Quitter la page - Leave the page

Chapitre précédent - Chapitre suivant

Message # : 7008 from Tomás Bueno / Senate Bill on Surveillance Has Broad Support
By ROBIN TONER and NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Oct. 11 — The Senate was moving quickly tonight on legislation intended to give the government new surveillance and investigatory powers to fight terrorism.
Civil liberties advocates said the legislation was a dangerous power grab by the government, and warned that law enforcement authorities had repeatedly abused their surveillance powers in earlier times of national crisis and upheaval.
But the bill had broad and deep support in a Congress eager to do its part on the one-month anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The Senate was expected to vote after seven hours of debate that began tonight. The House was scheduled to vote on its version of the legislation on Friday. In both chambers, approval was considered a virtual certainty, but differences between the two bills would need to be resolved.
In opening debate, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asserted that the bill, while not perfect, was an effort to balance the needs of national security and individual freedom.
"I've remembered the words of Benjamin Franklin when he literally had his neck on the line," Mr. Leahy said. "He said that a people who trade their liberty for security deserve neither."
The Senate bill was produced after intense negotiations over the Bush administration's original proposal, which was sent to Congress within days of the terrorist attacks. Civil liberties advocates found it far more objectionable than the House bill, which puts a time limit on many of the new powers. The administration and its allies said the Senate bill simply provided essential tools to combat an extraordinary threat.
Both bills would give the government new authority for wiretapping, monitoring Internet communications and sharing information about suspected terrorists and their supporters. The Senate bill includes provisions to fight money laundering, which lawmakers say is an important source of support for terrorists.
The Senate bill would expand the authority for wiretapping foreign citizens suspected in terrorism. The authorities would be able to obtain a so-called roving wiretap for a terrorism suspect, regardless of the telephones used, rather than authorization for wiretapping only a specific telephone, as currently required. Officials have complained that current laws do not provide for terrorists using and discarding cellphones.
The legislation would also expand the government's powers to track e- mail. It would allow the authorities to use an easily obtainable subpoena to get records of when e-mail messages were sent or received by a suspect and the e-mail identity of the correspondent. Now, the authorities must have a subpoena to obtain the equivalent, known as a pen register, from a telephone company, disclosing the time and destination of calls.
The Senate bill would also give government agents more flexibility to exchange information about suspects, including information obtained in grand jury proceedings. And the bill would require universities to disclose information about foreign students to investigators who asserted a reasonable need for it.
It would also strengthen the authorities' ability to detain terrorism suspects, although it would not provide the indefinite detention the administration originally sought. The Senate bill would allow a foreign citizen to be held for up to seven days before being charged if the authorities had "reasonable grounds" for suspecting terrorism. Still, civil libertarians said the language of the bill did not rule out indefinite detention.
The Bush administration prefers the Senate bill. It particularly objected to a sunset provision in the House bill, under which many of the surveillance powers granted to the government would expire in two years unless Congress renewed them.
But the House bill is a careful compromise with strong support on the left and the right.
By today, it was apparent to all involved — including the administration — that some middle ground would have to be negotiated.
10/16/2001 15:05:5

Haut de la page - Top of the page - Quitter la page - Leave the page

Message #: 7288 from *** / Reply To #: 7008 / Au service de sa Majesté!
Le spectre de l'anarchie menace le monde. La technologie américaine joue quitte ou double en Afghanistan.
C'est aux gueux afghans l'honneur de faire basculer ce monde dans l'anarchie.
10/16/2001 15:54:44

Message #: 3523 from Anonymous / Reply To #: 7288 / Re: Au service de sa Majesté!
Les "gueux islamistes" se battront-ils contre les "gueux américains" certainement pas ...
10/17/2001 09:13:52

Message #: 7553 from Le prophète / Reply To #: 7288 / Tomás vous l'avait bien dit!
Les cons ne disent pas QUE des conneries tout le temps. Je n'ai qu'une observation à faire à celle de ***, the anonymous Ben-Aziz.
C'est aux gueux afghans de faire basculer ce monde dans l'anarchie. C'est au Debord(el) d'assister et d'applaudir. (Le fait que ce même *** ait dit il y a trois jours qu' il applaudissait que l'on fasse je ne sais quoi à un millionaire saoudite je ne sais où ne change rien à mon approbation de ce qu'il dit maintenant: c'est aux spectateurs de changer d'avis selon ce qu'on leur dit.
10/16/2001 16:38:52

Message #: 7652 from *** / Reply To #: 7553 / Hijo de puta
Fils de pute! Calomniateur! Couillon!
Le fait que ce même *** ait dit il y a trois jours qu' il applaudissait que l'on fasse je ne sais quoi à un millionaire saoudite je ne sais où apporte des preuves,tu n'es qu'un minable provocateur!
10/16/2001 16:55:22

Message #: 7878 from Tomás / Reply To #: 7652 / No hablar espagnol
En portugais, c'est "filho da puta" qu'on dit - comme le cheval anglais.
Et, conformément à la terminologie du Debordel, les "fils de pute" sont (ou étaient) ceux qui travaillent (oups, travaillaient) au WTC, et je n'y ai jamais mis les pieds.
+++++++++
Tu as raison, Ben Azon (c'est déjà la troisième fois que tu l'as dans une seule journée, continue comme ça!), ce n'est pas *** qui a dit "Pour l'affaire Ben Laden on ne demande à personne de faire la guerre , on nous demande simplement de savoir si l'on trouve réjouissant de voir rosser un curé sanguinaire et milliardaire. Pourquoi irais-je protester contre une action qui vise des gens que je déteste - la fin des talibans et de leur islamisme hollywoodien.", c'est l'Anonymous.
Vos fautes d'ortographe et de ponctuation et les conneries que vous dites sont tellement semblables que je vous ai pris pour la même personne.
Pardonne-moi. À l'Anonymous ce qui revient à l'Anonymous.
++++++++
Mais réponds-moi pour lui, puisque vous pensez la même chose sur tant de sujets: selon toi et lui, l'islamisme "hollywoodien" de Ben Laden serait opposé à un islamisme, disons, "authentique"?
10/16/2001 17:07:7

Message #: 8217 from Tomás / Reply To #: 7878 / One more thing
We're not in the same league, boy. Go play with children your age, before you get hurt.
Il giorno in cui morì Pier Soderini,
L'anima ne andò de inferno in bocca.
"Macchè inferno!", gridò Pluto, "anima sciocca.
"Và su nel limbo fra gli altri bambini".
10/16/2001 18:29:34

Haut de la page - Top of the page

Haut de la page - Top of the page

Haut de la page - Top of the page

Haut de la page - Top of the page