Hoekstra's FISA amendment voted down

Ugghhh...OK so I was talking to somebody yesterday and said isn't it terrible that we judge these bills based on if they are not as bad as the previous. But fact is this bill isn't as bad as the temporary bill. It still has problems, like too much leverage for bushco. But a little ray of sunshine peeked through this week

The Committee rejected an amendment by Ranking Member Congressman Pete Hoekstra of Michigan to permanently extend the “Protect America Act,” the Administration’s surveillance bill that passed in August, and to grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies involved in the President’s warrantless surveillance programs.

Chairman Reyes explained that the rejection of this amendment is due to the failure of the White House to first provide documents that would reveal the nature and extent of the President’s warrantless surveillance programs. “Before you can forgive someone,” Chairman Reyes stated, “you need to know what you are forgiving.”

That and Pete Hoekstra says republicans were only given 24 hours on a Monday (Oh the Horror! Sounds like the Patriot Act!) to review the bill before the vote. Thank goodness for small miracles I say.

Hoekstra's worn out FISA talking point

Here we go again Pete says...

the flawed bill has no liability protections for patriotic companies that may have heeded the government’s request to help protect the nation at its time of greatest need.

Bush says:

that he will not sign the bill if it does not give retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that helped conduct electronic surveillance without court orders.

Pete says:

“By not including retroactive liability protection,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, “Democrats are trying to resolve their differences with the administration on the backs of patriotic American companies that only wanted, and continue to want, to help keep our nation safe.”

From August of this year in an interview with Paul Gigot for Wall Street Journal's: Journal Editorial Report:

"These are companies who were doing the patriotic thing....They were helping the U.S. government, the American people, get the information that we believe we needed to keep us safe. They voluntarily participated, and now that the program is exposed, they've been open to all kinds of lawsuits."

They broke the law. Even though the clowns in power asked them to do it. That doesn't make it OK.

I did find this wonderful little snippet from his press release though:

"It could open a door for massive civil liberties violations by Congress.."

Pardon my language but since when has Pete Hoekstra even given a sh*t about our civil liberties??? Trick question...He doesn't. It's a classic political trick of attacking your opponent's strong suit. I'm not buying it, and I sure as hell hope you aren't either.

Links to other stories on the same thing:
Michael Roston at Huffington Post
Declan McCullagh at CNET News

Pete leaks classified information in NY Post Op-Ed

Here's the Op-Ed wherein he continues to spin why Americans should lay down and let their constitutional rights be trampled and attack anyone who disagrees with him, with some fear mongering, and just a dash of "radical jihadists" for flavor. In it Pete says:

The 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill cut human-intelligence programs but directed U.S. intelligence agencies to study global climate change.

Here's the kicker. The budget cuts are in the classified portion of the bill.

Dr. Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy,(wiki), says on Raw Story:

"It looks like Rep. Hoekstra is playing games with classification rules by making his claim publicly,I suggest that he go investigate himself.If you live by secrecy, you die by secrecy," he said. "Rep. Hoekstra has been an ardent defender of the secrecy barriers surrounding the intelligence budget and a harsh critic of leaks. Ironically, he now finds himself unable to coherently defend what he claims is a mistaken budget choice.""

Hmm...leaks for political gain...where have I seen that lately?
Pete your past and present prove...you're a varitable sieve for classified information.

Hoekstra versus New York Times Part 2

There's a lot more to this letter to pick apart.

The only real basis for “fear” here is the scare tactics being perpetuated by the Times

But in the next paragraph there is this veiled idea by Hoekstra

First, the legislation was intended to address significant and substantial intelligence gaps that have arisen at a time of enhanced threat of terrorist attack on the United States. The need for the bill was urgent and obvious.

I'm sorry, no one told me to change my Crayola Terror-Meter up to red. I could swear this would be considered "fear mongering". Wait, no, that must be a media source that doesn't agree with you, right?

It is unfortunate that you choose to compound those difficulties with further politicization, fear-mongering, and the suggestion that we simply dismiss the increased threats to American citizens at home and abroad.

Right.

Politicizing- Here's Pete's chance to speak his piece on the SCHIP bill.
Hmm...all he talks about is FISA.
Or the Implementing the 9/11 Commission Bill.
FISA.
Responsible Redeployment From Iraq Act?
FISA... with a heapin' helpin' of radical jihadists thrown in just for good measure.

Hoekstra can spin it any way he wants. We dismiss the increased threats. We don't believe that "radical jihadists" really hate us and want to attack us. I can go on, and on, and on. Just because Hoekstra, Bush or any other neo-con hack keeps pissing in your ears the same worn out catch phrases doesn't mean they are right. It just means they really want something.

Like your civil liberties. For starters...

Hoekstra says telecomms' wiretapping involvement is "Patriotic"?

Here's the link to the story.

So... We were all bummed that the Dems caved and passed this legislation. We thought "Hey, at least it's only 6 months." Well, if Shrub and Hoekstra have their way it will only get worse. Here's what the preznit wants:

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001,"

WOW that's vague! So what he's saying is that we know what they did is unconstitutional, so we're not admitting they did anything illegal, but we want to go reverse in the way back machine and make it legal before we say they did it. Riiiiight.

But our intrepid Congresscritter has something to say in an interview with Paul Gigot for Wall Street Journal's: Journal Editorial Report on Saturday night:

"These are companies who were doing the patriotic thing....They were helping the U.S. government, the American people, get the information that we believe we needed to keep us safe. They voluntarily participated, and now that the program is exposed, they've been open to all kinds of lawsuits."

(read as:voluntarily broke the law)

Patriotic! 9/11! Terror! Terror!

Parrot Pete says following passage of the bill:

"he would use momentum from Congressional Republicans’ efforts to fix FISA to push for comprehensive reform of the law to...obtain retroactive liability for parties who may have aided the government."

Thanks Pete, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway...

What the ACLU thinks about the FISA program.