Can anyone tell me how the freshly signed revision to the FISA law......?

Question

....is a republican-perpetrated assault on the civil liberties of Americans? I saw a democrat congressman complaining that A.G. Gonzales cannot be left as the "gatekeeper of American Civil Liberties" as is now the case with the newest iteration of FISA.

If the new FISA puts us in such great peril as the democrats say, why did a democrat-controlled house and senate pass it in the first place?

Is it that democrats care about our liberties, but not enough to keep them from caving in to republican evil so they could go on their one month vacation?

...or did evil republicans somehow force enough democrats to vote for it to make it pass?

I'm really mystified how a party can pass legislation and then immediately turn around and gripe about it. Can someone please explain?

NOTE: "Bush Bush Bush Bush Puhtooooeee" is NOT an explanation.

-
No. I'm sorry. The Veto thing is bull. They could simply have passed no legislation at all. But they chose to pass the law as signed.
-

-"Cora" has suddenly taken on an uncharacteristic economy of words. Yes, ok, it's bad. But WHY did democrats pass it?
-

-
Oh. I see. The republicans scared them. BOOO
-

-
OK. So the overwhelmingly bush-hating populace all of a sudden wanted congress to hurry up and do what bush wanted them to do. Fantastic answer!!! LOL
-

Answer 1

You are aware that 181 House Democrats voted against it while 41 House Democrats joined the Republicans to vote for it. The White House was using scare tactics and accusing the Democrats of leaving the country defenseless in the face of possible terrorist attacks. Those kinds of tactics actually work.

Answer 2

I watched the debates and the Republicans were saying that without passing this bill, we would be more vulnerable to an attack. I believe the Democrats were afraid that if we got attacked again, it would be blamed on them if they didn't pass this bill. The bill is only good for 6 months and comes up for debate again. Hopefully, the next time they demand that warrants be obtained for surveillance on Americans. If not, they have failed us in my opinion.

Answer 3

It's bad law because it was hastily passed out of fear, and because some of the provisions are carelessly worded and thus likely to cause significant constitutional questions.

The most troubling is the "reasonably believed to be located outside the US" --- which is arguably broader than most other good faith exceptions to 4th Amendment requirements.

Congress should not have passed any changes without taking the time to consider the ramifications, since no changes were immediately necessary -- Congress was acting based on public opinion and political fear-mongering.

They were more concerned with how the public would view them taking their time than with doing their job.

Answer 4

I think Democrats are trying to walk a thin political line here. They know that passing this bill was the right thing to do, but they also want to look like they are opposing it. --They allow it to pass by a small majority so many Democrats can still appeal to the far-left, hate America crowd.

Answer 5

They put a six-month limit on it to give congress enough time to keep working on a long-term solution. I don't think they should have caved, but since Bush threatened to veto anything less and they don't have the votes to override a veto, I guess they figured this "compromise" would give some breathing room.

Answer 6

Don't EVER try to figure out a Democrat. When the partial birth abortion ban was upheld by the Supreme Court this year, Harry Reid said "I would only say that this isn't the only decision that a lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there"
......Here's the kicker......Harry Reid voted for the ban.

Unbelievable but true.

Answer 7

Bunky you want terrorists to rout information through servers here? Sorry to hear your fellow liberals felt compelled to do something you did not like. The War is being won and you hate it. Laughing at you!!!!!