Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Kucinich Opposes FISA Bill That Infringes on Fourth Amendment Rights

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 11:32 PM
Original message
Kucinich Opposes FISA Bill That Infringes on Fourth Amendment Rights
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?Docu...

Washington, Mar 14 -

"Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) released the following statement regarding his opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008:

Blanket warrants, institutionalized by the Protect America Act, will continue with the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Under this bill surveillance of persons abroad could infringe on the Fourth Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, Kucinich said.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is the latest version of FISA legislation to be considered by the House of Representatives. Provisions outlining the conditions under which a warrant can be issued are vague. They require no evidence of wrongdoing and contain no explanation of how the information will be collected. The bill also permits warrants of an undefined scope. They do not need to contain details about the facilities, places, premises or property to be searched. These provisions undermine Americas Fourth Amendment rights.

The Constitution dictates that the government must have cause to spy on U.S. citizens. But this bill ensures that all targeted international communication that the government intercepts is not covered by the Fourth Amendment even if a U.S. citizen is involved.

Although this legislation was an improvement over past versions of irresponsible FISA legislation, it does not include retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies and ensures that the courthouse door remains open. I cannot support a bill that undermines Constitutional protection of civil liberties.

If we permit our constitutional rights to be watered down out of fear, we have given up our democracy. Congress must stand firm and defend the Constitution, said Kucinich."



New FISA Compromise Is an Improvement, Still Raises Concerns (3/11/2008)

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34440prs20080311.h...

"...We do, however, continue to have the same reservations we had about the RESTORE Act passed by the House last fall. The provisions in that bill and this new bill allowing for bulk collection of communications and dragnets are inconsistent with Fourth Amendment protections and thus we cannot endorse the bill.

"Nonetheless, we see the Houses new FISA bill as a positive step towards reining in the powers of the flawed Protect America Act rushed through Congress this past August and a clear rejection of the Senates problematic approach..."



The House Stands Up to Scare Tactics, House Votes to Let Consumers Have Their Day in Court (3/14/2008)

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/34483prs20080314.h...

...In spite of partisan scare tactics, the House of Representatives rose up today and put Americans civil liberties concerns ahead of politics, said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the ACLU. The House bill, while allowing problematic basket warrants, does ensure judicial oversight of domestic surveillance and provides a mechanism for both the telecommunications companies and their consumers to make their case in a court of law.

Fredrickson said, The best course of action for the House is to let FISA do what it has been doing for thirty years..."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. I had expected Dennis to vote against the FISA bill today and was surprised that he
voted for it.

According to Jonathan Turley and Bruce Fein, both Constitutional scholars, the original FISA Bill is also Unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 11:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Kucinich voted no, here is the link...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. OK! Someone posted the wrong link here yesterday as the final vote
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll144.xml

I had thought I heard Hinchey as No and then read him as yes above and thought he changed his vote. His stand of FISA is the same as Dennis'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Understand...
the vote to see if they would vote :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OmmmSweetOmmm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Yes, it can get quite confusing!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. that's the way they've always wanted thing to be-confusing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-14-08 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
3. Kucinich has it right. No new FISA bill is needed
In fact any new FISA bill is a loss of constitutional rights. All the attention has been on the teleco immunity, but the major issue here is that the new bill shreds the bill of rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. While I am glad to see the Democratic leadership stand up to
Bush by not bringing up the Senate bill for a vote we are still losing rights if the ACLU and Kucinich are correct.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Hopefully Bush takes out his Veto pen
like he promised.

The bill would then be dead. Yay!

But before all that happens, the bill has to go to conference where I'm afraid the Dem Senators will put immunity back in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. It may be best to make any changes next year and this could
bounce around for several more months.

Bush will not be happy :) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ananda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Why should Bush care?
First, he's still doing all the warrantless
domestic spying he wants, and the telecoms
are cooperating.. based on the premise that
Congress will cave at some time.

It doesn't matter if or when.

Secondly, he's leaving office soon and
moving to Paraguay or whatever.

We're all screwn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. You are right, this is just an annoyance to him as he is never
held accountable.

:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Maybe he regards the executives and lobbyists asking for retroactive immunity as his pals.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 05:43 PM by Eric J in MN
Or as people he's indebted to for their fundraising.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. That is what I have been saying!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. The Overton window and the fourth amendment.
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 10:22 AM by realpolitik
Remember the first fear mongering Republican campaign to replace the cold war's boogie man?

"This is your brain on drugs."

That is when we let the friendly facsists unlatch the window on privacy. And when there is no more expectation of privacy and possession of goods, there will be no legal underpinning for Roe V. Wade.

As a side benefit of the war on civil liberties, there will be no more abortion. Or private medical records, for that matter.

So, like a frog in a cooking pot, we have given up more and more of our right against unreasonable search and seizure. The Overton window has been slowly pushed open. 20 somethings don't even remember what America was like before the cops could come in, drop a bag of pot on your living room table, and own your future and all your personal property.

No wonder the rhetoric of civil rights seems so hollow to many of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Thank you for mentioning this, I had to look it up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

"...Overton described a method for moving that window, thereby including previously excluded ideas, while excluding previously acceptable ideas. The technique relies on people promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous "outer fringe" ideas. That makes those old fringe ideas look less extreme, and thereby acceptable..."



http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=7504

"...In addition to being dependent on the ideas that form the boundaries of the political climate, politicians are also known to be self-interested and desirous of obtaining the best political result for themselves.<2> Therefore, they will almost always constrain themselves to taking actions within the "window" of ideas approved of by the electorate. Actions outside of this window, while theoretically possible, and maybe more optimal in terms of sound policy, are politically unsuccessful. Even if a few legislators were willing to stick out their necks for an action outside the window, most would not risk the disfavor of their constituents. They may seek the good of those who elected them, and even the good of the state or nation as a whole, but in pursuing the course they think is best, most will certainly take into account their political future. This is the heart of the Overton window theory.

So, if a think tanks research and the principles of sound policy suggest a particular idea that lies outside the Overton window, what is to be done? Shift the window. Since commonly held ideas, attitudes and presumptions frame what is politically possible and create the "window," a change in the opinions held by politicians and the people in general will shift it. Move the window of what is politically possible and those policies previously impractical can become the next great popular and legislative rage..."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
18. The Overton Window, Illustrated (with comments from one of its right-wing creators from the 80s-90s)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:40 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Thanks...
are you saying that the Overton window is a right wing creation? And does it matter if that is what is being done in this instance or other instances for that matter?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
17. or, to put it another way...
...the rest of the democrats in the house do NOT oppose infringing on the fourth ammendment.

(ps: there were a few other exceptions, right?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-16-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Yes, tried to find some statements from other Dems who voted
against the bill and have not found any so far.

There were other exceptions, here is the roll call.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll145.xml

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC