Will it be a crime to say the president is a crook

[Occhidiangela]

So... It's retroactive.

Which would mean... Anybody that has previously questioned this whole mess could be rounded up and be made an example of?
[right][snapback]104864[/snapback][/right]

Read much, Doc?

You might want to try doing so before commenting.

From part 2.B.1. (Scope)

"Electronic surveillance carried out pursuant the authority in the subsection (a) shall not be conducted solely on the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

Do you find that ambiguous? I don't.

That said, I think this bill is a waste of time and effort. It seems to me an attempt to grow the Attorney General's discretionary powers. If you read further in the bill, there is language that, to my taste, is far too open ended in allowing the Attorney General to rule on what should or should not be done. This step is a blatant attempt to further empower the Executive Branch with little to no balance at hand.

FISA is good enough, given that it allows 72 hours to report stuff to the FISA court After The Fact for emerging intelligence targets. Checks and balances are a requirement of our system.

Our whole system is inefficient: On Purpose! Sure, dictatorship is more efficient, but that isn't what we signed up for. Our system requires us to work harder and smarter to do what we have to in order to retain checks and balances.

The leadership in the current executive branch is asking not to have to work too hard. They can pack sand, the lazy sunzabiznatches. I had to follow their freaking RoE. That RoE got people killed in Afghanistan for lack of a bomb here and there. Those jerks can learn to work under, and work with, a tight legal RoE.

If that job was easy, anyone could do it.

Occhi