Democrats Propose Commission To Investigate Spying 302
metalman writes "Wired has a story on a proposal by House Democrats to 'establish a national commission — similar to the 9/11 Commission... to find out — and publish — what exactly the nation's spies were up to during their five-year warrantless, domestic surveillance program.' The draft bill would also preserve the requirement of court orders and remove 'retroactive immunity for telecom companies.' (We've discussed various government wiretaps, phone companies, and privacy violations before.) But it seems unlikely that such an alternative on phone immunity would pass both the House and Senate, let alone survive a Presidential veto."
Useless.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Such committees have done NOTHING. All they do is provide platforms for speeches and "questions" which the speaker doesn't care about any findings or answers, just their own political position.
At least they're not screwing anything up when they do this, they're just spinning their wheels.
Re:Why not wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Better (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:2, Insightful)
What we don't have is two reasonably distinct ideologies. We certainly have two distinct parties despite the fact that they only oppose each other out of spite and grandstanding rather than on principles.
Re:Useless.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure they have, they've spent our money for nothing.
Your Bias is Annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that a stronger Congress and a weaker president is better, because it makes things less radical and responsibility is divided more evenly. It would also make people able to vote for representatives locally who could eventually influence things, but while the president is too powerful change is not possible if you have to gain the presidential seat to actually do anything, given the state of media and related issues.
Transparency and Oversight (Score:5, Insightful)
This means that in a "ticking time bomb" scenario, investigators have the power to tap and begin monitoring suspects before a proper warrant can be obtained. Once the surveillance has begun, investigators have 72 hours (an ample amount of time in a ticking bomb scenario) to collect evidence and present it. If there indeed is a bomb out there, the judge should have no problem issuing a proper warrant.
The current problem is this; nobody wants to play by the rules. Everybody in the intelligence community along with most of the executive branch want to play king. They want to work independently and forgo the checks and balances. It is not that uncommon for branches of government to try to gain more power so they can do their work "easily." Unfortunately, it's our civil liberties that are being stomped on.
Transparent and balanced oversight is the only thing that will cure this ill. Without a diverse and unconnected group monitoring each other, we will lose the liberties that make this country so fantastic. Sure, it's scary to think about dying in a World Trade Center type attack, but it's much more scary to live in a state with secret police secretly monitoring you. The chances of dying in a terrorist attack are vanishingly small; the chances of losing your civil liberties if laws like the Protect America Act are allowed to exist are alarmingly high.
I for one, believe that laws like the Protect America Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007 [wikipedia.org] are just the thing that erode our liberty for the fleeting promise of a tiny bit of security. Without judicial or congressional oversight, who polices the police? The answer is scary and we only need to look to Peru, East Germany or any other state with Stazi like organizations for the answer.
Ben Franklin said it best over 200 years ago, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It's almost like he knew what he was doing...
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
So your vote really is worthless.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amusingly, one of the Republican talking points was a complaint that the Democrats were wasting their time on a doomed-to-fail veto override attempt instead of working on passing a renewal of the previously-expired wiretap legislation (honestly, the Democrats hold all the cards on that situation, since "no action" is much closer to their desired position than to that of the Republicans).
Of course, the funny thing is that they could just wait a year. All three of the remaining Presidential candidates are against waterboarding.
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:2, Insightful)
In fact, 'Bush & Co.' will leave the White House significantly poorer than the previous Administration who received all kinds of payments for things like pardons, government subsidized loans, putting friends up in the White House, and selling White House furniture and flatware. Al Gore alone is worth two hundred million these days, more than the entire administration combined.
I wouldn't oppose this kind of investigation if there were any legal standing for a complaint. But it's been quite clear for years now that what Democrats refer to as 'domestic spying' includes phone calls that route through the US but whose endpoints are both foreign and made by non-citizens. The Constitutional protections of due process were not intended to protect these calls any more than they protected the Soviets and Nazis internal communications.
Even with all of that, I could accept that it's the prerogative of the party in power to cudgel the party not in power if only Congress wasn't still trying to finish last year's budgets. They've accomplished nothing so far and they're not even doing that well.
First, the nation's business, THEN play self-indignant party apparatchik.
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing wrong with rich people trying to stay rich. The problem occurs when they are rich people trying to stay rich at your expense.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
He needs the support and agreement of one third of each of the houses of Congress. In effect, a supermajority is required to pass any law in the face of opposition by the President.
The reason that it doesn't happen all the time is that the President wants things from Congress he can' get any other way. It works better than you'd think, but it makes slanting the power balance between Congress and the President in the direction of the President a very bad idea. The veto power makes that balance unstable the moment the President can pursue his ends without Congressional cooperation. As soon as the President and his aides feel they can operate independently of Congressional oversight and appropriations power, Congress becomes powerless and Presidential power becomes practically unlimited.
That's what made the Iran-Contra affair in the Reagan administration a much bigger deal than most people realized. It wasn't just that it was a strategically stupid thing to do, what prompted the stupidity was the desire of the Reagan administration to develop their own sources of funding which Congress did not control, in fact was completely unaware of. To a lesser degree, that's why the Bush administration's insistence on exempting the DHS from civil service worrisome. Civil service regulations are a form of Congressional oversight; the idea that the President should be able to move personnel around and have them do whatever he wants is really giving him a kind of de jure power to alter the DHS budget under any circumstances whatsoever, over and above the de facto power he has to do this in a clear national emergency.
There are a number of structural faults in the US Constitution, and one of them is the delicacy of balance between the President and Congress. The basic idea was patterned on the relationship between George Washington and the Continental Congress: you get a powerful leader who has a free hand within the scope of his powers, but that "free hand" is subject to oversight, regulation and budgetary restraint. When this works, it works extremely well. But when you have a narcissistic and self-righteous President, supported by a sufficiently large block of Congressional sycophants, his power is only limited by what he imagines it to be.
Re:Useless.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Though this is a standard psychological coping mechanism - the powerless blame an external entity instead of their actual oppressor. That way, they get to complain with their ego intact, rather than bring attention to how they're actually being dominated.
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, Posturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why not wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I was naive, I'd say it's because they're idealistic and feel the must do the right thing. However, I'm cynical, and believe it is because they want the next president to be a democrat, so they're forcing republicans to reveal some of their shadier motives. Honestly, though, I really don't think I blame them...
Re:Useless.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Useless.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're biding their time until they face a less hostile president, but while doing so, Republican media assets are accusing them of being a "do nothing congress", so they're working on useless projects that they know are useless but look better than doing nothing.
It's all politics.
Yes, but it's a credit to us, the public (Score:5, Insightful)
So to all those out there who think that there's nothing anyone can do to change the course of government, this is evidence you can; you just have to take a little time to write a letter or make a phone call to your representative.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've been very disappointed with elected republicans ignoring their responsibility as congressmen to actually do their job as a balance to the president instead of just cheerleading him on - just because he's from the same party doesn't mean you should give up all your power to him.
Btw - that's actually why I'm a little worried about electing a democrat president this election - the democrats are in a very good strategic position in the house and senate this year, and will likely maintain their lead in the house and create one in the senate. Which removes the separation of powers again next year if we don't elect a republican president, and suddenly instead of rubber-stamping terror bills and invasions we're rubber stamping a whole new level of welfare state.
The only way powers are separated in the current system is by party lines.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your Bias is Annoying (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yup, Posturing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Sooner We Clean Out Bush's Closets, The Bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, first of all, as the earlier response mentioned, Congress has only been in the Democrats hands for a couple of years. During the time that the Republicans were in control, there was virtually no oversight of the administration. When the Democrats did gain control, they have razor thin margins in both houses. I will admit that occasionally there is grandstanding, but at least they are trying to do some of the oversight that is spelled out in the Constitution. And I believe that your "efforts to fabricate evidence" needs a big fat citation needed.
Also worth mentioning is the size of those Haliburton no-bid contracts. It means nothing for the pure numbers of contracts if the size of those contracts are not the same. A wartime budget surely is higher in price than the previous contracts they may have gotten.
Again, citation needed please. Plus, let's just wait to see what "W" does in his last few days in office. That's traditionally when previous Presidents have handed out their bulk of pardons.
Once again, please cite where you get this kind of classification for domestic spying. One of the main arguments the Democrats have had against expanded wiretap authority has been the availability of the FISA courts which in the past has worked quickly, efficiently and rarely if ever turns down a legitimate request. It sounds to me that this description of the Democrats stance on domestic spying is the product of the echo chamber of conservative radio and pundits.
First, the nation's business, THEN play self-indignant party apparatchik.
Let's not forget that the Republican congress two years ago, in the final months before they lost control of Congress decided to go into recess early and not finish the budget at all during their calendar year. This action unnecessarily passed responsibility of the previous Congress onto the incoming Congress. They could have done the nation's business, they could have passed budget items the nation needed, but instead decided to pick up camp stakes and go home.
However, the current problem with government is that they have forgotten how to govern. Part of that responsibility is the ability and the necessity to compromise. However, with hard-nose tactics and frequent grandstanding by both parties, the very thought that just this Congressional session is a do-nothing Congress full of grandstanding is just not seeing the Congress over the last fifteen years.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:4, Insightful)
What really scares me is when this final "party-check" doesn't work... like 70% of what we've seen from the Democratic congress so far.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately the political system still didn't catch up to the idea of proportional representation. The President of the USA should be elected by direct vote aswell or by Congress/Senate, not by the ancient system of electors. Critical thinking isn't a class you can complete and say, "oh I've got critical thinking V and enconomics IV", it is more of an attitude and worldview, one which should be, I agree, presented early in education, possibly at early highschool level. Yes and no. It defaulted to a two party system because the rules were set up in a way that favors a two party system. I don't believe the goal was to set up a two party system, but rather the goal was to set up a very stable political system, which in turn meant fixing the system into concrete, which in turn favors a two party system. The ruling elite wanted a very stable system in their interests, because to put it bluntly, it is in their interests that the economy remains in their hands and so corporations, personal property, contracts are considered sacred even when in conflict with other fundamental rights. The system is a slow moving beast that has made some concessions towards the people only when it was absolutely necessary and the stability of the system demanded it, but in general it serves the interests of corporations and the elite, as it has always had.
You would think that such fundamental, hard won freedoms like the right to vote are universally respected today, but not that many people know that even though the civil war was partly fought due to abolitionist reasons, it wasn't until 1965 that black people received federal protection [wikipedia.org] that guaranteed their ability to vote. Even later, under Reagan, he wanted to remove critical portions of the Voting Rights Act, because black people weren't likely to vote for him. Congress blocked his attempt.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes a powerful political statement to stand up against torture, even if it's bound to fail. It also makes a powerful statement to just sit and do nothing about it and hope the next president maintains his/her current opinion on torture.
This is a very necessary "waste of time".
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this makes me a horrible, old-fashioned, poor-person hater in the eyes of liberal European government.
I maintain that the only reason that Western Europe in general can afford so many government programs is that in the last fifty years our military budget has been paying for a large part of their safekeeping. Military requirements can grow and shrink, but they never go away, and as bad of a hegemon as the US can be at times, most people would consider the Soviet Union or China to be worse. We're in a rare lull with a single super power here - it's not going to last.
And finally - I don't believe that government handouts are the way to help poor people. My family background is poor, dirt farmer poor - but they never took farm subsidies because that meant that the government had control over your land. In just one generation after that their children were solidly middle class, and now my generation is all college educated with good jobs. The government lifting people up isn't the answer - giving people opportunities to lift themselves up is. That means stop worrying about healthcare for unemployed people and try to fix why those people don't have jobs in the first place.
Re:Dems grandstanding so far (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately she sided with the fascists on illegal wiretapping and telecom immunity, so I won't be voting for McCaskill in four years.
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:1, Insightful)
Like it or not, the electoral college is there to give voice to the interest of smaller states. There's no conspiracy going on...
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your right, the government lacks the constitutional authority to have welfare programs and such where they don't for the military. IF you go back and study the situation, you will find that Roosevelt basically did the same thing as Bush has done and ignored existing laws, taken out massive loans, ignored supreme court rulings and at one point basically told the courts to "make me abide by your ruling" knowing the the president control the executive branch. This lead to the expansion of the interstate commerce clause which has made some of these social experiments possible.
And you are also correct in that the US government's military budget has revolved around protecting Europe from threats more local to them with the idea of preventing a war saved more lives then having a war. Both world wars could have been avoided to some degree if Europe payed more attention to their back yard and certainly ww2 could have been confined to less then a global status if the same approach happened. At the risk of envoking godwin's rule, I guess I should leave the rest of this part to be discovered by anyone currious enough to know more then Hitler and D-day concernign ww2.Ah the hand up instead of the hand out concept. After watching family and friends get sucked into welfare and having some of the hardest times imaginable getting out. I totally agree. If you were running for office, you would have my vote. I don't have mod point so I don't know how else to say I agree other then this.
Re:Yup, Posturing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Speak really slowly for me... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because an arbitrary number of states or big chunks of empty land that appear one color on a map should count more than a large population living in a small area.
Personally I'm sick of the empty land vote ruining it for the rest of us.