A win for the progressive blogosphere.
By on Jan 25th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
A win for the progressive blogosphere.
The Bush administration’s opposition in 2002 to weakening FISA standards, first unearthed by blogger Glenn Greenwald, was picked up tonight by the Washington Post and Knight-Ridder.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Way to go Glenn!
January 25th, 2006 at 10:57 pmI was hoping your work would break through!
Good job!
January 25th, 2006 at 11:19 pmAnother WaPo article from tomorrow:
GOP Freezes Jobs List, a Vestige of the K Street Project
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; A02
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502270_pf.html
January 25th, 2006 at 11:22 pmSo, I guess this means they’ll be moving on to the next excuse, huh? How many is that, now?
FISA wasn’t nimble enough…This is new technology…We’re only listening to international calls…We’re only listening to domestic terrorists…The war resolution gives the president power…FISA is too much of a burden… next?
January 25th, 2006 at 11:31 pmSo That Makes The War On Terror Illegal?
January 25th, 2006 at 11:34 pmKudos to Glenn. He’s done excellent research on this.
If only today’s traditional media would spend a little more time doing their homework instead of chasing the Natalee Halloway stories like they do all the time, then maybe Americans would start paying attention to our country.
And why is this story buried on Page 4 of the WashingtonPost? Hmmm, maybe they are embarassed by a no-name blogger? Is their ombudsman still there?
January 25th, 2006 at 11:35 pmJanuary 25th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
Congratulations everyone. Let’s keep ‘em coming.
January 25th, 2006 at 11:39 pmIn the four years plus since the 9/11 attacks, the simplest way to gauge President Bush’s changing political fortunes has been his changing attitude towards Osama Bin Laden. In the Bush playbook, the threat posed by Bin Laden is directly proportional to the threat to the President’s political standing.
Trying to fight back the growing public outcry over his illegal domestic wiretapping program, President Bush used the Bin Laden bogeyman once again during his remarks Wednesday at the National Security Agency.
For the full story, see:
January 25th, 2006 at 11:50 pm“Bush Flip-Flops on Bin Laden.”
January 25th, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Yeehaa!! Strike one up for the blogasphere.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:03 amAnd Here all along, People THOUGHT, President KERRY WAS The Flip Flopper.
HAHAHAAAHAAAA, ROTF LMAO
January 26th, 2006 at 12:13 am
OH! YOU ALL GOTTA SEE THIS! MICHEAL JACKSON DRESSED AS A MUSLIM WOMAN IN BAHRAIN!
Michael Jackson Spotted in Robe and Veil
Jan 25, 10:05 AM EST
The Associated Press
MANAMA, Bahrain — Pop star Michael Jackson was spotted shopping in a Bahrain mall on Wednesday, hiding his face behind a veil and donning a black robe traditionally worn by women in the Gulf.
He was with three children, apparently his own, who also had their faces covered by dark scarves. An unidentified woman accompanied them.
The pop star, who seems to be settling in the Persian Gulf, was seen leaving Marina Mall in the Bahrain capital, holding a child by the hand. On the way out a back door, he shook hands with security guards.
The woman — also dressed in the black robe called an
January 26th, 2006 at 12:40 amhttp://music.msn.com/news/archive.aspx?music
January 26th, 2006 at 12:45 amIf only today’s traditional media would spend a little more time doing their homework instead of chasing the Natalee Halloway stories like they do all the time, then maybe Americans would start paying attention to our country.
Comment by Diana
Missing white women are the key to finding Saddam’s WMDs.
January 26th, 2006 at 12:50 amUsing their last known location, the location of the latest shark attack and a process of triangulation should lead Nancy Grace right to the WMDs. She will then use said noxious substances as pancake make-up.
I Get the Feeling the Bermuda Triangle is Hiding WMDs.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:06 amHas something to do with Saddam,Natalee Halloway, and Bush.
jealousy
maybe?
For those Interested the Congressional record, now you will see the reasoning behind the ‘WORDING’ of Bushs latest media blitz on the definition of ‘domestic’;
Congressional Record: January 20, 2006 (Senate)
Page S28-S30
SENATE RESOLUTION 350–EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT SENATE
JOINT RESOLUTION 23 (107TH CONGRESS), AS ADOPTED BY THE SENATE ON
SEPTEMBER 14, 2001, AND SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED AS THE AUTHORIZATION FOR
USE OF MILITARY FORCE DOES NOT AUTHORIZE WARRANTLESS DOMESTIC
SURVEILLANCE OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS
Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Kennedy) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 350
Whereas the Bill of Rights to the United States
January 26th, 2006 at 2:18 amConstitution was ratified 214 years ago;
Whereas the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution guarantees to the American people the right “to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures”;
Whereas the Fourth Amendment provides that courts shall
issue “warrants” to authorize searches and seizures, based
upon probable cause;
Whereas the United States Supreme Court has consistently
held for nearly 40 years that the monitoring and recording of
private conversations constitutes a “search and seizure”
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment;
Whereas Congress was concerned about the United States
Government unconstitutionally spying on Americans in the
1960s and 1970s;
Whereas Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), commonly
referred to as “FISA”, to provide a legal mechanism for the
United States Government to engage in searches of Americans
in connection with intelligence gathering and
counterintelligence;
Whereas Congress expressly enacted the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978, and specified provisions of the
Federal criminal code (including those governing wiretaps for
criminal investigations), as the “exclusive means by which
domestic electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted”
pursuant to law (18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f));
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
establishes the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(commonly referred to as the “FISA court”), and the
procedures by which the United States Government may obtain a
court order authorizing electronic surveillance (commonly
referred to as a “FISA warrant”) for foreign intelligence
collection in the United States;
Whereas Congress created the FISA court to review
wiretapping applications for domestic electronic surveillance
to be conducted by any Federal agency;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
provides specific exceptions that allow the President to
authorize warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign
intelligence purposes (1) in emergency situations, provided
an application for judicial approval from a FISA court is
made within 72 hours; and (2) within 15 calendar days
following a declaration of war by Congress;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
makes criminal any electronic surveillance not authorized by
statute;
Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
has been amended over time by Congress since the September
11, 2001, attacks on the United States;
Whereas President George W. Bush has confirmed that his
administration engages in warrantless electronic surveillance
of Americans inside the United States and that he has
authorized such warrantless surveillance more than 30 times
since September 11, 2001; and
Whereas Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress), as
adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and House Joint
Resolution 64 (107th Congress), as adopted by the House of
Representatives on September 14, 2001, together enacted as
the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-
40), to authorize military action against those responsible
for the attacks on September 11, 2001, do not contain legal
authorization nor approve of domestic electronic
surveillance, including domestic electronic surveillance of
United States citizens, without a judicially approved
warrant: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That Senate Joint Resolution 23 (107th Congress),
as adopted by the Senate on September 14, 2001, and
subsequently enacted as the Authorization for Use of Military
Force (Public Law 107-40) does not authorize warrantless
domestic surveillance of United States citizens.
ALRIGHT!!
THINKING AHEAD HERE. ARE WE STARTING “OPPOSITION RESEARCH” ON GEORGE ALLEN?
TOO EARLY?
January 26th, 2006 at 5:30 amThe Los Angeles Times has picked up the story in today’s edition as well. More cheers for Glenn Greenwald!
January 26th, 2006 at 5:31 amBush response: This type of surveillance was never meant to be covered by the FISA Court.
Congress response (hopefully): You were never granted the power to bypass FISA for this type of surveillance. And you failed to brief Congress sufficiently on this program.
Bush response: So what. I am King.
January 26th, 2006 at 7:01 am#20 Congress responce NO YOUR NOT, GO TO JAIL
January 26th, 2006 at 8:34 amJust saw on CNN.com that Bush has scheduled a news conference for 10:15am ET this morning. Hmmmmm….what could it be?
-Massive withdrawal of troops from Iraq?
-Gearing up for military action against Iran?
-Addressing the revelation yesterday that his admin opposed changes to the FISA Act in 2002?
-We’ve got Osama cornered and are going in for the kill?
-Express concern that Toyota will be racing in NASCAR’s Nextel Cup in 2007?
-Laura’s got a new biscuit recipe he is just dying to share with us?
January 26th, 2006 at 9:14 am#22 ….what could it be?
The twins are pregnant and Karl Rove is the father?
January 26th, 2006 at 9:43 am#22 – he want’s to share the joys of mountain biking with us.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:02 am#4, AW
January 26th, 2006 at 10:19 amYour observation is already in use by the Bush apologists. Last night I heard at least one version of the excuse that FISA is not “quick enough” in today’s instant technology.
So, the implementation of the excuse du jour has already been memorized. What do you suppose tomorrow’s excuse will be?
BTW, how would the NSA know certain buzz words were being used in phone calls (domestic or “internationsl”) if they were not listening to everything?
He’s making an ass of himself.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:46 amAn interesting quote” the law was made in 1978 and this is 2006, times have changed” so if a law is old then it no longer applies?
January 26th, 2006 at 11:02 amBushs ignorance is exceeded only by his iincompetence.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:05 amSomebody asked GWB about this very thing at this morning’s news conference, and he got downright pissy.
January 26th, 2006 at 11:23 amWhich senators in office now were aware of the Justice Department’s 2002 position on FISA? Are any of those senators currently making excuses for the administration or making statements like, “If the administration would/had come to us, we might give them the authority to wiretap without a warrant”?
This is, of course, aside from the fact that congress has no authority to grant waivers of constitutional obligations to any branch of government except possibly in the short term during dire emergency, which is not the case today. They can only amend the Constitution through the process the Constitution describes.
January 26th, 2006 at 1:22 pm