[NYTr] 41 House Dems Tremble Before the Mighty Bush

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by MichaelP (activ-l) - Aug 5, 2007

41 House Dems Tremble Before the Mighty Bush 

[The below list of 41 Dems who fell to the Bush wiretap scheme
yesterday, were preceded by 16 Dem Senators who had fallen before.

BUT I havn't been able to find the Senate Roll call vote for S. 1927.

It's still seems to be a ridiculous and constitutionally rotten piece of
demagoguery -which enemy plot has been hatched by internet/phone
communications when every defense lawyer knows not to have sensitive
discussions with clients away from the office and without use of
electronic devices. -MP]

Daily Kos - Aug 5, 2007
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/5/01943/25391

41 HOUSE DEMS TREMBLE BEFORE THE MIGHTY BUSH

Of the 41 House Democrats who voted today to roll over on the
eavesdropping amendment  ( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
) that the White House demanded be added to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act, 26 30 were Blue Dogs. The bill, Orwellianly named the
Protect America Act, passed 227-183, with 181 Democrats and two
Republicans opposed.

These are the Dems who ... failed us. Who failed our country.

Jason Altmire (4th Pennsylvania)
John Barrow (12th Georgia) Blue Dog
Melissa Bean  (8th Illinois) Blue Dog
Dan Boren  (2nd Oklahoma) Blue Dog
Leonard Boswell (3rd Iowa)
Allen Boyd  (2nd Florida) Blue Dog
Christopher Carney  (10th Pennsylvania) Blue Dog
Ben Chandler  (6th Kentucky) Blue Dog
Rep. Jim Cooper (5th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Jim Costa (20th California) Blue Dog
Bud Cramer (5th Alabama) Blue Dog
Henry Cuellar (28th Texas)
Artur Davis (7th Alabama)
Lincoln Davis  (4th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly (2nd Indiana) Blue Dog
Don Edwards (16th California)
Brad Ellsworth (8th Indiana) Blue Dog
Bob Etheridge (North Carolina)
Bart Gordon (6th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (South Dakota) Blue Dog
Brian Higgins (27th New York)
Baron Hill (9th Indiana) Blue Dog
Nick Lampson (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Daniel Lipinski (3rd Illinois)
Jim Marshall (8th Georgia) Blue Dog
Jim Matheson (2nd Utah) Blue Dog
Mike McIntyre (7th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Charlie Melancon (3rd Louisiana) Blue Dog
Harry Mitchell (5th Arizona)
Colin Peterson (7th Minnesota) Blue Dog
Earl Pomeroy (North Dakota) Blue Dog
Ciro Rodriguez (23rd Texas) Blue Dog
Mike Ross (4th Arkansas) Blue Dog
John Salazar (3rd Colorado) Blue Dog
Heath Shuler (11th North Carolina) Blue Dog
Vic Snyder (2nd Arkansas)
Zachary Space (18th Ohio) Blue Dog
John Tanner (8th Tennessee) Blue Dog
Gene Taylor (4th Mississippi) Blue Dog
Timothy Walz (1st Minnesota)
Charles A. Wilson (6th Ohio) Blue Dog


As Marty Lederman at Balkination points out:

The key provision of S.1927 is new section 105A of FISA (see page 2),
which categorically excludes from FISA's requirements any and all
"surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located
outside of the United States."

For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement
that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person
at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way
connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the
surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons.
Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance
that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at
persons in the U.S.

The key term, obviously, is "directed at." The bill includes no
definition of it.

Ellen Nakashima and Joby Warrick at the Washington Post reported:

The 227 to 183 House vote capped a high-pressure campaign by the White
House to change the nation's wiretap law, in which the administration
capitalized on Democrats' fears of being branded as weak on terrorism
and on a general congressional desire to proceed with an August
recess. ...

Privacy and civil liberties advocates, and many Democratic lawmakers,
complained that the Bush administration's revisions to the law could
breach constitutional protections against government intrusion. But the
administration, aided by Republican congressional leaders, suggested
that a failure to approve what intelligence officials sought could
expose the country to a greater risk of terrorist attack. ...

"There are a lot of people who felt we had to pass something," said one
angry Democratic lawmaker who requested anonymity, citing the
sensitivity of caucus discussions. "It was tantamount to being
railroaded."

In a sole substantial concession to Democrats, the administration
agreed to a provision allowing the legislation to be reconsidered in
six months. ...

Tonight, several Democrats said the bill would "eviscerate" the Fourth
Amendment. Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said that lawmakers were being
"stampeded by fearmongering and deception" into voting for the bill.
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) warned the bill would lead to "potential
unprecedented abuse of innocent Americans' privacy."

Carl Hulse and Edmund L. Andrews at The New York Times reported:

The House Democratic leadership had severe reservations about the
proposal and an overwhelming majority of Democrats opposed it.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the measure "does violence to the
Constitution of the United States."

But with the Senate already in recess, Democrats confronted the choice
of allowing the administrations bill to reach the floor and be approved
mainly by Republicans or letting it die.

If it stalled, that would have left Democratic lawmakers, who have long
been anxious about appearing weak on national security issues, facing
an August spent fending off charges from Mr. Bush and Republicans that
they left Americans exposed to terrorism threats. Despite the political
risks, many Democrats argued they should stand firm against the
presidents initiative, saying it granted the administration far too
much latitude to initiate surveillance without judicial review. They
said the White House was using the specter of terrorism to weaken the
privacy rights of Americans and empower Attorney General Alberto R.
Gonzales, an official Democrats say has proved himself untrustworthy.

"Legislation should not be passed in response to fear-mongering," said
Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey.

As the Cheney-Bush Administration regime has proved repeatedly to its
great benefit and the nation's grave risk over the past six years,
fear-mongering works.

Bill Eagle...

be sure to visit my web page a page that some call "evil."
http://www.sthelensupdate.com

"In my country, we have two parties. The stupid party, of which I am a
member, and the evil party, which we oppose vehemently. Sometimes my
party wins, in which case we get lots of stupid legislation. Sometimes
the other party wins, in which case we get lots of evil legislation.
Occasionally, the parties act together in what we call
'bipartisanship,' in which case we get legislation which is both evil
and stupid."  -unattributed.