Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
We have no idea what Bush did between 2003 and 2006.....therein lies the problem. You seem to assume there was no abuse. I believe Congress has a right to know, even if only in closed session.
|
He authorized wire-taps of the communications of known terrorist, some of which started or terminated within this country.
Perhaps, you are correct and at least certain members of Congress should know. But I will never support making a public "peep" show out of this issue, which is what will happen if the bill passes as presented.
Quote:
Bush and Gonzales claimed that the Exec branch had legal authority to act outside FISA and REFUSED to share any information with either the Repub Congress (which really didnt press very hard) or the Dem Congress, and the Judiciary (FISA court), both of which have oversight responsibility to ensure that there was not abuse by the Exec.
|
Again, if national security is an issue - I support keeping the information confidential. And in this case, given no reported abuses (that I am aware of, if there are - my opinion may change) I give the benefit of the doubt to the President.
In either case there is no value in opening up telecommunication companies to endless numbers of class action lawsuits for the benefit of the trial lawyer's lobby. Why is that in the bill if not for them? Please, don't tell me how class action lawsuits help the "little guy".
Quote:
This new bill restores that Constitutional oversight.
|
Some of it, yes. Other parts of it - no. I say they should focus on true oversight issues, if they do the bill will be signed.
Quote:
I dont see how that threatens national security.
|
We have a list of terrorists. We know who they call, when they call, and where they call to and in some cases where they call from. This bill would make that information public record.
Quote:
It still allows a wiretap before FISA approval if it can be justified based on the immediacy of the potential threat.
|
All I am saying is that there are two components of the bill that are going to be the basis of a veto. Like it or not there are legitimate reasons for those two components to be excluded.