[NYTr] Half-Wit Bush Can't Read, but Can US Legislators???

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Not sure we agree with Michael here.  In fact, it seems that the
do-nothing Dems and their GOP pals are very happy to have legislation
thrown at them with no time to even read, much less consider and debate
it.  It gives them the perfect excuse for the future. "We didn't read
it! We didn't have time!  We DIDN'T KNOW..."  (And of course we didn't
have the balls to stop the wheels of so-called governance to do our
jobs.).  They think this may save their skins when the final Armageddon
comes and people want to string them up on lampposts. Too late then,
boys, (and girls) to learn to read, to remember that you work for the
people who elected you, and that you took an oath to defend the
Constitution.  Of course, the people so governed don't want to know,
either, and they can't read either. Everyone's so much happier sitting
in their warm buckets of spit, watching TeeVee and buying DVDs. What is
coming is largely well deserved. -NY Transfer]

sent by MichaelP (activ-l) - Aug 13, 2007

Teach YOUR legislators to read!

NEW SPY LAW EVEN BROADER THAN THOUGHT

Today's report is slightly relevant here...

"...Interacting with French reporters at the Bush holiday 
compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, Bush said he would love to take a 
vacation in France, and added that the language barrier would not be a 
problem. 'I can barely speak English,'" (Times of India)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/UK/I_can_barely_speak_English_Bush/articleshow/2278933.cms

The point is that legislators don't read proposed legislation before
they vote, amd when you ask them, they tell you they CAN'T read the
text of proposed legislation because it reaches their office too late
to be examined in detail.

But the real reason is a mirror of what Bush just admitted.
Legislators (yours and mine) barely read English.

There's a simple cure - let's invite all elected lewgislators to
attend remedial reading class - perhaps speed-reading class to mirror
the stress of their job. And if you have a hunch that YOUR legislators
will deny they need instruction in reading, it won't take much research
to prove there's a need, and it won't take much money to pay for the
instruction.

They set themselves up for ridicule by approving bills they havn't read

Michael

                            ***

Consortium News - Aug 13, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/081307.html

New Spy Law Broader Than Thought

By Robert Parry

Before the Democratic-controlled Congress caved in on George W. Bush's 
warrantless-wiretapping powers, White House lawyers slipped in two 
provisions to give the President even more authority - and less 
accountability - than he claimed on his own. And the U.S. press corps 
largely missed that part of the story.

U.S.  news reports mostly parroted the White House claim that the law 
"modernizes"  the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance of 1978 and
"narrowly" targets overseas terror suspects who call or e-mail their
contacts in the United States. But the "Protect America Act of 2007"
actually casts the wiretapping net much wider.

The law applies not just to terror suspects abroad who might
communicate with Americans at home, but to anyone who is "reasonably
believed to be outside the United States"  and who might possess
"foreign intelligence information," defined as anything that could be
useful to U.S. foreign policy.

That means that almost any American engaged in international commerce
or dealing with foreign issues - say, a businessman in touch with a
foreign subsidiary or a U.S. reporter sending an overseas story back to
his newspaper - is vulnerable to warrantless intercepts approved on the
say-so of two Bush subordinates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.

Beyond the breathtaking scope of this new authority, the Bush 
administration also snuck in a clause that grants immunity from
lawsuits to communications service providers that comply with spying
directives from Gonzales and McConnell.

Before the "Protect America Act" won final approval from Congress on
Aug. 4 and was signed into law by Bush on Aug. 5, one of the few
safeguards against Bush's warrantless wiretaps was the concern among
service providers that they might be sued by customers for handing over 
constitutionally protected information without a warrant.

COMPROMISE TALKS

In earlier Capitol Hill discussions of a compromise bill, the 
administration reportedly had agreed to delete this immunity provision
for service providers.  However, when negotiations broke down - and
Bush made clear he would accuse the Democrats of endangering the
nation's safety - Republicans put an immunity clause back into the
final bill.

Then, in the chaotic hours before Congress left for its August recess, 
Democratic leaders allowed the Republican-authored bill to be rushed 
through the Senate and the House with centrist Democratic votes
ensuring passage.

Though getting almost no attention in the U.S. press coverage, the 
immunity paragraph reads: "Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of 
action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any 
information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive 
under this section."

In other words, U.S.  citizens, who believe that warrantless
surveillance has violated their Fourth Amendment rights against
unreasonable search and seizure, will have no legal recourse against
the service provider that collaborated with the government.

This immunity provision is important, too, because the only meaningful 
safeguard against abuse of the new spying power was that service
providers could challenge a wiretap directive through a secret court
proceeding.

That process already was weighted heavily in the Bush administration's 
favor since the service provider would not know the classified basis
for the wiretap directive. That evidence only would be shared ex parte
in a secret conference between administration lawyers and the judge.

So, the service provider would have to file a costly lawsuit on behalf
of an unknowing customer who might or might not be a legitimate target
of government surveillance. In filing the suit, the service provider
also risked angering the U.S.  government, which often is a major
customer with the same service provider.

Now, the new law tilts the scales even further, making the warrantless 
surveillance legally cost free for a collaborating service provider.

These two features - the expansive wiretap coverage and the immunity 
provision for service providers - were cited in our Aug. 5 article at 
Consortiumnews.com. [See "Bush Gets Spying Blank Check."]

But most major U.S.  news outlets, at least initially, followed the
lead of the White House in describing the law's goal as simply
tinkering with an outdated law to permit warrantless surveillance of
terror suspects communicating with each other overseas (if their
conversation went through a U.S.  switching station)  or to some
American.

INSIDER STORIES

A week after the bill's passage, however, the New York Times and the 
Washington Post published front-page stories explaining how the Bush 
administration had ambushed the Democrats and pushed through a more 
expansive law than earlier compromise versions, which had been
discussed with congressional leaders.

The Times reported that in late July "the administration lowered its 
sights, slimming its original 66-page proposal to 11 pages and
eliminating some of the controversial plans like broad immunity from
lawsuits for telecommunications companies that aided the
eavesdropping. ...

"By Aug.  2, the two sides seemed relatively close to a deal. Mr. 
McConnell had agreed to some increased role for the secret [Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance] court, a step that the administration 
considered a major concession, the White House and congressional
leaders said.

"But that night, the talks broke down. With time running out, the
Senate approved a Republican bill ... omitting the stronger court
oversight" and other "compromises hashed out over the previous few
days."  Pressed up against the start of an August recess, the House
followed suit. [NYT, Aug. 11, 2007]

In its account, the Washington Post reported that McConnell had
objected to Democratic attempts to limit the new surveillance powers to
cases in which the overseas communications involved at least one person
suspected of terrorism.

"McConnell wanted no such limits,"  the Post wrote. "`All foreign 
intelligence' targets in touch with Americans on any topic of interest 
should be fair game for U.S. spying, he said." [Washington Post, Aug.
12, 2007]

In other words, the law's broad language was not an accident; it was 
intentional and substantive.  The Bush administration's goal was to
scoop up any information that might be interesting to the intelligence 
community, not just what was needed to protect the nation from a
terrorist attack.

It's also unclear what restrictions apply to the year-long surveillance 
directives if the target enters - or reenters - the United States.
Under the law as written, there's no indication that the service
provider must be notified that the 12-month order should be suspended
if the target steps onto U.S. territory.

Conceivably, therefore, a directive aimed at an American traveling 
overseas might stay in effect after the target returned home, with the 
service provider continuing to give the National Security Agency access
to the target's phone calls and e-mails.

ANGRY BASE

The Democratic congressional cave-in provoked an uproar among 
rank-and-file Democrats. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office reported 
receiving more than 200,000 angry e-mails. Stung by the reaction, 
Democratic leaders promised that the spying law will be revisited in 
September, rather than waiting around for a required reauthorization in 
February 2008.

But the Democrats will face the same dilemma that has stymied their 
attempts to force an end to the Iraq War. The Republicans will be in
the driver's seat because they can filibuster a bill in the Senate,
forcing the Democrats to round up 60 votes. Even if a new bill is
passed, Bush can veto it, requiring two-thirds majorities in both
houses to override.

When the surveillance law expires in February 2008, Republicans will
have the leverage of an election year to again frighten Democrats with
taunts of "soft on terror."

The Bush administration also has made clear that it will seek an even
more advantageous version, including an amnesty provision that would
void lawsuits already filed against service providers "who are alleged
to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,"
according to a White House fact sheet.

With the fear card still working on congressional Democrats, President 
Bush retains hope that he can advance his goal of an all-powerful 
Commander in Chief, despite political reversals and low opinion polls.

Even with the Democrats in control of the House and Senate, very little 
appears to have changed in Washington.