dc_dux

House Democrats introduced the RESTORE Act today.

This would amend the hastily-enacted, short-term update of the FISA law that Congress passed in August (with Democratic complicity) called the Protect America Act that gave Bush far too much unchecked power of warrentless wiretaps and surveillance.

The RESTORE Act:

* Restores court oversight of intelligence by requiring that electronic surveillance programs be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court
* Mandates that FISA warrants be obtained when the administration wants to undertake surveillance of persons in the US
* No retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration’s warrantless surveillance
* Does not require individual warrants when targets are reasonably believed to be abroad
* Ensures FISA is the exclusive means of electronic surveillance and that no modifications can be made without express legal authorization

and (Bush will never go for this)
* requires the Justice Department to reveal the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since 9/11.

Overall, IMO, the bill could be stronger, but at least it provides greater protection of civil liberties than the current Protect America Act and definetly provides much greater oversight of the Pres by Congress and the FISA courts.

I expect we'll hear the Bush veto threat any second now and the battle will become another election year showdown


Just to recap....

The Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective (RESTORE) Act amends the Protect America Act, which amended the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act which amended the Foreign Intelligenct Surveillance (FISA) Act.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

On occasion the issue of diplomacy comes up. Normally it is the context of Bush imposing US will on the international scence and the impact it has on US international reputation. The general feeling among many is that if Bush sat down and talked, conflict could be avoided.

Here is a situation were I imagine the leaders in Congress already know that Bush will veto the Restore Act. Since these same leaders criticize Bush for his unwillingness to sit down and negotiate using diplomacy, why aren't they willing to sit down with Bush and negotiate a bill that will pass and a bill that he will sign?

I know one of the first responses to my question would be that Bush is adversarial, unwilling to compromise, etc, etc, but isn't that what diplomacy is all about. Being able to sit down with an adversary and then reach consensus?

These questions strike me because of Bush's infrequent us of his veto authority at a time when he may veto this bill and he veto'd the Child Heath Insurance bill last week. Harry Reid described it as a "heartless" veto, when he knew the bill would be veto'd and Bush said what he would be willing to sign. Now we have the Restore Act, where we have some critical components not in question and could pass and be signed.

My gut tells me that it makes better press to have Bush vetoing bills rather than working out the details ahead of time and getting the job done.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

ace....now I am confused.

You earlier accused Dems of not sticking to their core values and positions on war funding when they demonstrated a willingess to compromise with Bush

and now you question Dems for sticking to their core values and refusing to compromise.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

MrTia

i don’t think the record has shown that attempts to negotiate with the adminsitration bear much fruit. they seem to pretty much have their position and will not compromise. look at the iraq war funding bills -- the demos keep attaching riders to the bills, they negotiate with republicans in congress and come up with a compromise bill that passes congress, and then bush says “give me something i can sign! give me a ‘clean’ bill that funds the troops!” although the bill DOES fund the troops, it just has common-sense provisions, say, asking the administration to provide progress reports to congress or come up with some kind of reasonable drawdown plan. but no, if it doesn’t adhere to the administration’s position, it isn’t a “clean” bill and he vetoes it.

i’m a little disappointed that the demos have stooped to making the bill’s acronym spell out some propagandistic, orwellian acronym. it’s not any funnier now than it was when the repubs came up with the “PATRIOT” act. it’s the sort of thing that makes the government look like they look down on us like ignorant children.

__________________
The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity.
-- Bruce Lee

aceventura3

I thought diplomacy and a willingness to negotiate was a core value of Democrats. If I am wrong on that I Understand your confusion. Am I wrong?

I think they have a few things included in the bill that they don't really care that much about. For example what is the value of not giving telecommunications companies immunity? And, I think Bush will use "national security" as the response to releasing info on past activities. I think on that issue compromise can easily be reached without holding up the bill. Don't you agree?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

Yes...you are wrong on the first...the Dems demonstrated a willngess to negotiate with Bush, Gonzales, et al for the last six months on this issue to no avail.

and No, I dont think Bush will compromise at all.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

How do you explain the fact that Bush has used his veto authority so infrequently. Either some is negotiating is going on or perhaps Congress has been giving Bush everything he wants, even though they claim to be against everything he wants.

P.S. - I know. The Dems have not controlled Congress for very long and they don't have enough votes. They are really, really, in a bad situation. Poor Democrats, I will light a candle for them.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

MrTia

am i missing something obvious? it's because the last six years we've had one-party government, yes? why would bush veto a republican spending bill?

__________________
The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity.
-- Bruce Lee

aceventura3

So what was or is the point? They have a bill, that Bush won't sign, they don't have the votes to over-ride the veto, what next?

He is not gong to compromise on the national security issue. He might compromise on the immunity (because that is really a non-issue, except for trial lawyers who want to make a mint with class action legal action). This bill could easily pass and be signed, but like I said - my gut tells me the Dems want to make some hay on this issue.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

My gut tells me that the Dems want to protect the rights of citizens under the 4th amendment to the US Constitution.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

Bush is a big spender, he won't veto a Republican spending bill. However, he ran more on the basis of cutting taxes rather than cutting spending.

On the otherhand for example 384 members of the House and 91 Senator voted in favor of No Child Left Behind. What is the public perception of that bill? Some one negotiated the components of the law, it seems that both branches of government bear responsibility because they got what they wanted in the bill.

Do you think Bush has any concerns about protecting the rights of citizens under the 4th amendment?

Do you think Republicans have concerns about protecting the rights of citizens under the 4th amendment?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

MrTia

i’m not sure how productive it is to guess at intentions, i have no idea what their innermost desires and intentions are. but judging by their actions, they seem to be quite hostile to the 4th amendment, frankly. not to mention the UN charter, habeas corpus, the precepts of the magna carta and just about every legal construct meant to move beyond plutocratic feudalism and bolster a civil, secular society.

on the other hand, i DID like bush’s speech about the Challenger tragedy.

__________________
The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity.
-- Bruce Lee

aceventura3

I know what I would do. If I had the responsibility to secure our boarders and our national interest and was faced with the dilemma of possibly violating the 4th amendment when the violation is in a legal gray area - I would act to save lives, while the details got worked out. I think that is what Bush did, and I think the American public knows that. To date, we still have no person who has come forward and proved he or sha has been harmed by the "illegal" wire-taps.

Also, DC seeming to suggest that Bush and Republican have no concern over the 4th amendment, is a bit over the top, in my opinion.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

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.

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.

This new bill restores that Constitutional oversight. I dont see how that threatens national security. It still allows a wiretap before FISA approval if it can be justified based on the immediacy of the potential threat.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

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.

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".

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.

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.


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.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

dc_dux

There is nothing in this bill that requires that information be made public, but only that Congress is provided the information on a quarterly basis (and it can be in closed session) and FISA is informed prior to any surveillance action (this does not give FISA the power to stop the surveillance but requires the Exec to submit the formal request in a timely manner after the fact).

The provision regarding the telcomms is a safeguard so that those companies do not roll over at every request by the Exec......and it currently does not apply to the future where the telcomms would still have immunity (a compromise by the Dems), it only applies retroactively for their past potentially illegal actions, again between 2003 and 2006 when the Congress and the courts were left in the dark.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

aceventura3

This is what you wrote in the OP:



I still don't see how this will serve anyone other than trial lawyers.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Mojo_PeiPei

I think the dems really need to push the issue, or at least find a way to bring in court oversight.

Executive power naturally grows, its not an aberration solely limited to the Bush administration. At the same time if Bush didn't push it with executive limits, I'd say he wouldn't be doing his job.

Congress and the courts have to reign in executive power and act as the balance to it.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.