|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by samcol
Host, rehashing countless GOP scandals and lies does nothing for me anymore. I already know how corrupt they are. The GOP is bad, so I should vote for Democrats. I have no idea how you make that conclusion.
<You are almost the flip side of the coin to these unwavering GWB supporters. Bush could have human sacrifices in the white house lawn and people would still follow him if he said it was for terrorism. Likewise your continued support for the Democratic party and their lack luster performance is depressing frankly.
|
I try to keep informed, I share what shapes my opinion, and my priority is to have a personal political strategy that is in my best interests....and it has to be feasible that it can accomplish getting elected.
My support of the democrats is a compromise, and although it is a disappointing and frustrating concession to support them, I do it because I accept some things that you may not.
I accept that my support of federal progressive income taxes and inheritance taxes on million dollar plus estates, in a country like this one, where the bottom half own just 2-1/2 percent of all assets, and the next 40 percent, just 27-1/2 percent of all assets, and with the gap widening in fa tvor of the top ten percent who already own 70 percent of everything....is in synch with the reality of contemporary wealth distribution.....
I accept that it is unrealistic to believe that federal deficit or debt reduction will be aided by reduced spending, going forward, because there is no history of spending reduction, the rate of annual federal debt increase was pared from an average of $250 billion in the early 90's, down to just $18 billion, annually, by 2000....during a seven years span when the democrats held the presidency and one congressional branch.
With an aging population now, and with new annual federal treasury debt accumulating at an average of $412 billion per year, these past six years, a tax policy change reverting to the pre-2001 progressive income tax rates and the inheritance tax, seem to offer the only realistic remedy to reverse the debt accumulation trend, and I am skeptical that it is even possible to add a spending freeze to the taxing solution, since there is also the added expense that did not exist six years ago....the expense of annual interest on $3 trillion borrowed since 2001.
I observe "stuff" like this:
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0011026-5.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 26, 2001
...The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones.
As of today, we'll be able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology....
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20011027.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 27, 2001
Radio Address of the President to the Nation
.....The bill I signed yesterday gives intelligence and law enforcement officials additional tools they need to hunt and capture and punish terrorists. Our enemies operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, using the latest means of communication and the new weapon of bioterrorism.
....When earlier laws were written, some of these methods did not even exist. The new law recognizes the realities and dangers posed by the modern terrorist. ....
But for a long time, we have been working under laws written in the era of rotary telephones.
Under the new law, officials may conduct court-ordered surveillance of all modern forms of communication used by terrorists.....
...... These measures were enacted with broad support in both parties. They reflect a firm resolve to uphold and respect the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, while dealing swiftly and severely with terrorists.
Now comes the duty of carrying them out.
And I can assure all Americans that these important new statutes will be enforced to the full.
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0051219-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
<h2>December 19, 2005</h2>
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence
James S. Brady Briefing Room
......Q General, can you tell us why you don't choose to go to the FISA court?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Well, we continue to go to the FISA court and obtain orders. It is a very important tool that we continue to utilize. Our position is that we are not legally required to do, in this particular case, because the law requires that we -- FISA requires that we get a court order, unless authorized by a statute, and we believe that authorization has occurred.
The operators out at NSA tell me that we don't have the speed and the agility that we need, in all circumstances, to deal with this new kind of enemy. <h3>You have to remember that FISA was passed by the Congress in 1978. There have been tremendous advances in technology -- ......</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...pt_072407.html
U.S. Senate Judiciary Commmittee Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez Testifies
CQ Transcripts Wire
<h2>JULY 24, 2007</h2>
....GONZALES:.......As the recent National Intelligence Estimate has -- as well as the attempted car bombings in London and Scotland demonstrate, the threat posed to America and its allies by Al Qaida and other terrorist groups remains very strong.
To respond effectively to this threat, it is imperative that Congress modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, known as FISA. Doing so is critically important to intelligence gathering, and it really just makes plain sense.
<h3>When Congress drafted FISA in 1978, it defined the statute's key provisions in terms of telecommunications technologies that existed at that time. As we all know, there have been sweeping changes in the way that we communicate since FISA became law and these changes have had unintended consequences on FISA's operation.
For example, without any change in FISA, technological advancements have actually made it more difficult to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and other subjects of foreign intelligence surveillance overseas. </h3>
......
|
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn..._Comments.html
A Law Terrorism Outran
We Need a FISA For the 21st Century
By Mike McConnell
Monday, May 21, 2007; A13
In 1978, the first cellular mobile phone system was still being tested, a personal computer's memory had just been expanded to 16 kilobytes and our greatest threat was the largest nation-state on Earth, the Soviet Union. That same year, the framework governing electronic surveillance of foreign powers and agents of foreign powers -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- was signed into law.
Today, cellular phones are the size of credit cards, you would be hard-pressed to find a computer with memory less than 512 megabytes and our greatest threats are independent transnational terrorists and terror networks.
FISA was created to guard against domestic government abuse and to protect privacy while allowing for appropriate foreign intelligence collection.
Technology and threats have changed, but the law remains essentially the same.
If we are to improve our ability to protect the country by gathering foreign intelligence, this law must be updated to reflect changes in technology and the ways our adversaries communicate with one another.....
|
<h3>The bottom quote box is a fitting example, delivered just this past saturday, of six years of unchecked lies and contradictions, intended to transfer authority from us to them, and the following is an example of what I see you advocating, via your politics, to interrupt or to end.... at a critical time....evidence of resumption of checks and balances, voted into existence, just last november....WHY NOT GIVE IT A CHANCE?</h3>
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901637_pf.html
Reality, Not Rhetoric, On FISA
By Silvestre Reyes
Wednesday, May 30, 2007; A13
The congressional testimony this month by former deputy attorney general James Comey called into question the accuracy of everything I had heard before about the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. According to Comey, in the spring of 2004 President Bush authorized a program of domestic surveillance even though his acting attorney general was so concerned about the surveillance that he could not in good faith "certify its legality."
That the program didn't comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was not a shock. We have known that fact since the program's existence was disclosed in December 2005. What was shocking was the amount of dissent, even within the president's own Justice Department, about the perils of ignoring FISA.
<h3>FISA has been on the books since 1978 but has been updated and modernized numerous times. The law's purpose is to facilitate secret surveillance and searches on U.S. soil against spies, terrorists and other foreign powers.
A Congressional Research Service report last July found that Congress had made approximately 50 changes to FISA since its inception -- and nearly a dozen updates since Sept. 11, 2001. Whenever FISA has been shown to be inadequate to track the communications of terrorists, Congress has been ready to update the law.</h3>
In his May 21 op-ed, Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, tried to make the case for the administration's new proposal for rewriting FISA. But his complaints about the current system were inaccurate.
He stated that our intelligence agencies must obtain a court order to monitor the communications of foreigners abroad. That is not correct. Foreign-to-foreign communications, as a rule, do not require a court order.
One of McConnell's principal concerns relates to the time required to obtain a court order under FISA, but what he failed to mention is that the attorney general (or the deputy attorney general or an assistant attorney general) can grant oral approval for surveillance if that Justice Department official believes "an emergency situation exists" and that the facts will support a FISA court order.
All that is required to start emergency surveillance under the current law is a phone call from the National Security Agency or the FBI to one of those Justice Department officials.
Yet that is not the administration's practice. The administration's practice is to get multiple approvals and involve hordes of lawyers. Before we sweep away the FISA framework, Congress must review the administration's cumbersome, uncoordinated process that leads to delays in getting emergency FISA applications approved.
In fact, I believe it was the administration's cumbersome, uncoordinated process and not the statutory requirements that led the president to authorize an end-run around FISA.
Last week, I announced that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would hold hearings on this issue. These hearings will begin next month and will focus on the following important questions:
· What surveillance activities has President Bush authorized under the NSA surveillance program disclosed in December 2005? What was the legal basis for these activities, and how did those activities change since the inception of the program? What activities are occurring today?
· How does the current FISA system operate? Can this system be improved?
· Are current legal authorities adequate for tracking terrorist communications, or are changes to the law required?
· Do current and proposed legal authorities adequately protect the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans?
Certain hearings may have to occur in closed session, but a major hearing on legislative proposals -- featuring administration witnesses and outside experts -- will take place in open session. Whenever possible, changes to public laws should be debated in public.
Meanwhile, Congress should insist that the Bush administration streamline and modernize its bureaucratic system for handling emergency FISA applications. Thanks to advanced technology, my staff can reach me any time. There is no reason the FBI and the Justice Department can't use every tool at their disposal to speed the process of starting surveillance and searches. If the terrorists move at the speed of the Internet, so should we.
<h3>The writer, a Democrat from Texas, is chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.</h3>
|
Quote:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...626B8B4F9F8%7D
Text of President Bush's weekly radio address
By MarketWatch
Last Update: 11:55 AM ET <h2>Jul 28, 2007</h2>
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week I visited with troops at Charleston Air Force Base. These fine men and women are serving courageously to protect our country against dangerous enemies. The terrorist network that struck America on September the 11th wants to strike our country again. To stop them, our military, law enforcement, and intelligence professionals need the best possible information about who the terrorists are, where they are, and what they are planning.
One of the most important ways we can gather that information is by monitoring terrorist communications. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- <h3>also known as FISA -- provides a critical legal foundation that allows our intelligence community to collect this information while protecting the civil liberties of Americans. But this important law was written in 1978, and it addressed the technologies of that era. This law is badly out of date -- and Congress must act to modernize it.
Today we face sophisticated terrorists who use disposable cell phones and the Internet to communicate with each other, recruit operatives, and plan attacks on our country. Technologies like these were not available when FISA was passed nearly 30 years ago, and FISA has not kept up with new technological developments.</h3> As a result, our Nation is hampered in its ability to gain the vital intelligence we need to keep the American people safe. In his testimony to Congress in May, Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, put it this way: We are "significantly burdened in capturing overseas communications of foreign terrorists planning to conduct attacks inside the United States."
<h3>To fix this problem, my Administration has proposed a bill that would modernize the FISA statute. This legislation is the product of months of discussion with members of both parties in the House and the Senate -- and it includes four key reforms: First, it brings FISA up to date with the changes in communications technology that have taken place over the past three decades.</h3> Second, it seeks to restore FISA to its original focus on protecting the privacy interests of people inside the United States, so we don't have to obtain court orders to effectively collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets located in foreign locations. Third, it allows the government to work more efficiently with private-sector entities like communications providers, whose help is essential. And fourth, it will streamline administrative processes so our intelligence community can gather foreign intelligence more quickly and more effectively, while protecting civil liberties.
<h3>Every day that Congress puts off these reforms increases the danger to our Nation.</h3> Our intelligence community warns that under the current statute, we are missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country. Congress needs to act immediately to pass this bill, so that our national security professionals can close intelligence gaps and provide critical warning time for our country.
As the recent National Intelligence Estimate reported, America is in a heightened threat environment. Reforming FISA will help our intelligence professionals address those threats -- and they should not have to wait any longer. Congress will soon be leaving for its August recess.<h3> I ask Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass FISA modernization now, before they leave town. Our national security depends on it.</h3> Thank you for listening.
|
|