Why Have The Democrats Not Acted on FISA?
Cross-posted from GOP Bloggers:
OK, Now I'm Questioning the Democrats' Patriotism
by Jon Roth at 08:57 AM
Democrats love to complain that Republicans question their patriotism, when it is simply Democrats' judgement on national security issues that is in doubt. But now, with their vile, grossly negligent and reprehensible behavior on terrorist surveillance, it is finally time to question their patriotism.
Even though the Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation to allow the government to eavesdrop on terrorists, Democratic Senator and intelligence committee chairman Jay Rockefeller voted in favor, and enough Democrats in the House demanded a vote to pass the bill, Nancy Pelosi refused to bring it to a vote. The issue, of course, is that the trial lawyers (aka, the DNC piggy bank) have dozens of lawsuits pending against the telecom companies that cooperated with the government to protect America. Rather than protect these patriotic companies from costly and frivolous litigation, Pelosi and the House Democrats refused to vote.
So now we are in our 5th day of being unable to surveil our mortal enemies. Many people complained that we failed to "connect the dots" prior to September 11, but now the Democrats are preventing us from even collecting the dots. The President (who should have postponed his Africa trip to pressure Congress) and every GOP member of Congress needs to hammer the Democrats every day non-stop on this issue. It is not only that important, but it is a 100% political winner - especially when the House Democrat leadership are bordering on treason.
Labels: Liberals and Conservatives, War on Islamic Terrorism
posted by RussWilcox @ 8:13 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
I question the patriotism of those vile, grossly negligent, and reprehensible people who advocate allowing communications companies to break the law with impunity.
I find it hard to believe that there are people on this forum who think like Nancy Pelosi. I guess that it is true that Liberalism is a mental disorder, and all this time I thought that it was just flawed thinking. This really amazes me to no end.
Why is amnesty for illegal aliens who broke our immigration laws a terrible afront to the legal system, but amnesty for big corporations who broke our privacy laws acceptable to right wingers?
Supreme court won't review Bush domestic spying case
Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:10am EST
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a legal challenge to the warrantless domestic spying program President George W. Bush created after the September 11 attacks.
The American Civil Liberties Union had asked the justices to hear the case after a lower court ruled the ACLU, other groups and individuals that sued the government had no legal right to do so because they could not prove they had been affected by the program.
The civil liberties group also asked the nation's highest court to make clear that Bush does not have the power under the U.S. Constitution to engage in intelligence surveillance within the United States that Congress has expressly prohibited.
"The president is bound by the laws that Congress enacts. He may disagree with those laws, but he may not disobey them," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in the appeal.
Bush authorized the program to monitor international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining a court warrant. The program's disclosure in December 2005 caused a political uproar among Democrats, some Republicans and civil liberties activists.
The administration abandoned the program about a year ago, putting it under the surveillance court that Congress created more than 30 years ago.
The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.
The journalists, scholars, attorneys and national advocacy groups that filed the lawsuit said the illegal surveillance had disrupted their ability to communicate with sources and clients.
The appeals court based in Cincinnati dismissed the case because the plaintiffs could not state with certainty they had been wiretapped by the government's National Security Agency.
Administration lawyers opposed the appeal and said further review by the Supreme Court was unwarranted.
The Supreme Court sided with the administration and rejected the appeal without any comment.
That the Supreme Court refused to order the administration to enforce the law says more about the judicial philosophy of the court members than it does about the legality of the situation.
It's all about the Democrats trying to make sure that the their lawyer buddies can get to sue the communications companies who are vitally needed to supply the information to protect this country at the cost of the safety of each American Citizen. What part of this don't you seem to understand? I want to be protected. Who the heck are you to deny me that right? Bush wants FISA, I want FISA, and if you had the brains that God gave a chipmunk, you would also want FISA regardless of who is president of the United States! It's a no-brainer.
Post a Comment
<< Home