WHITE HOUSE AGREES TO SPY LAW CHANGE
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1628067

WASHINGTON Feb 16, 2006 (AP)— Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat "Roberts said he has worked out an agreement with the White House to change U.S. law regarding the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program and provide more information about it to Congress.

"We are trying to get some movement, and we have a clear indication of that movement," Roberts, R-Kan., said.

Without offering specifics, Roberts said the agreement with the White House provides "a fix" to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and offers more briefings to the Senate Intelligence Committee."

My question - Why was an agreement made with the White House to provide "a fix" to FISA if the Bush Administration didn't break the law?

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

Pretty simple.
To make the law as it is more clear.

Nothing significant is being changed because nothing was illegal to begin with.

"Whether or not an investigation is the right thing to do at this particular time, I am not sure," Roberts told reporters while heading into the meeting."

Maybe changing the law is a compromise in order to avoid an investigation.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

So you claim he never broke the law that he now says needs changing. Last time I heard his excuse, the excuse was that the law was written in 1978, ignoring the fact that it HAD been changed a couple of times since then.

Guess what--the Constitution was written in the SEVENTEEN seventies. That REALLY means that it should be TOTALLY ignored cuz it's outdated, huh.

__________________
I shall continue to be an impossible person as long as those who are now possible remain possible.
HuffPo's Off The Bus campaign coverage project....Off The Bus Blog

"if it's not broken don't fix it?"

since that wisdom predates FISA do we ignore it too?

I wasn't aware "he"(which I assume you meant Bush) he said anything about any law needing to be changed.

In fact its pretty clear in that article as well that they see no need to change anything,


You assume a law was broken..other then opinion that such a law(which seems to change with the wind) was broken there is very little supporting your sides contentions.






As for the Constitution it has been ammended for many reasons..one of them being to make things clearer.

IE-

AMENDMENT XI
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

AMENDMENT XX
Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.
Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

AMENDMENT XXVI
Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.
Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/const...ents11-27.html


If its so slam dunk then why are the Democrats running away from it?
...the stale oh its a big conspiracy or whatnot or some NeoCon Fascist thing isn't going to fly..
Why if it is such a sure thing is it not progressing in a manner that suggests it is?
..the obvious reason is becasue you are mistaken in your contentions.

Here's one reason why Democrats don't support this.

Bush seeks retroactive support for eavesdropping
http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/news/ci_3528109

"After two months of insisting that President Bush did not need court approval to authorize wiretapping of calls between the United States and suspected terrorists abroad, the administration is trying to channel the political pressure for more oversight into retroactive congressional approval for the program"

Another free pass for the Bush Administration? I don't think so. Retroactive congressional approval lets the president off the hook when it comes to taking responsibility for breaking the law.

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control

and if our country follows the procedures to amend the Constitution to address this issue great. what is of concern is the willingness to ignore the expressed requirements of the Constitution/Amendments - by the very person sworn to uphold them

Huh? What in the world are you talking about. Where is it written that laws get made because someone was breaking the previous ones? Does that mean that all the Congress and Senate was breaking campaign finance laws because they passed a CFR reform bill?

Most of these so-called changes are mere tweaks. Mostly "window dressing" so they can claim they did something to earn their keep. OR something that feeds their bloated egos as in...."yeah, I'll tell a few more of you in the Senate what I'm doing....."

It's no big deal. The NSA spying program continues.....

And you'll notice, the Senate didn't really want it to stop....despite the balking from some of them.

__________________
“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.” — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007

JP5, Why don't you give me the reason for making it retroactive?

__________________
I've been informed....don't blame Bush, he's "not in control"
That must make him out of control