GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Surveillance powers unlikely to change with new president

• 61221
  

  Spelling B, thank you for that correction. I, too, am chagrinned for Barack's signing as I found out in GovExec's "Senate passes FISA bill after yearlong dispute", 9 Jul 08. I point that article out not only because my personal feelings expressed there match your own but also for the EXCELLENT expert response sent in by Rich Zellich; which I hope others will view once more.

  The only consolation I received from that passage was from the GovExec article "National security observers explain FISA ins and outs". While it will be sometime before the foul taste leaves my mouth, I can stomach the passage since the legislation expires in four years and I anticipate more headlines on abuses. Perhaps this will be sufficient time and distance for the "fear" to subside and common sense to regain control.

  Once more, to that Thin Blue Line (and the Green ect...) out there, while I greatly appreciate your job and adherence to the letter of the law and I understand removal or expiration of this tool may remove the single most valuable tool in your tool kit; I still wish that tool removed. I think it not TOO far out of line to return to the previous standards of checks and balances observed under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court control.

  Recent revelations aside... having been there, done that, and gotten the T-Shirt, I must ask again; "Who will guard the guards?"

  Tip off Posted October 20, 2008 11:08 AM
• 61062
  

  I realize that it is totally unfair to assume that someone who does not possess spelling or grammatical competence is an idiot. And yet there is often a correlation. Tip off, thanks for a fine review of the constitutional rights stolen from us by our president and congress. (You left out the abridging of freedom of speech, with all presidential protestors shunted to the dark side of the moon, where they won't pose a threat.) I was deeply disappointed that Obama reneged on his promise to vote against the revised FISA bill, allowing businesses (and the president) to get away with illegal spying. When I think of the courage of the men and women who fought for our constitutional rights, the speed with which our current population is happy to fling those rights away for no good reason disgusts me.

  Speller B Posted October 16, 2008 4:24 PM
• 61023
  

  Perhaps you misunderstood me, Skeeter, amidst all the buzz. My comment was not about the current candidates (although you and I will continue to agree to disagree) but rather about our vaunted two-party system; for the more power you give the incumbent (regardless of party affiliation), the worse off you may feel when that system asserts itself and you are left with the "other" candidate, like Charles, in charge. That's the problem of giving away that which you do not know the value of. As the old adage reminds us, "You never know what you got until its gone."

  As far as rewriting the Constitution, you don't have to worry; the incumbent already did that with attempts to change the 1st (Freedom of Religion) and modifying our 4th (privacy, search and seizure without probable cause), 5th (due process) 6th and 7th (trial by jury, right to hear testimony, face accusers, know the charges against you), 8th (cruel and unusual punishment), 11th (JUDICIAL power over foreign nationals,), and 14th (prohibiting states from abridging citizens' privileges or immunities and rights to due process and the equal protection of the law) amendment rights. That makes for a fairly comprehensive rewrite, would you not agree?

  Well, if not now, then perhaps the next time a Blue Dog sits in that executive seat you might reconsider what you gave away?

  As for the current candidates, I do not blame Shrub in toto for this situation; for, as was said once before, "Forgive him, for he knows not what he does." And as for his party nemesis, the current opposition candidate, IF he did attempt a rewrite, at least a former president of the Harvard Law Review will understand the Constitutional implications of his actions, and he ... darned sure couldn't do any worse!

  Personally, I can only hope and pray that the incoming administration, regardless of party affiliation be he maverick or beltway neophyte, will eventually root out the current entrenched party apparatchiks and restore what we lost in that mad dash ... the blind scramble for safety.

  Tip off Posted October 16, 2008 9:13 AM
• 60956
  

  Yep I've already seen his hand inaction, fraugelent voter registrations, foreign countries financing his campaign and the arrest of a sheriff for calling your candidate Barak Hussain Obama. Yep there is no question under the party who's merit you constantly extol a new constitution is already being written

  Dan ketter Posted October 15, 2008 11:09 AM
• 60898
  

  Skeeter, considering the verve with which you abdicated your constitutional rights over to the current monarch; IMHO, only a swift reminder in the keister that this IS a two-party system, preferably by changing dance partners, will open your eyes to the constitutional desecration this past executive power expansion has been.

  Tip off Posted October 14, 2008 12:19 PM
• 60786
  

  If Obama wins there will be increased surveillance, the SS arrested a sheriff t a Republican rally so his hands will go deep into a Stalin era

  Dan ketter Posted October 10, 2008 1:27 PM
• 60762
  

  Our nation is not in a steady financial position for too many radical changes. The new Administration should go very slow & do much research before making any changes. The foreign markets have become sluggish after our financial crisis which does not show much faith in our market. We are entering hard times and many wise decisions will have to be made to pull the nation out of this financial slump.

  American Taxpayer Posted October 10, 2008 9:40 AM