August 6, 2007

THANKS, HARRY!:

New law expands power to wiretap: Diminishes oversight of NSA spy program (Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | August 6, 2007, Boston Globe)

President Bush signed a new law yesterday that expands the government's power to wiretap phone calls and e-mails on American soil without court oversight, capping a sudden victory for the White House despite loud criticism from advocates of civil liberties and privacy rights.

Just before midnight on Saturday, Congress passed the Protect America Act of 2007, which was largely drafted by the White House and received no committee hearing. The bill carves out a broad exemption from a 1978 law that requires the government to obtain a judge's permission to monitor calls and e-mails on US soil.

The new law allows the National Security Agency to spy freely on foreigners overseas when they communicate with Americans. It enables the NSA to resume a form of the once-secret warrantless wiretapping program that Bush launched after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that ended when it was brought under court oversight last January.

The law also makes clear that the NSA does not need to obtain a judge's permission to monitor phone calls and e-mails if both parties are overseas, even if the communications happen to be routed through switching hubs on US soil. Such telecommunications networks did not exist in 1978, when the warrant law was originally written.

In a statement issued after he signed the bill, Bush praised Congress for giving his administration the extra power he said it needs "to defeat the inten tions of our enemies" and "to prevent attacks in the future."


Between that and the recent success in Iraq, the Democrats deserve some credit for helping win the war they were elected to wave the white flag in.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 6, 2007 7:07 AM
Comments

"the Democrats deserve some credit for helping win the war they were elected to wave the white flag in."

Please. Let's not go revisionist here. The Dems campaigned on corruption in 2006. Had they actually ran on "Let's Lose Iraq Now!" the Republicans would still control Congress. Even AFTER the election, Harry Reid and others were pushing for more troops. Only after Pres. Bush announced the surge did the ultra-reactionary Dems shift their stance to "Let's Lose Iraq Now!"

Posted by: b at August 6, 2007 12:19 PM

All that mattered was the war, as in '04.

Posted by: oj at August 6, 2007 12:34 PM

Wrong, wrong, wrong. In 2004 Pres. Bush and the GOP campaigned really, really hard on the war. Show me the corresponding campaign from the Dems in 2006? There was none. In all those House seats that they ran moderates and conservative Dems, they deliberately avoided the war and ran hard on corruption. Because they would have lost otherwise. Good grief, you have archives, there's zero excuse for such lack of historical correctness about something that happened less than a year ago...

Posted by: b at August 6, 2007 1:05 PM

Exactly, that's why he radically underperformed in historical terms. Had he gotten out of Iraq in '03, as he should have for strategic, tactical, and political reasons, it was a 50 state election in the making.

Posted by: oj at August 6, 2007 3:36 PM

I'm sorry, I thought that we were having a debate about things that actually happened. My bad.

Posted by: b at August 6, 2007 3:54 PM

The GOP ran on the war and it killed them. Twice.

Posted by: oj at August 6, 2007 8:15 PM

The GOP picked up 5 Senate seats and 4 House seats in 2004. Didn't hurt then. But fatigue set in by 2006, although the fatigue was more of the Potomac kind.

Posted by: ratbert at August 7, 2007 8:29 AM

The war dragged the President down to barely over 50%, costing them the easy 60% they should have in the Senate and the big numbers they'd run up in the House with a landslide at the top of the ticket.

Posted by: oj at August 7, 2007 9:56 AM
« CASUALTIES OF THE WAR AGAINST REASON: | Main | AT THE SPEED OF BRIGHT: »