FISA law expires

So, President Bush is upset that Congress allowed a government eavesdropping law to expire. Since when did George W. Bush care about laws?

Kenneth W. Kassen
Shawnee

Comments

[newdealer]

arminius - The rendition policy started under Reagan in 1988 with the capture of Fawaz Younis off the coast of Cyprus. It was greatly expanded during Clinton's administration but he didn't start it. I'll be interested to see how you twist that into how you are actually right afterall.

[Nicodemus]

Boys and Girls, I give you the NSA, who has been doing this, covertly, since it's creation. The CIA is prohibited by law from spying on U.S citizens, this is exactly what the NSA was created to do. The FISA court was created as a rubber stamp for the intelligence community to spy on us. The warrants were secret and the subject would not know they were being investigated, their computer hard drives cloned, homes searched, unless charges were brought. Another brilliant idea of King William of Clinton. It has continued to this day, bush merely acknowledged its existence publicly. And like all Prez's since Truman, sought to expand it's scope. Yes, big brother is watching, listening, and reading.

Anyone who thinks it will stop with the demise of this law, is delusional. It will merely go back into the shadows as before, but it will continue none the less. Political party not with standing. They both have done and will continue to do so. Yes, kids, it's later than you think.

[Engineer]

Jim
Sorry about that. Will be interested in what you find.

[Arminius]

"Wikipedia states that some contend warrentless wiretapping in the US started in June of 2000 which was both before the law was modified and before GWH became President.."

That's likely. The policy of extraordinary rendition began under Clinton in 1995. Clinton also authorized warrantless searches in public housing.

[Arminius]

"Actually, his approval rating is now at a stellar 19%!"

The Squirt has shared a bogus poll with us. For real polls see www.pollingreport.com.

[Jim]

ENG, wrong jim. I'm on my iPhone and not near a computer, but I will do some digging later.

[Engineer]

Jim
Just where did I say it was a fact? But it sure is as much a fact as some of your contentions. Can you disprove it? Wikipedia being what it is, I would not take it as a final authority. I do accept it on numerical data that can be checked. But you are good at research. If the contention is untrue you should be able to refute it.

[jim]

"Wikipedia states that some contend warrentless wiretapping in the US started in June of 2000 which was both before the law was modified and before GWH became President.."

Since when does a "contention" become a fact?? Only in Republican land!!!

[Engineer]

Jim
It is my understanding that the part of the law that has expired allowed warrentless "wiretapping" in the United States with applications to the judicial within 72 hours. Wikipedia states that some contend warrentless wiretapping in the US started in June of 2000 which was both before the law was modified and before GWH became President..

[Jim]

Eng,

If you don't explicity legalize something that's currently illegal, then that activity is still illegal. Maybe I'm missing your point.

And yes, it take a trial to convict, but not to cite. Bolton and Meiers deserved to be cited, IMO.

[Engineer]

Jim
I heard Napolitano and it seemed to me he was saying that what the law provided for was illegal. This seems somewhat impossible as if an action is approved by law it is, by definition, legal. My impression was that he was contending that the provisions of the law were unconstitutional. BTW, I note you did not comment on the difference between "cited" and "convicted".

[Jim]

Eng,

I've said many times that it's quite clear that Bush has broken the law with his warrantless wiretapping program.

You often say I can't name a single lie, either, and I've posted his statement that they were getting court orders for wiretaps when in fact they were ignoring that step altogether.

The list of people who are saying this program is illegal is growing. The latest legal expert to declare the program illegal is someone Fox "News" fans have seen before, Fox's senior judicial analyst and former New Jersey Superior Court judge, Andrew Napolitano. Napolitano wrote in an LA Times Op-ed piece that:

"The so-called Protect America Act of 2007, which expired at the end of last week, gave the government carte blanche to spy on foreign persons outside the U.S., even if Americans in the United States with whom they may be communicating are spied on — illegally — in the process." "Those who believe the Constitution means what it says should tremble at every effort to weaken any of its protections."

Interestingly, after his article appeared on Monday, Fox has had him on twice, but didn't bother to ask him about the wiretapping program. But he did get a chance to comment on the death of Princess Di.

All that aside, it's clear the law has been broken in this case. I'm not Henry Waxman, nor do I know his daily dealings. Neither do you.

[Jim]

Actually, his approval rating is now at a stellar 19%!

"Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove."

http://americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

[Engineer]

Jim
There is, of course, a difference between being "cited" for Contempt of Congress and being convicted of Contempt of Congress. Conviction requires a trial. Citation requires only action by Congress. As to President Bush breaking the law, neither you nor Waxman have any evidence. As to people "stone walling" where is your evidence on that? As to November, perhaps there are enough followers of the Pied Piper who will be voting to produce the landslide you predict. If so IMO it will shortly be followed by either disillusionment or great damage to our economy.

[jim]

It would be a waste of time, money and resources to attempt to impeach Bush now-it should've been done back in '05-'06 when he violated the FISA law. People are sick of the same old tired Republican agenda and nonsense, hence Bush's approval rating of 30%. And, yet the conservatives on this blog continue to talk as though they are the party of ideas-please!!!! Watch the blowout in November!

[Tom K]

Rogue, you are pathetic. Mommy not watching what you are doing on the keyboard?

Bush has to whine about this. It is the only way that he can even pretend to show respect for the law.

[Jim]

"BTW, I know contempt cittations have been issued for Ms. Woods, and Mr. Bolton, but isn't there a little matter of a trial first?"

Uh, try again moron. You're thinking of contempt of court. This is contempt of Congress. That doesn't require a trial.

Here, do a little reading before you bloviate on matters you know nothing about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress

[Rogue]

Like I said Professor, you got the cards bet, you don't just fold. That is the difference between puppies and Libs Irish, puppies eventually stop whining. BTW, I know contempt cittations have been issued for Ms. Woods, and Mr. Bolton, but isn't there a little matter of a trial first?

Now who is it professor that "knows next to nothing about the law"? H-mmmmm? Just another case of your alligator mouth over loading your humming bird b-hole Jimbo.

[Jim]

You really are a piece of work, Buddy.

Now let's think this out: if Waxman or anyone else just went willy-nilly and brought out impeachment findings without evidence from the White House, or without testimony from those in the White House, your side would rightfully cry bloody murder.

I'm not surprised that you know next to nothing about the law, but c'mon. It's hilarious that you guys are crying like little babies when Harriet and Josh are found in contempt of Congress when you guys are the ones throwing down the challenge to investigate. He is investigating, and what he's finding may turn out to be a case of the cover-up being worse than the crime.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Rogue]

Wa-ah, wa-ah, wa-wah.....Want some cheese with that Whine Jimbo? Like I said if you have the proof and the majority go get 'em; if you don't go cry somewhere in private. Your bore us.