Comments (25)

dixiegrl wrote on August 29, 2007 5:55 PM:

Holding this spot for Jake D.

james wrote on August 29, 2007 6:42 PM:

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted for this bill...damn it, mine is in there too (Feinstein). In California, Lieberman is spelled F-e-i-n-s-t-e-i-n...

Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)

The House Dems who followed suit are at:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/1/votes/836/

BigAl wrote on August 29, 2007 6:53 PM:

LOL:)

Jake D. will be here and I will bet you somehow Clinton did it first or some Democrat.

Rick wrote on August 29, 2007 7:07 PM:

Sadly, given this bill has already been passed and signed, this is nothing more than a dog and pony show for those of us that expressed our outrage when it passed.

They really think we're idiots.

CKDexterHaven wrote on August 29, 2007 8:25 PM:

Yeah, talk about day late and dollar short.

Official A wrote on August 29, 2007 8:25 PM:

"They really think we're idiots."

And, unfortunately, they're about 80% correct on that point.

Sept. 15, DC. Be there.

JohnJ wrote on August 29, 2007 8:48 PM:

Uhhh, don't forget that Chimpy declared that as soon as congress gets back they have to protect his corporate spying partners!

FMArouet wrote on August 29, 2007 8:59 PM:

Besides the obvious questions regarding the warrantless collection of data or voice transmissions involving at least one U.S. citizen/person, here or abroad, there are four other issues to explore and address:

(1) Warrantless collection and electronic storage of purely domestic voice or data transmissions between U.S. citizens/persons.

(2) Warrantless data mining of proprietary databases of U.S. entities (corporate, academic, political parties, PACs, medical, bank/credit card companies, phone companies, internet/webmail providers, local government bodies--such as libraries, etc.).

(3) Warrantless data retrieval from proprietary databases of U.S. entities without seeking the concurrence of the proprietors--including the surreptitious exploitation of individual computer hard drives of U.S. corporations or individuals.

(4) Sharing of such warrantless data collections with private contractors for data mining purposes in efforts to gain domestic political advantage (electoral micro-targeting, voter suppression, extortion, blackmail, employment blacklisting, etc.).

Let us wish the best of luck to Rep. Conyers and his staffers.

JD21 wrote on August 29, 2007 9:54 PM:

The Republicans are finally not playing the party line to protect their own. And on such a burning issue as . . . a harmless misdemeanor involving sex.

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/No_mercy_for_Craig_from_fellow_0829.html

Yes there is hypocrisy involved. But really. This the thing Republicans choose to jump ship on their own on??? What about the war. They still huddle around the Fox Republican leadership on the war, torture, secret spying and so many other issues that cost American LIVES, hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, and our values and civil liberties. Where are their priorities? Why are they turning on this guy? Because Craig didn't turn to them before blowing up this scandal. In other words, he screwed me so I'm screwing him. That's how the Fox Republicans think. It's all about them. Not about the good of America. So sad. So darn sad.

midwestblue wrote on August 29, 2007 9:55 PM:

I wonder how much it costs to collect, mine, store, and retreive all this. Whatever the figure, I'll bet half the money allotted is making a few rich people a lot richer. It's sickening that we're being spied on by lawbreaking theives.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 29, 2007 10:47 PM:

Conyers NEEEEEEDS to beat this to smitherens. The forty or so House DEMs who voted for this P.O.S. need to bleed from the eyes.

Re-elect NO (nada, none) of the jack_holes of either party who voted for the Chimp's Right to Spy Willy Nilly Act.

Jake D. wrote on August 30, 2007 12:42 AM:

Thanks for waiting for me. Good luck passing any changes to the PROTECT AMERICA Act over a Presidential Veto.

hang a left wrote on August 30, 2007 1:58 AM:

What I just don't get...

Why do they overwhelmingly pass legislation that needs to be amended later broaches the WTF department.

If there is overpowering evidence that the law as written is unacceptable...why do they pass this crud?!?

security code: fucked; as in you and me

jello5929 wrote on August 30, 2007 2:50 AM:

Question I want to hear: "are you recording phonecalls to and from gunowners without a warrant?"

Follow up with: "we would like a list of all subjects to ensure that you aren't selectively targeting registered gun owners"

And when they deny/waver/etc. "I'll take that to mean that you are unwilling to confirm or deny that american gunowners are being wiretapped by President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program"

Johnny wrote on August 30, 2007 8:04 AM:

I still don't get the "ONLY FOR SIX MONTHS" thing, when the AG and DNI now get to wait for warrants for a year, i.e., until Jan 2009 when Bush leaves office. Unless Congress revokes that part of the Act in this supposedly upcoming bill, which would mean 1) getting past a Senate R filibuster (not to mention idiot Blue Dog Dems in the House), and 2) getting past a signing statement to invalidate the revocation of the Act.

asdf wrote on August 30, 2007 8:19 AM:

"They really think we're idiots."
--“And, unfortunately, they're about 80% correct on that point. “
—“Posted by: Official A”

OA-The problem is the 20% who aren’t idiots are more pissed off than ever at this attempted bamboozle. It fails on EVERY count. It won’t fix FISA, it won’t fool the outraged, and it wastes time they should be using to get something that matter done. The phrase “nothing good” fits.

moondancer wrote on August 30, 2007 8:29 AM:

Johnny@8:04
Well said. They still need to revise so this doesn't become norm.
I'm still bemused by the desperate scramble by these pinheads for more scope and less oversight. Their problem is(and always has been) doing a good job with the intelligence they had on hand.
If I recall correctly multiple operatives had the bad guys in their hands before 9/11 but botched the job.
The problem with NSA has always been, not in collecting data, but in interpeting in a timely manner.

linda wrote on August 30, 2007 9:36 AM:

big deal, considering how ineffective the house judiciary committee has been.

'when' the security code. as in, WHEN the fuck are the democrats going to get serious and hold these bastards accountable.

kentuck wrote on August 30, 2007 10:29 AM:

Pelosi is only try ing to appease the Democrats that are angry with her. She did not have to bring that POS bill to the floor. She is responsible.

POed Lib wrote on August 30, 2007 10:41 AM:

"Thanks for waiting for me. Good luck passing any changes to the PROTECT AMERICA Act over a Presidential Veto."

Well, bozo, you can't veto your way into a fascist state. Bush can veto, but the bill the current fascist dream bill, expires in 6 months.

Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 11:18 AM:

Informant (paraphrasing): "They route the domestic communications overseas to circumvent United States law and the Constitution. U. S. law and Constitutional guarantees do not apply in other nations, so there is no crime in reading all your e-mails or listening to your phone conversations."

My question would be, Is this the illegality Bush has admitted too, and officials were about to resign en masse over?

Jake D. wrote on August 30, 2007 12:22 PM:

kentuck:

I'm glad you at least realize that Pelosi IS responsible. RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

POed Lib:

Perhaps someone else can explain to you that any spying program put into place before the six month expiration will stays in place until Bush leaves office : )

Security Code: fact

Mike Conwell wrote on August 30, 2007 12:28 PM:

For the casual reader, new to the site, Jake D. is a bothersome troll, attempting to set the tone of each story by being an early poster of such drivel. Please read below for more insightful comments.

benjoya wrote on August 30, 2007 1:19 PM:

correct me if i'm wrong, but making arbitrary spying legal doesn't post facto excuse previous lawbreaking. Conyers could come up with something impeachable, if that means anything.

Anonymous wrote on August 30, 2007 5:40 PM:

"If there is overpowering evidence that the law as written is unacceptable...why do they pass this crud?!?"

Because when it comes to "WE the People" and vacation... vacation will always win.

The reason they voted for the war without looking at all the evidence was probably do to time restraints due to an upcoming dinner party. (I'll just about guarantee none of them missed one of those that week)

The reason Bush and his cronies will never actually be punished is because "We the People" really don't matter that much.... but the power to administer THAT much power needs to be reserved for the next guy, which might be the other party... so the laws preventing this from happening in the future won't be changed either...