Greystone Thorngage
09-29-2006, 07:52 AM
WASHINGTON -- The House approved a bill Thursday that would grant legal status to President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program with new restrictions.
"You can't say that you're serious about taking on the terrorists if you stand up here every day and vote 'no'," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of Democrats before the bill passed 232-191.
Democrats argued it gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.
"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
The bill gives legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.
Under the measure, the president could authorize such wiretaps if he:
<LI>Notifies the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and congressional leaders.
<LI>Believes an attack is imminent, and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.
<LI>Renews his certification every 90 days.
The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of this week
That part that scares me is the "belives an attack is immineent, and LATER explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved."
Basically Bush can go, hmm, i think <insert group of people here> is going to attack, bug them and later we'll come up with a reason why we did it.
Both chambers this week approved legislation that sets up "military commissions" to prosecute terrorists. It also would prohibit the severe abuse of detainees, like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.
The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.
Why are we giving the executive branch this much power to interpret. I thought it was the Judicial branches responsibility to interpret law/treaty.
The office of the president is getting WAY too much power. Where is the line going to be drawn where the President CANT do something. So far its like he gets free reign to do whatever the hell he wants.
"You can't say that you're serious about taking on the terrorists if you stand up here every day and vote 'no'," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said of Democrats before the bill passed 232-191.
Democrats argued it gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.
"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
The bill gives legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.
Under the measure, the president could authorize such wiretaps if he:
<LI>Notifies the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and congressional leaders.
<LI>Believes an attack is imminent, and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.
<LI>Renews his certification every 90 days.
The Senate also could vote on a similar bill before Congress recesses at the end of this week
That part that scares me is the "belives an attack is immineent, and LATER explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved."
Basically Bush can go, hmm, i think <insert group of people here> is going to attack, bug them and later we'll come up with a reason why we did it.
Both chambers this week approved legislation that sets up "military commissions" to prosecute terrorists. It also would prohibit the severe abuse of detainees, like mutilation and rape, but grant the president leeway to decide which other interrogation techniques are permissible.
The overall bill would prohibit war crimes and define such atrocities as rape and torture but otherwise would allow the president to interpret the Geneva Conventions, the treaty that sets standards for the treatment of war prisoners.
Why are we giving the executive branch this much power to interpret. I thought it was the Judicial branches responsibility to interpret law/treaty.
The office of the president is getting WAY too much power. Where is the line going to be drawn where the President CANT do something. So far its like he gets free reign to do whatever the hell he wants.