Dems Hurting our Security....again

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hapaboy, Feb 18, 2008.

  1. Democrats’ Inaction on FISA Harms America’s National Security
    By John Boehner

    Sunday, February 17, 2008

    Earlier this month, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle came together to pass an economic growth package to help get our economy moving again. I hoped this same spirit of bipartisanship would extend to other critical issues, with our national security our first and foremost priority. Sadly, this was not to be.

    On Thursday, House Democratic leaders left Washington for a 12-day break after failing to pass critical legislation designed to ensure that our intelligence officials are able to monitor foreign communications of suspected terrorists overseas, such as Osama Bin Laden and other key al-Qaeda leaders, while also adding critical liability protections for third parties who helped us defend our country. This measure had received strong bipartisan support in the Senate, and was on the verge of passing by a wide bipartisan margin in the House until Democratic leaders blocked it from coming to the floor for a vote.

    Because of the Democrats’ inaction, the Protect America Act expired last night at midnight, forcing our intelligence officials to revert to the same terror surveillance laws that failed to protect America from the al-Qaeda terrorist attack on 9/11. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are still plotting against the United States and our allies, but now our intelligence officials don’t have all the tools they need to protect us. These laws didn’t safeguard America in 2001, so why would House Democrat leaders place our nation at risk by putting them back into effect now?

    Some members of the House Majority believe there is no sense of urgency to address this crisis. But the New York Post recently reported a heartbreaking story about U.S. forces in Iraq having to wait 10 hours last May before they could begin searching for three American soldiers taken hostage by al Qaeda because lawyers here in the United States were hammering out the proper documents to get emergency permission for wiretaps. One of our soldiers was found dead, two others remain missing.

    These unconscionable delays had real consequences. It should take exactly zero lawyers to rescue our troops. A strong bipartisan majority in the Senate understood this fact. The Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, put it this way:

    “What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.” (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Floor Remarks, 02/14/08)

    The liability protections included in the bipartisan Senate bill are intended to ensure that patriotic third parties are not subject to frivolous lawsuits when they cooperate with our intelligence officials to help track terrorists. But already some trial lawyers are seeking millions of dollars, and now some third parties who have cooperated to help defend our country have indicated they can no longer do so voluntarily. This is wrong and we must fix it.

    Much has been said about the U.S. Senate being the world’s most deliberative body, but in this case our colleagues proved that they can work quickly to pass good legislation that will keep America safe.

    The consequences of inaction in the House and the failure to send a bill to the President are real. U.S. intelligence officials will not be able to begin new terrorist surveillance without needless and dangerous delays. If a previously unknown group were to attack or kidnap American soldiers tomorrow, U.S. forces would have to wait – again – for the lawyers to get permission before a search could begin. The families of the three soldiers abducted in May by al Qaeda can attest to how devastating waiting can be.

    The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was written and passed during the Cold War era, and in August Congress updated it to reflect the sophisticated and adaptive nature of the terrorist threat. We worked in a bipartisan manner to close a gaping loophole, one that had prohibited our intelligence officials to monitor all foreign communications of terrorists overseas. The only ones preventing us from working together in a bipartisan way again are House Democratic leaders and trial lawyers.

    What was true then remains the same today: instead of shielding terrorists, we should be working to prevent future attacks. Refusing to give our intelligence officials all the tools they need to keep America safe is unacceptable. Refusing to extend protection from frivolous lawsuits to third parties that cooperate with the government to protect American lives and then leaving town for 12 days is also unacceptable.

    The question now for House Democratic leaders is, how much longer are they prepared to protect their trial lawyer allies at the expense of our national security?

    -------------------------------------------
    Undoubtedly this will make America-haters like TT2, chuck.ells, and the rest of the moonbat crowd very happy, but reasonable people on both sides of the aisle should find this inaction unacceptable.
     
  2. On the bright side, military intelligence and decision making, especially in an actual war, has always put troops at risk and compromised strategic timing and objectives.

    Top brass gets dodgy or suspect info, (or are too retarded to understand what their being told) screws around till its too late, passes it by whomever ever else should have a say, politicians etc, then they screw around till the matter is redundant one way or another in present tense, then come up with a half ass solution to fix something that already happened, then when its finally implemented, it naturally makes no difference because the horse has bolted.

    Then, they hand out medals and promotions, and refer it to a committee to figure out how things could have been done better.

    Did i leave anything out? To seriously think this would have a different result on the ground, regardless of participants, hmm, i doubt it.
     
  3. You astound me, acronym.

    Every time I think you have some sense you come out with ridiculous prattle like this stinking pile of dung.

    Yeah, you left something out, primarily that handcuffing our military on the ground by having lawyers pour over the legality of something such as, oh, going searching for one's colleagues who have been kidnapped, for example...like what happened recently. Or didn't you bother to read that far?

    I know you hate Bush and all that, but for chrissakes, would you be singing a different tune if it were Aussie troops we were talking about?
     
  4. Generalissimo Bush is having problems with the economy so its time to play the fear card.

    I'll take what Cato says over some braindead rightwinger says. Congress Ignores Fear-Mongering. World Doesn’t End

    The Bush administration can initiate new terrorist monitoring activities after the PAA expires. It just has to get a FISA warrant, the same way it did in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Indeed, Bush himself praised the changes Congress made to FISA in the wake of the September 11 attacks, noting that they “will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including e-mails, the Internet, and cell phones” and makes the intelligences community “able to better meet the technological challenges posed by this proliferation of communications technology.” If we were able to get by with those provisions for nearly six years, surely we’ll be OK living under them again for a couple of weeks.

    -------

    I can't believe the world didn't end.
     

  5. Speaking of brain dead, what is wrong with someone that watches Keithy Olberman and believes in global warming. If you meet this criteria, you qualify as completely unfit for human consumption.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. One thing for sure, I'm happy the telecoms didn't get their immunity they were after. All traitors to the people of the USA ought to fear the law - no exceptions.
     
  7. I started another thread on this issue. McCain should have been all over the media riipping the Pelosi democrats over this and putting Obama and Hillary on the spot. Instead he was silent. I find it very curious. Is he worried about annoying his media supporters? Is he even aware of the issue? You don't get many second chances in this business. McCain already got one, an dnow he seems to be blowing it. He reminds me more of Bob Dole every day.
     
  8. This issue is soo 2007.
    It's never a good idea to walk into the future backwards.
     
  9. How does that help our troops in the field when their buddies are kidnapped and they have to wait for hours for lawyers to hammer out FISA requests, etc.???
     
  10. This has been the most heavily lawyered war in history. Our soldiers have paid with their lives for that. And this is with a republican president who is regularly derided by hysterical democrats for shredding the constitution. Heaven help us and our troops if a democrat takes over.
     
    #10     Feb 18, 2008