ok, assume I know nothing: explain to me the vote this weekend

[Lerkfish]

what is the long range democratic strategy that justifies giving the president what he wanted in regards to FISA?

I've been thinking and analyzing this, and I see absolutely no upside. Maybe I'm missing it.
If you can explain it so I can understand an upside, please post here.

thanks.

[billyoc]

1. I'm not at liberty to say. n/t

[Nite Owl]

2. They were trying to avoid being

blamed for being soft of terror if there were another attack they would be blamed. That's what has been said but it really doesn't fly, they could have passed their bill and if he vetoed it blame him and say that loudly when he is given the bill. * is under 30%! They are just spineless. And why six months, why not 45 days when they return?

[mikelgb]

5. this would make sense only if...

they were threatened with a 'terrorist' attack... unfortunately it seems political survival always wins out

[RC]

6. But being soft on terrorism IS caving to bu$h.

He/cheney is the terrorist. Pack them off to the World Court and most of the so called terrorism would just go away again.

[Nite Owl]

9. Like * has done anything

to lessen the fear from terroism too, we are worse off now. Just doesn't make sense no matter what the excuse does it?

[bonito]

3. This is going to be a lonely thread

Its as if they are opening the door for a third party, and I wont be surprised to see it happen.

[Clovis Sangrail]

4. "your ass has been sold"

[katsy]

7. Upside?

The upside is that anyone involved in planning crimes will have to develop new technologies to communicate with one another.

The new tech will bring new jobs to the ME and they'll go IPO and become gazillionaires.

Not one criminal will get caught in this farce because they know about it.

Nice job agent mike, you moran! Thanks congress critters!

:hi:

[JDPriestly]

8. Bill Clinton started the whole surveillance thing in 1997.

Europeans used to have a guarantee of the right to privacy regarding their communications including their electronic communications. According to a German website (see my DU blog for the link), the Americans started pressing the European Parliament to start mandatory retention of records of communications at the 1997 G8 (G7?) summit. At that time the justification was that it was needed to prevent identity theft. Of course, that was just an excuse. The real reason is probably to facilitate corporate control over copyright and patent enforcement. As I have said and will repeat every time I get the chance, I fully support the enforcement of reasonable copyright and patent laws. I am totally opposed to the wholesale collection of records of private communications by the government. The thought of it is outrageous. Nobody needs to know how often or how long I talk to friends and relatives whether they are here in the U.S. or over there in Europe where I happen to have a lot of ties. I am not involved in any illegal or subversive activities although I do like to voice my honest opinions.

I expect my government to mind its business and spend our tax dollars on something other than keeping records of my telephone calls and e-mails. That is not law enforcement. That is simply a payoff to companies that create programs that permit eavesdropping, etc. I want it stopped now.

My daughters can leave their diaries and personal letters lying around my house, and they know that I would never, never, never open them or read them. This was as true when they were teenagers as it is now that they are adults.

Respecting another person's privacy is just a basic question of human decency. Maybe I am a bit irrational on this point, but for someone to snoop on my electronic transmissions or phone calls (or mail) is like having someone stick their fingers in my mouth, take out the food I am chewing, put it in their mouth, and then, after chewing it, force it back into mine. I feel it violates me that much. It is a violation of my person. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. There is something repugnant about violating a person's private space, private matters, private thoughts without probable cause.

[Lerkfish]

10. I think your last paragraph should be bronzed.

[JDPriestly]

13. This spying is quite simply intellectual rape.

[AuntPatsy]

11. You'd be suprised how many citizens early on thought this a good idea simply

because they had bought into the fear factor and that only govermment can protect them, it sickened me to actually hear that excuse then as much as it does now...honestly pathetic to actually believe this is a good thing for America but you would be surprised just how many people do not understand the ramifications of what has been put into play by our very own government.


Fair is fair, if they can spy on the average American they why cannot the average American be privy to the privacy of those whom are supposed to be taking care of our interests regarding law and order.

[AndyTiedye]

12. Surrender

Bush** can cause every TV network in the country to lambaste the Democrats as being "soft on terrorism" for defying him.
Bush** can cause Democrats to be prosecuted and thrown into jail for imaginary crimes.
Bush** can cause anthrax to be sent to them in the mail.
Bush** can cause their airlplanes to fall out of the sky.
Bush** can stage a "terra attack" and declare martial law.

Is it any wonder that the Democrats surrendered?

:cry: