Washington, DC - The American Civil Liberties Union is responding to President George W. Bush?s call for the gutting of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. These remarks can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union:

 

"This administration now makes the outrageous claim that they need even more power to wiretap without warrants. The administration claims the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act must be ?modernized.? Actually, it needs to be followed. The reality is, their proposal would gut FISA.

 

"Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, claims that terrorism has outrun the law, but it is the administration that has outrun the law - and the Constitution - by trying to bypass the FISA court. Under the proposal that the Cheney team is floating on Capitol Hill a ?modernized? FISA would simply be a blank check for warrentless domestic and international surveillance.

 

"The President claims that they need to expand FISA based on new technology. They are wrong. FISA was written to be technology neutral. There is absolutely no new technology that cannot be intercepted with a warrant under FISA. None. Even the man responsible for prepping and filing all FISA applications, James Baker, head of the Justice Department?s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, has said that, 'There?s no type of collection that?s prohibited by the statute.? By the way, FISA was modernized by the Patriot Act, by Intelligence Reform legislation and by the re-authorization of the Patriot Act. In fact, FISA has been updated 50 times since it was enacted in 1978.

 

"It takes an enormous amount of hubris to ask for more power on the heels of revelations that the President tried to go around his own attorney general on his NSA domestic electronic eavesdropping program. The already-shaky legal ground on which this domestic spying program stood is crumbling beneath those who defend it.

 

"With former Assistant Attorney General James Comey?s damning testimony about the 2005 late-night visit to the sickbed of former Attorney General John Ashcroft to reauthorize the program, there is no legal curtain to hide behind. When John Ashcroft is one of the voices speaking up for privacy, the ACLU takes notice and so should the American people.

 

"Hidden in this bill is a disturbing provision that would give complete immunity - from criminal prosecution as well as civil liability - for the telecom companies? participation in the National Security Agency?s illegal warrantless wiretapping program. It is unprecedented and undemocratic to give retroactive and sweeping immunity to an entire industry. Not to mention, giving blanket immunity before a full and public airing of the facts. The telecom companies should not be handed a congressional pardon for breaking privacy laws. Who exactly is the administration looking out for when they ask Congress to let the phone companies off the hook for violating Americans? privacy?

 

"Not for lack of trying, Congress has made little progress in finding out more about the administration?s various violations of FISA during the their warrantless wiretapping program. The Senate Judiciary Committee has asked politely for the legal rationale for the program nine times before issuing subpoenas, and has not yet gotten an answer due to consistent stonewalling by the administration and the Department of Justice.

 

"The NSA program was and is a fundamental violation of the rights of Americans. The American public and their elected Senators and Representatives do not yet know the full extent of the warrantless wiretapping program or the extent to which FISA has been violated.

 

"This is not the time to hand even more power to an administration that has permitted the wholesale abuse of civil liberties; has denied the legislative branch?s constitutionally mandated oversight role and refused to hold the attorney general accountable for a series of conflicting claims that defy logic, the law and common sense. The only thing more outrageous than the administration?s call for even more unfettered power is a Congress that would consider giving it to them."

 

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31132prs20070728.html

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

Just to clarify I'm not talking out of my ass to make a point (which most do on the board) and have first hand knowledge. Probably uneeded for you to comment on that though. (Not that'd ever stop you)

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

Very misleading title, Fishfan79.

 

I also want to throw out there that there are plenty of posters on this board with relatives who are currently living under a communist regime. I personally can not speak for my relatives (mostly because I don't know them very well) so I can not say whether or not they find calling the leader of the free world a dictator offensive or not.

I'm actually surprised that they didn't go after FISA sooner...

 

This is the worst time for them to try it, now that there is some accountability in Washington (although not very much, see: Scooter Libby, Alberto Gonzalez).

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Your 'historical' example didn't make any sense, so you've pretty much answered your own question.

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Your 'historical' example didn't make any sense, so you've pretty much answered your own question.

read more on the fall or rome and maybe you will understand...maybe

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Your 'historical' example didn't make any sense, so you've pretty much answered your own question.

read more on the fall or rome and maybe you will understand...maybe

What you are referring to is the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

 

And I will never subscribe to the theory that a president can gain power for himself and be more and more like a dictator. The framers were very cautious of that when they created our Constitution.

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Your 'historical' example didn't make any sense, so you've pretty much answered your own question.

read more on the fall or rome and maybe you will understand...maybe

What you are referring to is the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

 

And I will never subscribe to the theory that a president can gain power for himself and be more and more like a dictator. The framers were very cautious of that when they created our Constitution.

correct...and yes the framers were very cautious...but the constitution is an ever changing document...that is what makes it so great...however...if anyone who doesnt agree with the President is "against us" and congress gives him power, they pass the patriot act, and so on and so forth...not too mention how the USA is an imperialist nation...the parellels of roman time period are quite evident and real

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Your 'historical' example didn't make any sense, so you've pretty much answered your own question.

read more on the fall or rome and maybe you will understand...maybe

What you are referring to is the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

 

And I will never subscribe to the theory that a president can gain power for himself and be more and more like a dictator. The framers were very cautious of that when they created our Constitution.

correct...and yes the framers were very cautious...but the constitution is an ever changing document...that is what makes it so great...however...if anyone who doesnt agree with the President is "against us" and congress gives him power, they pass the patriot act, and so on and so forth...not too mention how the USA is an imperialist nation...the parellels of roman time period are quite evident and real

The only parallels I see are the Military-Industrial Complex and the Patriot Act.

 

 

Even then, its a stetch to say that the US is mirroring the fall of the Roman Republic.

Al Gore makes a good case that the checks and balances that had protected the country in the past have eroded too much in the past 6 years, in his book The Assault on Reason. I would certainly recommend it.

I thought it was a poll.

 

Re-Elect Gore 2008.

I thought it was a poll.

 

Re-Elect Gore 2008.

 

Gore never won.

 

Bush won 5 of the 9 recounts after the election using various methods to determine what was a vote and what wasn't.

 

Bush won the election based on all the methods to count votes proposed by the Gore camp too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

 

Get over it.

yawn

I thought it was a poll.

 

Re-Elect Gore 2008.

 

Gore never won.

 

Bush won 5 of the 9 recounts after the election using various methods to determine what was a vote and what wasn't.

 

Bush won the election based on all the methods to count votes proposed by the Gore camp too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

 

Get over it.

 

lol, i was 11 years old, so i was never hooked on it, but come on, everyone knows that election was stolen.

 

Palm Beach. Pat Buchanan.

I thought it was a poll.

 

Re-Elect Gore 2008.

 

Gore never won.

 

Bush won 5 of the 9 recounts after the election using various methods to determine what was a vote and what wasn't.

 

Bush won the election based on all the methods to count votes proposed by the Gore camp too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

 

Get over it.

 

lol, i was 11 years old, so i was never hooked on it, but come on, everyone knows that election was stolen.

 

Palm Beach. Pat Buchanan.

 

:lol

 

Idiots not knowing how to cast a vote isn't 'stealing' anything.

 

But w/e.

 

Get over it.

I thought it was a poll.

 

Re-Elect Gore 2008.

 

Gore never won.

 

Bush won 5 of the 9 recounts after the election using various methods to determine what was a vote and what wasn't.

 

Bush won the election based on all the methods to count votes proposed by the Gore camp too.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

 

Get over it.

 

lol, i was 11 years old, so i was never hooked on it, but come on, everyone knows that election was stolen.

 

Palm Beach. Pat Buchanan.

 

:lol

 

Idiots not knowing how to cast a vote isn't 'stealing' anything.

 

But w/e.

 

Get over it.

 

all of that aside. think were better off today

Implying that GWB is a 'dictator' is incredibly disrespectful to people actually living in a dictatorship (I have relatives or soon to be relatives who have family in North Korea). What garbage.

I'm sorry but does that really matter? Most people are decent enough that they don't need to know someone personally to know hardship.

 

 

 

Waiting for JimmieJack to write about how Kim Jung and Fidel Castro are People's Presidents and GWB is a Dictator.....

first of all...if you are going to bring me into a discussion which im not in yet, spell my name right...secondly...we have a long and glorious tradition of supporting dictators in this country(including saddam and several south americans)...and also...when the president takes power for himself and away from the people (which the presidency has been doing for the last 40 years) he becomes more and more dictator like and less and less president like...a good historical example of this is the fall of rome...but hey...who in this country is really interested in learning about history?!?!?

Your 'historical' example didn't make any sense, so you've pretty much answered your own question.

read more on the fall or rome and maybe you will understand...maybe

What you are referring to is the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire.

 

And I will never subscribe to the theory that a president can gain power for himself and be more and more like a dictator. The framers were very cautious of that when they created our Constitution.

The Patriot Act completely dissolved everything the architects of the Constitution stood for.