Congress goes off the deep end

Rather than purely venting, though I understand that feeling, I'm interested in people who have supported Bush and the Republican party explain passage of the bill.The reason I am interested is that I am neither a republican nor democrat, but have generally agreed with republican standards of keeping gov't small, keeping gov't out of peoples lives, keeping the federal gov't weaker than states, and not allowing any single branch of the gov't to become more powerful than the others.What's more I support a strong military and am not into "coddling terrorists".So what I want is an explanation of how this bill which allows a single branch of the federal gov't to intrude on people's lives, based on its own say so and with no real oversight, is consistent with traditional republican (i.e. conservative) principles?I doubt reps in Congress'd be handing this to a Dem prez, of course that might be why they installed a renewal clause. It'll be good right up until a Dem steps into office and then its intrusive gov't.But more importantly I'd have expected this more from a dem position than a rep one. Ronald Reagan and traditional reps used to hoist the image of Big Brother as something we should fear and avoid. Now it appears Bush reps are hoisting the image of terrorists to get us to rush toward Big Brother. Hey I still remember the good arguments against that.So please explain how you view it as consistent and acceptable from a traditional Republican vantage point. And if it isn't, why is it worthwhile for Reps to change their traditional platform? If the answer has anything to do with "terrorism", explain why court sanctioned wiretaps, with flexible time for requesting the tap, is not sufficient? Why is it thought that a single person has the ability to make such a decision with no true checking power by the population?Edited by holmes, : typos, abe

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Thanks everyone for replying to my post, but so far no republican actually in support of warrantless wiretapping has stepped in to defend it, specifically in relation to its consistency with core conservative principles.Is there no republican in support of this? Why not complain about it then? Or is it too much to bash Bush and Co with an important election on the way?Edited by holmes, : one to rep

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You have not been in support of Bush and Co, nor have you been arguing most of their actions have been "conservative" as opposed to "liberal" in nature.I'm looking for people that have been defending this administration for a while now. Are they actually in support of it? If so how is it consistent with conservative principles? If not, are they willing to criticize this latest venture as a change?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

First, note that the measure passed by congress, whose details you quoted, does not go as far as the President wanted.Second, note that those details are so flexible as to be meaningless. They grant a single office the ability to act independently without serious oversight. This is a real good one... Given the president's failure with regard to Iraq on that score, why would congress endow him with even more power, especially one where he can drag his feet in having to explain anything. "Later"? When is that. "Believe"? Does it have to be a credible belief? Who does the research to make sure it was well founded, and how does it get dealt with if it wasn't? I'm not sure what nation you are refering to. The first priority of the US gov't is to protect the RIGHTS of the people. Providing for the common defense, and so the people, is only part of that overall end.If their first priority is simply to protect people, then the gov't has the right to turn this nation into a prison, with no rights or freedoms, to keep people safe. Given the recent track records I am uncertain how you can make that claim. But let's put that aside for the moment.I am NOT a democrat. I am NOT ideologically opposed to reps. Perhaps you should keep that in mind when answering my posts.The problem with this legislation is not political in nature. It is not a dem/rep thing, though it is the reps advancing it at this time. That is why I am questioning reps, especially given its traditional stated opposition to such ideas (and I happen to agree with those traditional values). This is a problem about gov't itself.The legislation in question shifts power to a single gov't body with no clear oversight or means to address errors by that body. Specifically put, the legislative branch is granting power to the executive to effect rights of citizens. It is doing so by removing the traditional constitutionally charged duty of the judiciary to protect those rights, while at the same time asserting the executive has the power to infringe.If you don't see a problem with that, then I have to ask what you believe regarding separation of powers and the duties of the branches as set forth in the Constitution.You might note that congress just de facto made their own internal commitees replacements for the judiciary. In addition to ceding power to the executive, that last detail is part of another problem which is both the executive and legislative branches working to end the power of the Judiciary altogether.Now above you made a political statement. But you have to think about what this means when enough people vote FOR the democrats. The power shift remains the same for the office and then Democrats will have those rights.Given the amount of fury reps hurled against Clinton and his Attorney General for abusing rights, isn't there just a little worry about what is possible if people like them end up in such positions again, but with these new powers?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You're going to have to come up with a much better explanation of why wiretaps using warrants, including flexible warrants, are not sufficient.I can just as easily come back with, but we are better, and always will be and so don't need to undercut our rights to stop them. But he doesn't have to notify people. He has to notify indeterminate and insulated members of the legislature.We just went through a bunch of garbage regarding this type of notification earlier. It turned into a he said/ she said circus. Without transparency on this, we have no way of knowing if anyone was told, much less people that can actually act to make sure the power was not abused.That's not to mention that congress just de facto shifted oversight on warrants to the legislature which is not in their power to do. That power has always been held by the judiciary , and it would take an amendment by the legislature to change that fact.And finally, what does he have to tell certain congressional leaders? That something is happening, but not why until some indeterminate time later, with the only justification required for his actions being that he believed there was some connection between a and b. Given what just happened with Iraq where the executive branch failed on that score in spades... forgetting that they ALSO failed on that score for 9/11... why would the executive branch be empowered on the assumption of its ability to make such connections?

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

1) I don't see how they are succeeding. They had a few temporal successes all over the world, and they lost a few times all over the world. In no sense has this nation as a whole suffered a devastating blow such that it might end as a republic and fall into their control.2) Lets assume for a second that we can count the fact that they have had a few temporal successes as some sort of strategic success. The argument that "maybe" the revoking of personal freedoms would have stopped such an attack is not enough to argue for such revocation. As it stands we know that the gov't had sufficient knowledge at the time to have prevented the attacks. They could have stopped it but failed to do so. Why is anyone to believe that armed with this new ability they would have acted any differently?3) If we accept the maybe argument, then what right isn't on the table? Clearly outlawing weapon ownership by anyone but the military and police forces might stop terrorist attacks. Clearly outlawing ownership of any sharp objects which could be used as a weapon might have helped stop 9/11. Clearly not allowing any travel by foreigners within this country might have stopped 9/11. Are these okay? If not, why is allowing warrantless wiretapping okay? Actually I don't. It's a right. That means anyone trying to get around it has to prove their case that it is critical. That's how important a right is. I'm an American. I have also spent many years abroad. Currently I'm not, though I may be coming back soon. I see no inconsistency here.I often discuss experiences overseas, including alternate ways of governing, or views of gov't which might be preferable. This is also not inconsistent. That's exactly what the founding fathers did. No matter how wonderful the US could be, the idea that no one else might have a good idea we could adapt, or could actually surpass the US in time, would be flawed. Technically speaking, yes they are people. But if the individuals slated for notification are not determined and insulated then they might as well be his pet rock for all the connection to the populace they would have/represent. In any case, my overall point was attacking the idea that he has to "notify" anyone, not that congressmen are people. I don't think I made myself clear. The open ended nature of required reporting meant that Bush and Co got to claim everyone that must be notified was notified. Then people not connected and allied with Bush and Co questioned that assertion. Without transparency and clarity of obligation that's exactly how this new power can be handled. The president talks to his cronies and claims that's enough. You'll have to explain how terrorists were responsible for Bush's mistaken assessments regarding Iraq, much less that tapping phones without warrants would help.Let's keep our eye on the prize here. I'm not asking why there should be wiretaps. I'm asking why they must be allowed without judicial oversight? Not even a sudden pressing need can be invoked as current warrants allow for flexible requests.What is being requested, and has in part been approved, is the ability of the executive branch to wiretap based on its own goodwill.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

??? That is not a response to what I said. Yes our gov't has failed on a number or occassions and is making a mistake with this. However the statement you made was that terrorists were succeeding.Outside of small moments where they achieve an attack, I don't see any success that is building toward anything. ??? So if congress passes a law against gun ownership you will be for it? It passed along party lines. I think they are viewing it as something they are giving to themselves because there is a rep president. When gov't changes hands I'm sure we'll hear complaints regarding its abuse. That's the kind of game dems and reps have been playing for years.I'm looking beyond the politics, at the underlying rights being lost and their relation to core principles.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Uh... correct me if I am wrong, but the request for such a measure was by a republican president, and the measure (even if slightly weakened) was written and passed predominately by republicans.That's why I am asking republicans. If the dems had passed this I would be asking them, though they'd have less overtly conflicting principles to discuss.I am looking past the politics regarding its effects.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

I thought I had already mentioned some. Let me try again.1) Removes traditional powers from judiciary.
2) Hands separate traditional powers of judiciary to executive and undetermined minority group within the legislative branches.
3) On top of the above, which is a problematic move in its own right (consolidation of power), the powers given are not clear, removing transparency and sureness in use of power.
4) Once given, the ability of the executive branch to conduct operations which are against civil rights, beyond means of the populace to check.You have not addressed any of these issues as far as I can tell. It overtly removes a balance of power within gov't. The longterm consequences are more important than immediate ones. Under the new system, and precedent, the Congress may effect the Constitution (rights and powers) by partyline majority votes rather than amendments. The judiciary becomes a slave organ of the exec and legislative branches.Under the new powers given a corrupt executive branch will have extensive means to gather information on enemies and prosecute them. We have a history of gov't corruption and misuse of extended powers. I'm not sure how your incredulity is supposed to wash that away. If it happened in the past, and the FBI and CIA admit such excesses have occured, why am I to believe it cannot happen again?There is a reason we have a judiciary which oversees investigations and checks them for valid access to personal information and communication.People have a right not to have that done. That the executive branch claims it won't do anything bad, and it might help is not enough. It doesn't matter if it's the nicest people in the world running the program, they don't have the right to do so, and every citizen has a right not to have it enacted on them. This isn't about the Patriot Act. This is about what the executive and legislative branches have done in order to gain warrantless wiretapping powers.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Hussein tried to do this and we said that showed how horrible he was. That his gov't was a nontransparent system trying to hide its abuses.Remember Bush said that. It is not about what you look like, but what you do. Transparency is important in this. A person might not be a terrorist and might not know the location of a bomb. We've had at least two documented cases of people wrongfully tortured by the US gov't since 9/11. Once released they do tend to talk.What are we supposed to do about them? Kill them to maintain our image?I might add that you have yet to explain why removing human rights are necessary (must be done) to protect us. You have suggested they might be useful, though not any more so than anything else we could do without removing rights.Besides which once we remove rights we are removing actual protections. That's what we're supposed to be fighting for.I believe the quote was "give me liberty or give me death", not "give me protection even if it kills me".Edited by holmes, : better

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

No they really were effects. It is consolidation of power which the founders found quite important to stop via the mechanisms they instituted. And the reason was because consolidation of power can lead to corruption of gov't and abuse of people. No, there were the above effects, and the potential results of what might occur to someone who has unaccounted for wiretaps on their life. If an executive wished to hurt an enemy they could use this to get them.You may not have such enemies, that does not mean others do not.In any case, yes there is also the straight matter of violations of rights. That is something which is not supposed to be done. Inalienable. If you see no problem with this, that is a bit disturbing. Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable in China or Saudi Arabia. I was willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt that honest gov'ts will only use this against terrorists. Corrupt ones would use this against personal enemies.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

That's where the problem of no oversight comes in. They really wouldn't have to expose what they found or link it to anything.They can collect and use what they want as they want... leaks, blackmail, etc.And all he is required to show (to an undetermined group of people with no oversight themselves) is that he believed there was a connection. That's why I asked how reasonable does that belief have to be? What happens if it isn't? Who judges? That's hard for me to answer. It is a more specific outcome and so more concrete thing to be upset with. But I can't say it's more than the rights violation itself.The point is that that's one of the reasons we have that right. To prevent such issues. And once we give it away there, we set a precedent for similar incursions and so more problems.I might point out that the Bush administration has asserted how important it is for them to be able to not be listened in on. They say that privacy is important for them to work properly. That is in the face of a very real possibility of corruption and a need for others to get information of their activity. I'm not certain why their argument should not hold true for others.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Ahem... it says he must notify the commitees and "congressional leaders". It does not say he has to notify every member on such commitees nor all those in congress, or leaders of all parties in congress.The wording is so vague that a president can justifiably notify one member of each committee. That they do not report it to anyone else would not be a violation.As I mentioned earlier they already pulled this very same gag. It worked. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe it wouldn't work again.And as far as oversight goes, remember we are discussing WARRANTS. The only proper authority for that is the courts. The committees do NOT have the proper role to do that, and what you presented did not suggest they actually have oversight. All it says is that they need to be reported to. If they already agree that the prez can do what they said he can do then, what can they say as long as he reports to them? At the time all he has to do is say that he believes an attack is imminent. What is imminent? To him 5 years has been described as imminent.Only LATER, which is not defined and so could always be delayed for any reason (how about for ongoing national security concerns), must he explain the reason for his belief and what groups he thought were involved. With no restriction on reason or limits to groups we can have legal justification for the same activities that Hoover had been involved with. Once a precedent is set and a right is actually removed and powers of the gov't are consolidated that is it. Thus anyone complaining about what is happening is not overreacting.On the flipside I feel comfortable in saying that people who believe this is a reasonable reaction to the threat of terrorism are overreacting. They do not understand the scope or nature of the threat from terrorism and so believe they must sacrifice a longheld right for some undefined measure of protection.I might even note that your criticism strikes a founding father's advice head on:"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin 1759

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Yeah, perhaps someone should point out that we can hide torture and killing from the people all we want, will they be able to hide it from god?Won't HE have something to say about what means were used for what ends?Of course one has to question how much faith in god a person holds if they believe their life is so endanger from terrorists they have to give up their god given rights.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Heheheh... shows what you know. Bush and Co just got done arguing against the claim you just made. The few members of the committee that were informed and did not share information made a mixture of claims that they did inform a few others (though not all), and that as long as someone in their group was told (they themselves) it was fine anyway.Once again the lack of definition leaves it completely open to these kinds of games which the administration has already indulged in.To repeat, given the nontransparency of the system, that means a party could simply not inform the oppositional members, and claim later they did, turning it into a he said she said issue. There is no sense that any of this "notification" must be formally documented and there will be "national security" claims to prevent the public from finding out. I don't know what to say. I am not the one shifting goalposts. The legislation is about warrantless wiretaps correct? If so, then they are de facto handing the ability to grant warrants to the executive branch, with oversight by themselves. There is nothing in the constitution which allows the legislative body to change such powers and oversight, except through amendments.Furthermore the only oversight they list as belonging to them (outside of this specific legislation) is to make sure that intelligence activities meet constitutional demands. That does not mean that they have the power of the judiciary, which is the actual check. It is simply a mechanism to ensure things won't have to go to the courts later.With this legislation they have granted themselves oversight of notifications, with no power or check by the courts. True enough. But until it is changed they right is gone and you have set precedent that rights and divisions of power can be changed by partyline acts of congress. Fine. Your argument seems to consist of not wanting to be bothered thinking about things anyway, and so letting others do it for you. I can't really fight that logic.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)