed a good bill that would have given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe,'' Bush said in his taped radio address. "But leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill, and then left on a 10-day recess.
"Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them -- and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.
"In addition, Congress has put intelligence activities at risk even when the terrorists don't change tactics. By failing to act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of being sued by class-action trial lawyers.
"For six months, I urged Congress to take action to ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively -- and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes. Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to protect America after the attacks of 9/11.
"The Senate sent this bill to the House for its approval. It was clear that if given a vote, the bill would have passed the House with a bipartisan majority. I made every effort to work with the House to secure passage of this law. I even offered to delay my trip to Africa if we could come together and enact a good bill. But House leaders refused to let the bill come to a vote. Instead, the House held partisan votes that do nothing to keep our country safer. House leaders chose politics over protecting the country -- and our country is at greater risk as a result.
"House leaders have no excuse for this failure. They knew all along that this deadline was approaching, because they set it themselves. My administration will take every step within our power to minimize the damage caused by the House's irresponsible behavior. Yet it is still urgent that Congress act. The Senate has shown the way by approving a good, bipartisan bill. The House must pass that bill as soon as they return to Washington from their latest recess.
"At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.
"Thank you for listening. ''
This is the text of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's response for the Democrats:
"Hello, I'm Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat from Rhode Island. I'm a former U.S. attorney and Rhode Island attorney general, and I serve on the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.
This week, instead of working with Congress in a calm, constructive way, the president, unfortunately, has chosen to manufacture a sudden and unnecessary confrontation over reauthorization of our foreign surveillance laws.
We Democrats urge the president to work with Congress to provide our intelligence professionals needed authorities while protecting the privacy of law-abiding Americans.
Both the House and the Senate worked hard to pass bills to improve the Protect America Act, an ill-advised law Congress passed in a stampede last August. These bills strengthen the Protect America Act: For example, both, for the first time, protect Americans from being wiretapped without a court order outside the United States.
But the House and Senate bills are not identical, and in the American legislative process, the next step is a negotiation to resolve differences between the two bills. And Democrats stand ready to do that now.
That is how our system has always worked. But the president doesn't want the legislative process to work â instead, he has made an unrealistic demand that the House simply adopt the Senate version, and at his request congressional Republicans are preventing negotiations from moving forward.
America's bicameral system of government is designed to bring broad, bipartisan consensus to important laws. We're at the finish line. Letting the House and the Senate complete the process would strengthen support in Congress and among the American people and give the intelligence community greater legal certainty for surveillance activities.
Negotiation should take place immediately. In the meantime, Democrats are willing to extend the current Protect America Act. But the president has threatened to veto any extension, and Senate Republicans have blocked such a bill. Every House Republican voted against extension of the law.
We know this president dislikes compromise, but this time he has taken his stubborn approach too far. He is whipping up false fears and creating artificial confrontation. As the president, himself, said in the Rose Garden, there is really no excuse for letting this critical legislation expire. So let's get it done.
But the president instead chose political gamesmanship, rejecting a short extension of the Protect America Act that would allow Congress to complete its work. Make no mistake: If the surveillance law expires, if any intelligence loss results, it is President Bush's choice. Period.
Fortunately, the president's decision to allow the Protect America Act to expire does not, in reality, threaten the safety of Americans. As the president is well-aware, existing surveillance orders under that law remain in effect for a year, and the 1978 FISA law remains available for new surveillance orders.
I urge the president to come to his senses. Democrats have taken significant and important steps to strengthen the laws governing surveillance and to make sure that privacy protections for Americans aren't left in the dust.
The president should work with us to enshrine these new protections in the law of the land. He should also sign into law the torture ban passed by both houses of Congress that would make crystal clear that America condemns torture and will not stoop to the techniques of the Spanish Inquisition.
Our values, and our American process of government, are what make America strong.''
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Fear mongering at its best. If the telecommunications companies have nothing to hide...whats the problem?
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2008 10:23 AM
The Democrats and their leader Pelosi had 194 days to address this issue.
Instead they play polotics and put America at risk.
Despicable - irresponsible -- if the dems keep in this direction it could approach treason
They lie and deceive americans about this bill and do nothing to help us move forward.
NOTHING
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 10:41 AM
What a load of garbage. We'll be safe in 338 days.
Posted by: GK | February 16, 2008 10:47 AM
Outright lies, as amply explained elsewhere. Agencies retain power to wiretap. Our Deadenders will rationalize around it but that's the fact.
--
Query on a related topic:
Anyone remember "connect the dots"?, as in the GWB Government failed to do so before 9/11.
The "dots" consisted of info that Gov't had but did not use properly.
What good is info-gathering if the info is not properly used? Who is less qualified to opine on the topic than the Republicants? Who had a cooler vacation in Aug. 2001 than GWB?
â¬â¬
Posted by: a blinkin | February 16, 2008 10:51 AM
Fear mongering at its best. If the telecommunications companies have nothing to hide...whats the problem?
Posted by: bill r. | February 16, 2008 10:23 AM
You have got to be kidding, this isn't fear mongering it's REALITY.
Bill R. = FOOL
Posted by: joe | February 16, 2008 11:00 AM
Bush was right about us being less safe. Look at what happened at Northern Illinois University. Oh, wait. That happened before midnight, last night. And it was done by a terrorist who bought his weapons legally. Never mind.
Posted by: Kenneth Janowski | February 16, 2008 11:03 AM
Those who would sacrifice their rights for security deserve neither. I have nothing to hide, but that dosn't mean that I want Big Brother looking into my life.
Posted by: RI | February 16, 2008 11:20 AM
America is less safe when the president breaks the law and then tries to frighten us into granting retroactive immunity for his co-conspirators in the phone companies by spinning some yarn about how we are now open to terrorist attack. As evidenced by the Senate vote, we have elected quite a few senators, Republicans and Democrats, who are much too easily frightened. To defeat terrorism, we need elected representative who will not to cower with fright and lose the power of rational thought when the president tells them a scary terrorist story.
Posted by: Tom O | February 16, 2008 11:32 AM
Having an Executive Branch that take actions in clear violation of our laws it is mandated to uphold undermines our Constitution. Modifying our laws to retroactively give one branch of government such unbalanced power undermines all for which our military have sacrificed their lives to protect. I fear this unbalanced power more than outside terrorism and I certainly donât want to see it permanently legalized.
Posted by: jm | February 16, 2008 11:43 AM
The FISA law will still be in effect for 12 months after itâs expiration, so what will expire? Immunity of the telecommunication companies that are spying on everything, not just for our protection from terrorists. Actually the original FISA laws are sufficient for protecting us against foreign threats that was the purpose of FISA. This fear mongering has to end, Iâm not buying it and most of the populationâs not buying it, so whatâs next? Do they invent a terrorist attack? Iâm sorry to say, but I wouldnât put it past them.
Posted by: Rory M | February 16, 2008 11:44 AM
The various national security agencies had all the spy power they needed to know about and stop the 9/11 terrorists, but they did not put the information together. The cost of the Bush surveillance is enormous. Consider how many lives could be saved if half that money went to a basic national health care program. No one reports all the people who die every day from lack of halth care. People who would have lived longer and more productive lives if they had received medical care. Instead we wait until some buildings are blown up and work to prevent that kind of disaster from happenning again. Far more die due to lack of preventive health care.
Posted by: Mark John Hunter | February 16, 2008 11:58 AM
How can this happen, the House Democrats need to be held accountable for abandoning their responsibility - this is an outrage to AMERICANS.
Down with Pelosi she needs to be heal accountable.
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 12:03 PM
Telling the Big Lie over, and over has run it's course. The Fascist Criminal Enterprise of the Bush$Cheney mis-administration has come to the end of their rope. The GOP, the RNC, the slithering swift boaters, and the poodle journalist's are also on the floor waiting to be swept up and dumped into the dustbin of history. Their attempt to turn the Good Ole USA into a Fascist state has finally ended. Now, let the Trials begin! Google: 'the 14 points of fascism' and compare to the Republicans/Fascist's. If you agree then e-mail to anybody and everybody. Print out and distribute in your community and encourage them to pass it on. Thank you and have a great future!
Posted by: 91ghostcommander | February 16, 2008 12:03 PM
It's as if W is following the laws anyway. I'm sure there are a number of signing statements in the stack under his desk that keep the warrantless spying going.
Posted by: DD | February 16, 2008 12:04 PM
Bush and the country have been safe since last year with out any issues. NOW all of a sudden, Bush and the Republicans say that law doesn't keep us safe.
Why?
Telecom immunity. So how does telecom immunity keep us safe?
Hopefully, this will be the beginning of the total downfall of the fearmongering success from the Republicans.
DEMOCRATS! Keep America safe by safeguarding its citizens rights!
Posted by: dogjudge | February 16, 2008 12:12 PM
Brainwashing is becoming a serious illness in the U.S. and the rest of the world. Along with Brainwashing, poor journalism by the media is also contributing to the DISINFORMATION problem of informing the masses of the TRUTH..
Posted by: Brainwashing | February 16, 2008 12:14 PM
Since Bush continues his "my way or the highway" approach, why even bother with a House or Senate. Why not just let Bush rule? What Bush needs to understand is that this isn't Burger King. Accordingly he can't always have it "his way".
Posted by: andy42302 | February 16, 2008 12:15 PM
Well, it sounds like if Bush cared more about security than "winning" this partisan fight, he would have agreed to an extension.
In reality, he just wanted to be able to jump up and down and point fingers. In the meantime, we can still wiretap, we just *gasp* need to get a warrant for it either before or even after the tap is in place.
Posted by: Jeff V. | February 16, 2008 12:16 PM
"AT&T CEO SPEAKS"
CONGRESS GIVE ME IMMUNITY AND I WILL SHARE WITH YOU OUR EMAILS, ON OUR SERVERS BEFORE THEY SHOOT DOWN OUR "SATELLITE"
THAT SATELLITE HAS TO COME DONE BECAUSE ALL OF OUR LITTLE "KARL ROVE" SECRETS BOUNCED OFF THAT SATELLITE.
THAT SATELLITE MUST NOT HIT THE GROUND BECAUSE THAT SATELLITE AKA "KARL ROVE BLACKBERRY 2001"
GIVE ME IMMUNITY AND I WILL SHARE WITH YOU WHO WE REALLY LISTENED TO AND WHEN, FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON.
GIVE ME IMMUNITY AND I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT ONLY DEMOCRATS WERE EAVESDROPPED ON, WIRETAPPED AND DATAMINED.
HECK OUR CONVERSATIONS REGARDING KATRINA AND THE REASON WHY THE GOVERNMENT DIDN'T RESPOND IN THE DAYS BEFORE KATRINA HIT.
GIVE ME IMMUNITY AND I WILL GIVE YOU THE TRUTH.
AMERICA HAS 10 DAYS FOR CONGRESS TO DO SO OTHERWISE, ALOT MORE REPUBLICANS WILL BE RESIGNING TO GET AS FAR AWAY FROM DICK CHENEY AND GEORGE BUSH BEFORE THAT SATELLITE HITS EARTH!
Posted by: Roger Morris | February 16, 2008 12:37 PM
The forth amendment protects us from "Unreasonable Searches and Seizures"
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
monitoring suspected terrorists outside the USA contacting people inside the country is certainly "Reasonable". At least to a reasonable person.
It does not in any way undermine the Constitution and it is not illegal. READ IT FOOLS.
All the shrill on these pages really makes me wonder what liberals have in their heads, it does not seem like there can be much brain matter.
Ya can't fix stupid!
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 1:02 PM
cj
"Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
monitoring suspected terrorists outside the USA contacting people inside the country is certainly "Reasonable". At least to a reasonable person.
It does not in any way undermine the Constitution and it is not illegal. READ IT FOOLS.
All the shrill on these pages really makes me wonder what liberals have in their heads, it does not seem like there can be much brain matter.
Ya can't fix stupid!"
You're right. You can't fix stupid.
You state the law isn't illegal to a reasonable person. So I guess you simply discount the views of the majority of Americans.
More to the point, the administration has prevented this law from coming to court in it's current form. In it's older form they also prevented the law from getting to court.
1st time by invoking the legal precedent that a plaintiff had to have legal standing. By accident the government screwed up and let a charity know that they had been wiretapped. So when that charity sued, they used the legal concept that the case couldn't proceed because it would require the release of information that would threaten national security. (Congress is now working on closing that loophole.)
So it appears that the reasonable minds appear to be the ones that are truly worried about the legality of the issue.
If the administration isn't worried about the law being legal why are they taking such steps to prevent the judiciary from even looking at the issue?
It is very possible to rule on the issue without getting into the specifics of what the government is doing.
Ditto for the telecom immunity. Why do you think the administration is worried about the telecoms? They are certainly big enough to protect themselves.
So if Bush didn't do anything wrong, what's he worried about?
Posted by: dogjudge | February 16, 2008 1:24 PM
On Washington Journal this morning this was one of the topics of discussion. From what I heard most people think the FISA laws are reasonable and enough to protect America's interests. Yes by all means get the bad guys overseas which the FISA law allows.
Another thing mentioned during the discussion is FISA was enacted protect us from people like Nixon and another Watergate scandal.
I think the government insisting on immunity for the telecom companies is trying to hide something. I am glad the house thought VERY hard about this and decided to not vote on the "Protect America Act". FISA is enough.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | February 16, 2008 1:40 PM
So if Bush didn't do anything wrong, what's he worried about?
Posted by: dogjudge | February 16, 2008 1:24 PM
I don't know if "what's he worried about" is accurate reflection at all.
What he wants to do is make sure we do all we can to be safe from another attack - and it has been working!
And the House dems are doing everything they can to make sure their trial lawyer buddies have some action and extortion opportunities.
And you fool don't represent the majority of americans.
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 1:44 PM
More scare tactics from the Bush/McCain Republicans.
It's going to be fun to watch them get their butt's kicked this coming November.
1. Does "liability protection" have anything to do with creating a gap in our intelligence collection capability?
No! Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, admitted as much in an interview Thursday morning on National Public Radio:
NPR: Mr. McConnell, the Bush administration says that if the Protect America Act isn't made permanent, it will tie your hands, intelligence hands, especially when it comes to new threats. But isn't it true that any surveillance underway does not expire, even if this law isn't renewed by tomorrow?
MCCONNELL: Well, Renee it's a very complex issue. It's true that some of the authorities would carry over to the period they were established for one year. That would put us into the August, September time-frame. However, that's not the real issue. The issue is liability protection for the private sector.
The "real issue" is not intelligence collection gaps but liability protection for the private sector.
2. Why is the Bush administration so insistent on giving retroactive immunity to the telecoms?
Taking them at their word, George Bush and Mike McConnell are putting the nation at risk in order to insure that AT&T and Verizon do not have to be held accountable in a court of law for having broken the law.
Twisted and corrupt indeed. But, remember, it's not just so that AT&T and Verison aren't held accountable. It's to prevent legal action going forward that, in the discovery process, would expose the full extent of the administration's illegal activity. This isn't just protecting AT&T and Verizon. It's protecting the Rove/Gonzales/Cheney/Bush cabal.
Friday mornings Rocky Mountain News, not known as a bastion of liberalism, editorialized,
No immunity:
If immunity is in the final legislation - and Bush has said he'd veto any bill that doesn't include it - it would kill the 40-plus lawsuits that have been filed against telecoms in federal court. The litigation challenges the legality of the program and the actions of telecoms that cooperated with the government.
If the lawsuits don't move forward, we may never learn if some telecoms compromised the privacy of innocent Americans. A grant of immunity could also set a dangerous precedent for other businesses when federal agents or local cops who don't have a court order demand private or confidential information about their customers.
3. Didnt the Presidents illegal wiretapping program begin in response to the panic after 9/11?
Not according to the editorial (and confirmed in other sources):
Court documents released in October revealed that Nacchio [Qwests CEO at the time] first met with national security officials in February 2001 - six months before the 9/11 attacks. "Nacchio's account," The Washington Post reported, "suggests that the Bush administration was seeking to enlist telecommunications firms in programs without court oversight before the terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon."
4. If immunity is granted will the private sector refuse to cooperate with the government?
After all of the speeches Republicans made on Thursday, you might think this was a big deal. It is, but not in the way you may think. The claim is dishonest and the Bush administration knows it. Under the law, telecoms are required to cooperate with legal requests from the government. They dont have any other option. Without immunity, the telecoms will be reluctant in the future to break the law again, which should be a desirable outcome. It was the Qwest legal teams opinion that the request was not legal, so they didnt participate. AT&T and Verizon said that Washington persuaded them that it was legal and so they participated.
What the protests from both the administration and the corporations amount to is one law-breaker telling another law-breaker, "you cover for me and Ill cover for you." Or, as the Rocky Mountain News concluded:
Letting this litigation proceed would not, as Bush said Wednesday, punish companies that want to "help America." Businesses that want to help America need to be mindful of the Constitution - and so should the government.
Posted by: ghost | February 16, 2008 2:42 PM
You have got to be kidding, this isn't fear mongering it's REALITY.
Bill R. = FOOL
Posted by: joe | February 16, 2008 11:00 AM
Bill R,
Don't pay attention to Wingnut psychopath "joe", he's trying to defeat Paulo for the "biggest Wingnut Tard" on the Swamp, award.
Ya can't fix stupid...
Posted by: John E | February 16, 2008 2:46 PM
Ya can't fix stupid!
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 1:02 PM
Cicle Jerk,
I rememer when you used to call yourself "joe", in fact you just did it earlier on in this thread.
Why are you so scared Circle JerK?, I thought the Wingnuts were supposed to be the "daddy Party", what happened?
This isn't about Security, it's about W and Cheney covering their arse because they broke the law...and then you have rightwing lunitc fringers like cj aka "joe" who want to help them to take away his and our Constitutional rights....you're right cj pal, you can't fix that kind of stupid.
Posted by: John E | February 16, 2008 2:53 PM
And you fool don't represent the majority of americans.
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 1:44 PM
cj, you and your alter ego "joe" aren't fooling anyone on here, go somewhere else and volunteer to give up your Constitutional rights, you Rethuglican dope.
The shaking in our boots that this country has been doing for the last eight years is beneath a great nation.
From my discussions with Republicans and Republican-leaning individuals in my home town it is obvious that they are scared shitless of their shadows... and proclaim themselves to be the Big Daddy Party all day long. In fact, they are cowards who shiver and cower behind the cloak of Bush and Cheney who they proclaim to be Big Brave Men. The Texas National Guard AWOL story tells you everything you need to know about Mr. Bush and tells you quite a bit about what you need to know about the rest of the Republican Party.
I have no respect for fearful, whiny people who crave a despotic tyrant to protect their tiny little existences and who scurry toward tyranny at the first sign of a crisis. That is exactly what the Republican party represents. Our present administration is nothing if not an embarrassment to anyone who believes in freedom, open government and democracy.
Ironically, it is those who are not sufficiently afraid of terrorism who are called cowards by the Scaredy Pants Rightwing. If you are not shitting in your pants in fear of the taliban coming to your local school board, then you are unpatriotic!
Those who view the taliban and their ilk as a bunch of piss-ants who should not be accorded the status of soldiers in a war but merely criminals are viewed as Un-American. Those who believe the 'war on terror' is a power-grab orchestrated by the Republican/military industrial complex are called cowards! Those who are insufficiently hyperventilating are sissy-pants!
It's long past time to throw this whole sack of nonsense back in their faces.
I am not averse to telling people to their faces that they are more likely to be struck by lightning than a taliban boogeyman. I try to make people think about it, but I am not above making fun of their fear.
Posted by: wingnut hunter | February 16, 2008 2:59 PM
cj, I'm not prone to trust the wisdom of someone who doesn't understand the proper usage of a comma, and who would capitalize the word "House", as in House of Representatives, but would leave the word "america" in the lowercase.
It's called a grammar checker, "fool". Invest.
Posted by: Tony | February 16, 2008 3:19 PM
cj
From a 2006 poll.
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll.
I guess America doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
Posted by: dogjudge | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM
Homeland Insecurity
By Marie Cocco at truthdig.com
WASHINGTONâGrim talk of terrorism is again making headlines. First came the announcement that the United States will try the masterminds of the 9/11 plot, through military commissionsâcontemporary kangaroo courts. Now comes Senate approval of a vast surveillance bill that gives sanction to the warrantless snooping on Americans that President Bush carried out secretly until the program was exposed in the press.
And by the way, the Houseâs refusal to go along with giving immunity to telecommunications companies who were complicit in the spying puts the nationâs security at risk, the White House warns.
These set pieces of political discourse in the Bush era inevitably lead to the conclusion that we remain imperiled by terrorism. On this point, there is an undeniable and ugly truth behind the raw rhetoric. But there is also truth in cold, hard numbersâand in them, the White House tells an altogether different tale.
Homeland security fundingâfor states to try to prevent or prepare for such a disaster, for firefighters who would have to respond, for radios that would actually allow emergency personnel to communicate with one another during a catastrophe, for rail and mass transit security, for inspections and security at portsâall are stepchildren in the latest White House budget.
Grants to states and local governments for homeland security and first responders were cut by half from current funding levels, according to an analysis by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Meanwhile, financing for a special urban security program that is intended to replace pork-barrel jockeying among states, with funds better targeted to those citiesâNew York, Los Angeles and Washingtonâknown to be at greatest risk of attack, is held just about flat. A project meant to help detect a nuclear or radiological device in densely populated citiesâwas cut by 25 percent, according to Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Another to train emergency workers to handle an attack involving weapons of mass destruction also was pared.
âThe threat to our cities and towns from terrorist attacks and natural disasters has not diminished, and the federal governmentâs contribution to protecting states and localities should not diminish either,â says Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who chairs the homeland security panel.
Seven years into the âwar on terror,â with conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq still fought in its name, there should be legitimate anger about why, as Lieberman correctly notes, the terrorist threat has ânot diminished.â But if this is soâand the administration most definitely agreesâthen what plausible reason is there for cutting prevention and preparedness funding, and eliminating some programs altogether?
Full story here, read it and weep you scared little Republic Party weenies:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080214_homeland_insecurity/
Posted by: The Constitution | February 16, 2008 4:25 PM
The only sticking point on the new legislation is the immunity provision. The issue is whether the telecoms acted reasonably under the circumstances. We know now that Ashcroft had reservations about the legality of the program, but he did eventually sign off on it and that was represented to the telecoms. With an assurance from the top lawyer in the country on an issue of federal law, I don't know that it is a fair burden on telecoms to now say that they should have disregarded that assurance. The Senate, both in committee and in full session, determined that the telecoms acted in good faith under the circumstances, and agreed to the immunity provision. After some grandstanding, I believe the House will do the same.
Congress now has the ability to more specifically detail what telecoms can and can't do, and in both versions of the bill, it would require certification of the AG that the actions comply with federal statutes. The telecoms argue, reasonably in my view, that they had assurances from the AG in the cases at issue now. I don't really buy that insulating telecom companies make us "safer", but I also don't buy that sticking them with class action lawsuits for relying on assurances from the AG does either. People are right to be suspicious of lobbyist influence, as the telecoms for obvious reasons are lobbying hard for the immunity. But the other side of the coin is the substantial influence of trial lawyer groups arguing the other way, with the goal of lining their own pockets. I trust none of them.
Posted by: Herbie H. | February 16, 2008 5:08 PM
cj
From a 2006 poll.
By a margin of 52% to 43%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he wiretapped American citizens without a judge's approval, according to a new poll.
I guess America doesn't agree with your viewpoint.
Posted by: dogjudge | February 16, 2008 3:53 PM
Power grabbers, the people that want to get to the top regardless of integrity and principles like the clintons live by polls in order to manipulate the people.
I live by principles, you should consider trying that.
Principles hmmmm
I'd like to see that in a candidate
Posted by: cj | February 16, 2008 7:42 PM
Here's the truth of it;
"Fortunately, the president's decision to allow the Protect America Act to expire does not, in reality, threaten the safety of Americans. As the president is well-aware, existing surveillance orders under that law remain in effect for a year, and the 1978 FISA law remains available for new surveillance orders."
But Psycho Man GWB is liable to cut off America's nose to spite a third party's face to be named later.
God, we can't be rid of this cretin soon enough.
You did it to yourself America, in '04. Did it feel good jumping off the cliff?
Posted by: C.Morris | February 16, 2008 8:37 PM
'Gaze ye not long into the abyss, America, lest the abyss gaze....INTO THEE!!'
Posted by: OldCreaky | February 16, 2008 8:46 PM
What a load of garbage. We'll be safe in 338 days.
Posted by: GK | February 16, 2008 10:47 AM
Amen!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | February 16, 2008 8:54 PM
You Lib's putting all your "hope" and faith in people like Obama and Hillary is laughable!! If either of them become president....do you really think either of them will risk our national security by changing anything that FISA is doing? You people are so gullible! You are setting yourself up for huge disappointment!! When Obama finally finds the FISA office (6 months later) and decides to talk about national security...I'm sure he will walk away saying "Gosh!...maybe GWB was right, there are people out there that actually want to hurt us. Oh no!...now I have to start breaking my campaign promises..Now the Lib kooks are going to hate me too."
Posted by: Joe | February 16, 2008 11:11 PM
"Gosh!...maybe GWB was right
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The man has never been right about anything.
I just want to be able to sue the phone company if they're spying on me without a warrant. I don't care if they're cooperating with the government on actually doing something that would actually make us safer.
Posted by: Cheryl | February 17, 2008 3:36 PM
You 'go Joe'! They hate the German's so much, but Hitler made the autobonns and the trains work. I no the jews were hurt and that was bad. We should have fougt the english!
Posted by: Bushman | February 17, 2008 7:01 PM
Please listen to my mommy and daddies phone calls. The terrerizts are gonna get me
Posted by: little timmy callahan | February 18, 2008 9:11 AM
cj,
Really? You live by principles? Well, sir, your "principles" are in direct conflict with the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution, change it. Don't ignore it.
Posted by: little timmy callahan | February 18, 2008 9:37 AM
Interesting thread of logic here. The President, because of his need to protect us against terrorism, has the right to tread on our right to privacy, say the Republicans. And anyone who disagrees automatically sides with the enemy. Only those who have something to hide should fear, they insist.
Yet, when a Democratic POTUS (the evil Clinton-monster, the symbol of LIBERALISM and its horrors), ALSO faced with reaction to a vicious terrorist attack, attempted to legislate the same kinds of spying capacities (via the (Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995), these Republicans threw hissyfits about how dangerous it was for our civil liberties to be trampled upon!!! (see link):
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b29d3287718.htm
So my question is this, regardless of any bias I might have: If abridgment of civil liberties was wrong in 1995 -- in the face of outrageous terrorist attacks -- why is it RIGHT now? Does it not follow that, if wiretapping is necessary to combat terrorists, then it was the REPUBLICANS who stood in the way of Clinton capturing Bin Laden before he had a chance to pull off 9/11, since you argue that it's Democrats NOW who block effective counter-terrorism measures?
OR -- if using far-flung spy measures was thought unnecessary and invasive of our Constitutional rights in 1995-96 (the required warrants were in effect then, remember, in order to wiretap suspected terrorists), why is it so wrong now to require the Executive branch to obtain said warrant? I'd certainly give you that there WAS a flaw in the legislation pre-2001 in that information-gathering agencies were not allowed to share information -- but that was corrected in the PATRIOT Act. Now, it's much easier for the President to do his job.
This kind of stuff just DOESN'T make sense to me. I'd think that, if the Republicans are the rock of solid, unwavering values they claim to be, they'd be just as outraged now as they were then. Or, if they were truly the staunch defenders of our sacred shores, ever-eager to strike urine-flowing fear in the heart of the enemy, that they'd have stopped being such nelly little babies in 1995 and let Clinton do his job so we wouldn't have to be doing it NOW. Putting the two halves together just doesn't add up to a solid whole, does it?
Posted by: Op109 | February 18, 2008 11:33 AM