Click on pic if you don't already recognize it to enjoy the full experience it has to offer! :-)
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Are House Democrats serious about national security? |
| 2008-02-24 |
| An excellent editorial - you should check their site for more On February 16, last year's bipartisan legislation governing the collection of foreign intelligence and protecting from liability all persons who comply with federal directives to assist in such collection--the law otherwise known as the "Protect America Act of 2007"--expired, having exhausted its six-month, 15-day statutory lifespan. At which time the federal government's ability to pursue suspected terrorists and emerging threats was dealt a serious blow. You can thank House Democrats for the whole sorry mess. The Democratic leadership denies this, of course, having adopted an Alfred E. Neuman "What, Me Worry?" approach to national security. The lack of a new statute "does not, in reality, threaten the safety of Americans," protests Senate majority leader Harry Reid. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 still applies. Says Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, "The FISA law--even if we do not change it--gives ample authority to this president to continue to monitor the conversations of those who endanger the United States." Says House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes: "We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution." Democratic national-security-adviser-in-waiting Richard Clarke writes that "FISA has and still works as the most valuable mechanism for monitoring our enemies." |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #14 There are already over 40 lawsuits files -- There's: Verizon / MCI This category includes a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of customers against various Verizon and MCI entities, alleging wholesale dragnet surveillance. Hepting v. AT&T EFF filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T accusing the telecom giant of violating the law and the privacy of its customers by collaborating with the NSA in its massive, illegal program to wiretap and data-mine Americans' communications Here's Rep Smith from Texas on the floor of The House: Any bill must include two critical provisions. First, Congress has the responsibility to enact long-term legislation that allows intelligence officials to conduct surveillance on foreign targets without a court order. A U.S. Army intelligence officer in Iraq should not have to contact a Federal judge in Washington to conduct surveillance on Iraqi insurgents. Second, Congress must provide liability protection to U.S. telecommunication companies that responded to government requests for information following the terrorist attacks of September 11. Close to 40 frivolous lawsuits against the telephone companies already have been filed. These companies deserve our thanks, not a flurry of meritless lawsuits. Terrorists have not placed an expiration date on their plots to destroy the American way of life. Congress should not put an expiration date on our intelligence community's ability to protect our Nation. |
| Posted by: Sherry 2008-02-24 15:13 |
| #13 Liberal RedNeck It is not just the Protect America Act. There are also the 2700 earmarks in the Defense Budget. PBS (hardly a conservative mouthpiece) had a show on how earmarks are being used to force the DOD to buy equipment they don't want, equipment they rejected, and equipment that is actually dangerous to use. The problem is the Dems see the Defense Budget as a gravy train to use as source of cash for contributers. They don't really think someone's life might depend on the equipment actually working. The show focused on a ship the Navy was forced to spend $20 million for that they had rejected. They never used it an gave it to the U of Washington for $1 (i.e. a 19,999,999 loss). The U decided it was worth $1, and gave to the SF Police dept. where it now patrols SF Harbor. Meanwhile we can't get .45 caliber pistols or 6.8mm assault rifles for our troops because there isn't enough money. If they were serious, they would be trying to give our troops stuff they really need, instead of looting their budget. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2008-02-24 14:04 |
| #12 It's about time the rest of America wakes up to what the docs have been saying for years. Trial lawyers are a cancer. |
| Posted by: doc 2008-02-24 10:50 |
| #11 I saw on Fox News last night where Lawyers are already lining up to sue companies that complied with Federal requests for information. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-02-24 10:04 |
| #10 Q. "Are House Democrats serious about National Security?" A. YES!!! Hmmm....no. Cooperheads you be. Even they didn't attempt to directly interfere with the conduct of the war. Payback was a mother then. It's going to be again. You don't interfere with the Commander in Chief in the execution of his sworn Constitution duty by playing politics. Timetables are not the prerogative of Congress. Interrogation of theater commanders in the execution of operations for political shows is not the business of Congress. Issuing proclamations that are in contradiction to law and treaty, let alone counter to actions accepted as executed by Saint Roosevelt, is not support but pure political theater. It is done for party and positioning over national security. Congress has solely the powers of the purse, the approval of the appointment of commissioned officers, and makes the law as incorporated in Title X USC. Everything else belongs to the Executive for execution. Those were established by our English heritage and enshrined in the Constitution. The founding fathers knew that any military conflict required a single commander, that division of command historically lead to defeat. Which, of course, is what many in the Donk party actively seek, defeat. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-02-24 09:05 |
| #9 If only such editorials could be expressed in YouTube videos, or clever five-second sound-bites, other folks might get a clue. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2008-02-24 06:35 |
| #8 Do House Democrats think the Constitution gives liberties to unforeseeable criminals to the point that it is a suicide pact? YES!!! |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-02-24 03:07 |
| #7 Click on pic if you don't already recognize it to enjoy the full experience it has to offer! :-) |
| Posted by: gorb 2008-02-24 03:02 |
| #6 LiberalRedNeck is just a troll, folks. Your choices are: 1) don't feed him 2) use him as a chew toy |
| Posted by: Steve White 2008-02-24 01:09 |
| #5 "#2 Q. "Are House Democrats serious about National Security?" A. YES!!!" Care to give us an example? (Preferably without the teenie-bopper multiple exclamation points.) |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-24 00:34 |
| #4 Congress is our enemy domestic. |
| Posted by: newc 2008-02-24 00:33 |
| #3 All Democrats are dead serious about national security. They completely committed to undermining it. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2008-02-24 00:32 |
| #2 Q. "Are House Democrats serious about National Security?" A. YES!!! Q. Do House Democrats believe that the Federal Government should be allowed to completely ignore the US Constitution just so the nation can have the illusion that it is more secure? A. NO! Q. Do House Republicans believe that the Federal Government should be allowed to completely ignore the US Constitution just so the nation can have the illusion that it is more secure? A. YES!!!! |
| Posted by: liberalredneck01 2008-02-24 00:24 |
| #1 "Are House Democrats serious about national security?" No. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2008-02-24 00:09 |