Compromise wiretap bill still ignores Constitution
USA Today
09/20/06
President Bush's embattled anti-terrorism [sic] agenda got a boost Wednesday when a wiretap bill was revised and a Senate Republican leader said he was hopeful a deal was near on treatment of detainees. Progress on the two critical issues before Congress recesses next week for the midterm elections was seen as crucial to Republicans as they defended their majorities in the House and Senate. In the Senate, neither the White House nor the rebellious senators had the votes necessary to move to move forward on how to handle the nation's most dangerous terror suspects, however. ... Heather Wilson's bill initially would have given legal status [sic] to Bush's domestic surveillance program only after an attack. Instead, her bill now would grant the administration's plea to allow wiretapping against Americans without warrants when it is believed a terrorist attack is 'imminent'... [editor's note: I really don't see what the argument is about. Neither proposal is constitutional, and Bush has already established that he does whatever he happens to feel like whether it's legal or not anyway - TLK]
http://tinyurl.com/p7grc
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
09/20/06
President Bush's embattled anti-terrorism [sic] agenda got a boost Wednesday when a wiretap bill was revised and a Senate Republican leader said he was hopeful a deal was near on treatment of detainees. Progress on the two critical issues before Congress recesses next week for the midterm elections was seen as crucial to Republicans as they defended their majorities in the House and Senate. In the Senate, neither the White House nor the rebellious senators had the votes necessary to move to move forward on how to handle the nation's most dangerous terror suspects, however. ... Heather Wilson's bill initially would have given legal status [sic] to Bush's domestic surveillance program only after an attack. Instead, her bill now would grant the administration's plea to allow wiretapping against Americans without warrants when it is believed a terrorist attack is 'imminent'... [editor's note: I really don't see what the argument is about. Neither proposal is constitutional, and Bush has already established that he does whatever he happens to feel like whether it's legal or not anyway - TLK]
http://tinyurl.com/p7grc
Informant: Thomas L. Knapp
rudkla - 21. Sep, 17:12
