3 Months Now Without FISA's Protect America Act... When will congress act???

[Andrew LB]

As many of you probably know, the US House of Representatives allowed the Protect America Act, a vital tool for protecting America and our allies, to expire 3 months ago. The Senate already approved keeping this important part of FISA active, yet Harry Reid has refused to bring it up for a vote in the House of Representatives, usurping his duties as a congressman and speaker of the house in order to play politics with our lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cY9iXX1fT3A

So instead of bringing the bill to the floor for a vote, the House Democrats decided they'd Shut Down an Earmark Reform Site.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/02/house_democrats_shut_down_earm_1.asp

Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats wrapped up another busy three-day work week Thursday morning with a flurry of legislative action. She passed five bills naming post offices, created the official inaugural committee, and authorized the use of the Capitol Rotunda for the 2009 Inaugural. With that workload behind her, it was time to call it a week and break for four days until next Tuesday.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002677810
(2nd page, down a bit)

 

[Eejit]

So... civil liberties are unimportant?

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

 

[jondy]

'Protect America Act'. Sounds promising

 

[Andrew LB]

So... civil liberties are unimportant?

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."

Senate Democrats thought the bill didn't violate civil liberties, as has the judicial branch of the Government. The Protect America Act specifically targeted foreign communications, not domestic ones. A warrant approved by a FISA judge is still required to tap the communications of an American citizen.

Also, the bill contains a clause which causes it to expire after 4 years so the law will only be around as long as needed, and will expire when it's not approved by congress and renewed.

 

[99.vikram]

"Protect America Act"?

"Newborn Screening Saves Lives"?



That's just so 1984!

 

[Sulkdodds]

Senate Democrats thought the bill didn't violate civil liberties, as has the judicial branch of the Government. The Protect America Act specifically targeted foreign communications, not domestic ones. A warrant approved by a FISA judge is still required to tap the communications of an American citizen.

Also, the bill contains a clause which causes it to expire after 4 years so the law will only be around as long as needed, and will expire when it's not approved by congress and renewed.

Except the bill also contains a sunset clause which has already kicked in, and the elected house of representatives isn't renewing this...I'm not sure I see the malfeasance.

Besides, the act allows warrentless surveillance of all networks as long as it isn't specifically targeted at one US citizen. What the hell does that mean? So it's okay on a huge scale, but not on a small one? That the law seems to have been passed in direct response to 2005's secret wiretapping scandals does not exactly inspire faith in government.

The A-G can issue program warrants for international calls without a court review, which means the executive is not being checked. That's directly against the ideology behind the entire structure of the US government. And hey, what about the American end of the calls? The AG doesn't have to submit to the FISA court what he'll do with those, and the government, it seems, might collect the details with impunity.

For a country that will fight for its freedom to own guns without substantial checks or waiting periods, and often scornfully rejects socialised health care, you sure do like to put a lot of power in the hands of your state government.

 

[Direwolf]

Is it just me, or does the original post read like a political ad?

 

[No Limit]

Somebody call guinness, I think this guy just broke the record for how many right wing talking points you can fit in a single post.

"Protect america first act" sounds so much better than the "spy on americans act", so it must be a good thing.

 

[Gray Fox]

I'm probably mistaken about this.
But as far as I can understand Andrew is asking the members of an international forum
to support a law that lets the US spy on anyone outside of the US without a warrant.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I believe that would be an accurate summary.