The Problem With FISA

~Snooper~

The problem here is not that there is a spy program being utilized to trap and snare enemies of the United States, ie terrorists. The problem is that GWB is using it very effectively and the Jihadi sympathizers loyal to CAIR in the name of the lethal concept of multiculturalism are upset. The root cause of this disingenuous behavior of the anti-Americanist groups that are whining the loudest is BDS.

Where was the outrage during the Clintonian years when Echelon was being used?

[...] People in Europe and the United States are beginning to ask why. Has the NSA turned from eavesdropping on the communists to eavesdropping on businesses and private citizens in Europe and the United States? The concerns have arisen because of the existence of a sophisticated network linking the NSA and the spy agencies of several other nations. The NSA will not confirm the existence of the project, code-named Echelon. [...]

Just curious.

While Feingold is feigning to be disappointed for vote panderings, other anti-Americanist groups wouldn't understand the threats we face as a nation if the sword of MoHumDrum was shoved...well...at their throats. Digby wants to know Can I Get A Big Old Yeeeeaaarrrgh!?!! and The Newsblobbers get their panties all wadded up as usual.

I find it curious that the Libtards seem to think that it is quite alright to "grandfather" a law to catch folks from doing an illegal act that currently is not illegal. I would like a Libtard to explain that one if they can. I haven't figured out why it is that a grandfather clause is required for protection for something that was declared legal. If all this nonsense is truly required, why not take it all the way back to the 1960s?

Roll back the calendars to an ancient time of October in the year 2007...The Weekly Standard:

[...] Perhaps most amusing of all, when forced to explain why they blocked a floor debate, Democrats said it was important to move swiftly to reauthorize the law. Never mind that it was they who insisted the law expire quickly; if this was really their view then they would schedule a vote to extend the measure as is -- since the votes were clearly there for such a measure.

Now, after this abuse of process and national security, what does the left say when Republicans use the one procedural opportunity afforded them to force Democrats to cast a difficult vote?

'They're not playing fair.'

Read the breathless explanations on the left -- from DailyKos, ThinkProgress, TalkingPointsMemo. They all say the same thing: Cantor's motion-to-recommit was unfair because it called for a vote on something already in the bill, and some Democrats would have looked bad if they voted against it. It was 'trickery.' If that's the best argument they can come up with, Soros's money is being wasted.

Does any of this ring a bell? Or, maybe a Gong? How about this one from Power Line?

House Democrats have been forced to pull their proposed legislation to change the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they couldn't round up enough support among Dems who need the votes of non-liberals to be re-elected. You probably recall that the Democratic leadership was embarrassed two months ago when these same non-leftist Dems joined with Republicans to pass a temporary FISA fix so that our intelligence agencies could monitor the overseas communications of terrorists without obtaining a warrant. Still unwilling to provide the administration with the FISA fix it needs to ensure the gathering of information vital to the national security, the Democratic leadership has been slapped down again by members of its own caucus. [...]

Well, just like WAY BACK IN OCTOBER, the little sniveling imp loser Reid has pulled the same antic...yanked his ball from the game and went sulking back home. Spoiled brats. They cannot get their way so they run away.

After not getting the support they wanted, they cry FOUL and walk off. What kind of leadership is that?

Let's ZOOM back in time t August of 2007:

The dispute illustrates how lawmakers, in a frenetic, end-of-session scramble, passed legislation they may not have fully understood and may have given the administration more surveillance powers than it sought.

It also offers a case study in how changing a few words in a complex piece of legislation has the potential to fundamentally alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a landmark national security law. The new legislation is set to expire in less than six months; two weeks after it was signed into law, there is still heated debate over how much power Congress gave to the president. [...]

[...] Several legal experts said that by redefining the meaning of "electronic surveillance," the new law narrows the types of communications covered in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, by indirectly giving the government the power to use intelligence collection methods far beyond wiretapping that previously required court approval if conducted inside the United States. These new powers include the collection of business records, physical searches and so-called "trap and trace" operations, analyzing specific calling patterns. [...]

THEY. CANNOT. LEAD.

Just so all is clear...from Slate back in August:

The Washington Post leads, and the Wall Street Journal tops its worldwide newsbox, with the Senate's last-minute approval of a Republican plan to overhaul terrorist surveillance laws, following a bitter row between the White House and Democratic lawmakers. The LA Times leads, and the New York Times off-leads, on heightening tensions on the Hill, as Democrats wrestle with stalled legislation and struggle to contain the fallout from allegations of vote-stealing. The NYT leads on the stock market's continuing woes amid fears that ailing mortgage and debt markets could take a toll on the wider economy.

The new spy laws approved yesterday by the Senate would expand the government's authority to eavesdrop without a court order on overseas phone calls and emails. Democrats initially said the legislation was too sweeping, and accused the White House of trying to wreck an existing deal; President Bush warned that he might seek to keep Congress in session until they passed the legislation. Senators eventually caved in, earning swift condemnation from privacy campaigners who predicted the laws would be used to eavesdrop on US citizens. Senate majority leader Harry Reid accused Republicans of rubber-stamping a flawed proposal, but noted that the measure would need to be re-approved in six months' time. The LAT and the NYT both note that the House is expected to pass an identical bill later today.

Some things just never change, do they? First, they approve the program and then they rail against it.

I see a trend here.

Ride the wave here at memeorandum and here.

Dodd seems to think that he has protected the Constitution. He obviously doesn't know anything about it. The Caliphate News Network chimes in here.

Track back: The Thunder Run