House Passes FISA Update, Bill Expected to Become Law
Posted June 21st, 2008 by Da King
The entire liberal media is telling you the FISA bill passed by the House Of Representatives on friday is the end of civil rights, the death of our Constitution, an example of Democrats caving to the lawless Bush administration, etc, etc. They try to drum this stuff into your head constantly, in the hope that you will forget what happened on 9/11, in the hope that you will forget WHY the Bush administration took the national security actions they took following that tragic attack, the worst ever on our homeland. They don't want you to ponder the REAL reasons for Bush's spying, because then it might look like Bush was only attempting to keep America safe from further attack, which is, after all, the job of the President. No, the liberal media wants you to believe Bush just woke up one day and illogically decided it was time to be a dictator and trample on the citizenry, for no reason really, just because Bush is an evil lawless tyrant and that's what evil lawless tyrants do. The liberal media wants you to know evil has a name, and that name is Bush. Also, the liberal media wants you to know that Bush=McCain=Republicans, just so there won't be any mistake. This IS an election year, after all.
But I assume most of you can see through the liberal media's shallow attempts at deception. Most people have the capacity for rational thought. This post is for you. I'll attempt to tell you what the new FISA update is really about.
In spite of the overblown protestations of the liberal media, many Democrats, most terrorist appeasers, and all outright Al Qaeda members, the new FISA bill is not the death of civil rights. There will be oversight of domestic spying with this new bill. It establishes a measure of balance between monitoring suspected terrorists and privacy concerns. It also attempts to establish limits on the president's executive powers. It spells out areas of domestic and international spying that needed to be spelled out.
The biggest sticking point to passage of the bill had been the provision to shield the telecommunications companies from lawsuits following the telcoms post-9/11 cooperation with the government in tracking terrorists. 40 such lawsuits were in the wings. None of the 40 persons or groups that wanted to sue the telecoms had any idea if their phones were monitored or if their rights were infringed. They just wanted to sue on principle. Democrats were hesitant to bargain away those lawsuits. The new FISA bill will shield the telcoms from lawsuits if the telcoms receive certification from the attorney general that the president ordered them to perform wiretaps to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. I like this provision, because it puts the responsibility for wiretaps on the government where it belongs. It is very troublesome to put the responsibility for making decisions about terrorism on private corporations who are torn between helping their country and treading into questionable legal territory that could cost them millions or billions of dollars.
I have some personal experience in this area. Following 9/11, I was a computer programmer/analyst for a bank. The government requested anti-terrorist type information from the bank, which I was tasked with providing them. Some of the requests involved the tracking of certain financial transactions and some involved other information, such as the reporting of all account signers who didn't have Social Security numbers. If any of you think this is improper action by the government, I can also tell you that the government has been tracking your financial information for decades. If you think your banking transactions are private, think again. They aren't. Nowadays, there are even sophisticated methodologies to track any type of unusual financial activity, and even methodolgies to predict financial activity, but that is a discussion for another time.
The point is that I certainly wouldn't have wanted to face a lawsuit for attempting to help my government track terrorist activity a few months after 9/11. The new FISA bill addresses that problem.
Some other provisions in the new FISA bill, according to the linked article, are:
- It requires the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.
- The government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it.
- It would allow the government to tap a foreigner's overseas calls without FISA court approval.
- Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.
- Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.
- Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.
- Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.
- Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.
- Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.
Is the new FISA bill perfect ? No.
Did the old FISA and spying procedures need to be updated to reflect the modern technological world and the new type of threat the terrorists present ? Absolutely.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Wow, not only do you agree with shredding the 4th amendment….but you worked for the enemy.
You're comparison of illegal spying on Americans and obeying a provision in the Patriot Act passed by Congress doesn't cut it. It was not legal or Constitutional for Bush to begin in FEBRUARY 2001 violating American citizens' guarantee against unlawful search and seizure.
The bill passed last night in the House has nothing to do with keeping us safe….nothing. It has to do with the incestuous relationship corrupt politicians have with corporate America and these same politicians' disdain for the Constitution and the American people.
The shamefulness of it is only enhanced by the timing of passage for a Friday night.
The Valeri Plame case was an impeachable offense. The spying thing is even worse. The Congress going along is pukerific.
June 21st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Mr. King,
The deaths that occurred on 9/11 were crimes committed by a criminal conspiracy called Al Qaeda, which uses the tactic of terrorism as its modus operandi. War in a strict sense can only be entered into by two states. We are using our military ostensibly to capture or kill the conspirators and their abettors. We do not seek territory nor, at least ostensibly, colonies. We are seeking justice and removing a group of criminals to prevent and deter future events.
The same group tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. The principals were captured and imprisoned where at least they are out of circulation today. The major reasons that 9/11 ocurred are that warnings were ignored and our air defense system (including amazingly, the defense of our capital) was diverted by a training exercise.
There are many things domestically that should done to reduce our vulnerability to terrorist activities. We should first be securing our borders by documenting all people and material which enters our country. We should address obvious targets for future attacks. In short, there are very many primary actions that can be done without the abandonment of the Bill of Rights that aren't being done.
One has to suspect an administration that lied us into a war which its principals had tried to get started since 1998. One that started a data mining program called Total information Awareness. One which asserts powers not claimed by any other president, at war or not.
The only update the old FISA needed was to reflect the change in phone call routing from when it was enacted. A three day ex post facto approval from a historically compliant court is hardly an impediment. However, such a procedure would supply a record which could be used in subsequent investigations whether by history or by the courts.
Originally, Mr. Bush claimed that exposing these companies to lawsuits would bankrupt them and unjustly penalize them for trying to fight terrorism. However, he refused to accept a compromise of indemnifying these companies. If suits were to proceed a legal record would be established which could result in criminal charges.
I certainly don't think that your information disclosure was illegal nor unethical. However, if someone used that information improperly they may have crossed the line. I don't think many realistic people believe that someone can't retrieve their financial data. The question is what is done with that knowledge.
I support a "war on terrorism" in that the first responsibility of a government is to provide for the safety and security of its citizens. However, the threat of terror does not justify the actions taken by this administration, which by the mildest form of rebuke, should be seen as having sown the seeds of tyranny.
June 21st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Rev says, "you worked for the enemy".
Uh, genius, the enemy was Al Qaeda. I worked for an american bank, one that had several people killed on 9/11, btw. Are you channeling Ward Churchill now ?
As for the rest of your post - blah, blah, blah. I've heard it a thousand times. There isn't a shred of truth to it. You'd have to be an absolute moonbat to think this doesn't have anything to do with fighting terrorism….oh, look who I'm talking to.
And what does Plame have to do with this ?
June 21st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
frank,
I disagree that terrorism should be treated strictly as a crime.
Actually, 9/11 was an act of holy war committed by a group of extremists who had DECLARED WAR on the Great Satan. A bank robbery is a crime. 9/11 was not. 9/11 was an act of war. Al Qaeda and friends is an international terrorist movement that is dedicated to destroying Israel, the USA, and the West. Treating terrorism as isolated criminal incidents is what allowed terrorists to be so successful in the first place. Treating terrorism as a crime only provides for detective work after the fact to find the perpetrator. Rather than a police function, terrorism must be dealt with as a wartime intelligence function. Even if you don't think you are at war with Al Qaeda and friends, frank, they think they are at war with you. If somebody is at war with you, you better recognize it and defend yourself, or your goose will be cooked.
I agree with you about securing the borders. Bush (and all prior administrations) has failed in this area. McCain will also fail, and Obama too. We can't seem to get a president who realizes the importance of border security, which is rather odd in this day and age.
"Total information Awareness" - You do realize this kind of stuff has been going on for decades, don't you ? At least Bush finally had a good reason.
I disagree that the administration lied us into war, but I'm tired of talking about it after all these years, so we'll have to agree to disagree.
What powers has Bush claimed that no other president has ever claimed ? I can't think of even one. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, plus habeas corpus has never been granted to foreign enemy combatants before. Roosevelt imprisoned Japanese-Americans who had committed NO CRIME during WWII, which is far more egregious than anything Bush has done. Many presidents have spied on american citizens without warrants before, for far lesser reasons than terrorism and legitimate national security issues. We've certainly taken prisoners of war before and held them captive for the duration of the war. Many presidents have issued signing statements. It's extremely naive to think harsh interrogation methods were never used previous to Bush. The rendition program was started by Clinton.
As for FISA, the clarifications in the new bill were definitely needed, and there are protections in there as well. We don't want to be so cautious as to lose valuable data in the terrorism fight. As they say, the Constitution isn't a suicide pact. As long as the executive branch is being monitored and reviewed to insure they don't exceed their mandate of fighting terrorism, I don't have a problem with it. I find it difficult to equate Bush's actions with tyranny. I'm usually pretty anti-government, but when it comes to fighting our real enemies, the federal government is definitely the one for that job, and I support them.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 am
I agree with you, King.
June 22nd, 2008 at 1:29 am
Mr. King,
I have always supported action against the perpetrators of 9/11. The administration has failed in either bringing them to justice or eradicating them. It even disbanded the team that was looking for bin Laden. However, it was successful through exploiting people's fears and disinformation to convince enough people that Iraq was somehow an imminent threat.
Along with securing our borders, there are many other things we should be doing such as inspecting all material coming through ports, securing nuclear and chemical facilities, and places where people gather. I am sure there are many other simple and even inexpensive actions that could be taken, yet they are not. Is the threat of terrorism not taken seriously enough to warrant doing the simple and obvious?
I understand that the government gathers information for many purposes, but the TIA project was to seek out all data, correlate, and centralize the information. Call me a cynic, but I don't trust anyone to use such information, much less one which was dedicated to establishing a "permanent Republican majority".
Bush has claimed through the signing statements the power to enforce or not laws that have passed and he signed into law. He has claimed the power to hold people, including citizens, without habeas corpus or other legal rights by arbitrarily designating them "enemy combatant". He has claimed the right to confiscate property. He has claimed the power to order interrogation techniques in violation of the Geneva Convention. There are many others he has claimed, I'd suggest that Kucinich came up with 35 of them.
Please tell me what was in the old FISA bill that was any impediment. Other than updating for the changed situation of phone routing, nothing was needed. This is about ensuring that none of this ever reach the public record or withstand the scrutiny of the courts or of history.
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:43 am
From frank: "I'm sure there are many simple and even inexpensive actions that could be taken, yet they are not. Is the threat of terrorism not taken seriously enough to warrant doing the simple and obvious?"
You're blaming the administration for not completing imaginary tasks you claim are obvious but cannot name? That's pretty weak and belies the reasonable tone you try to convey.
Tapping phones is something that demands great scrutiny but a federal government that would prosecute citizens (telecom officials are citizens by the way) for complying with that same government's requests isn't an answer to anything.
I'm also unsure how the King's personal experience can be so easily dismissed. I'd much rather have someone listen to my phone conversations than go through my bank records. I seriously doubt the former has ever happened but believe the latter is done as a matter of course.
June 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Mr. larry d.,
I mentioned a couple of the obvious things that could be done. I am sure anyone could come up with a list based on what would make an attractive terrorist target. My point is that the administration has ridden the terrorist threat in order to further their preconceived goals.
It's not that they are placing specific wiretaps recording individual calls. They are, according to a Pac Tel engineer who set up the machinery, getting a copy of all phone and internet traffic.
June 22nd, 2008 at 5:37 pm
" Treating terrorism as a crime only provides for detective work after the fact to find the perpetrator. Rather than a police function, terrorism must be dealt with as a wartime intelligence function."
How did the feds handle Timothy McVeigh?
Was Timothy McVeigh's act an act of war? And if so, was it declared? And against whom? If it wasn't, why not?
There's really not much sense in discussing the reality versus the perception of all this stuff.
Neo-conservative doctrine is what King embraces. The same doctrine as Lieberman, McCain, Bush/Cheney, AIPAC, PNAC, and of course, the Likud Party.
It's military fanaticism.
And transplant a few words in your above sentence and you have, "Treating murder, rape, and armed robbery as crimes only provides for detective work after the fact to find the perpetrator."
It's fascist thinking….through and through…..and I'm being kind here.
June 22nd, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I guess I should have said I'd rather have my calls tracked in a bundle of millions of other calls than have my banking records examined.
And securing our borders and inspecting all cargo coming through our ports doesn't sound all that simple or inexpensive to me.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:58 am
Rev, I dismiss your nonsense out of hand. If you are unable to comprehend and respond to the threat of Al Qaeda and friends after the hundreds of worldwide terrorist attacks they have perpetrated from the 90's forward, including many against America, then you are, I'm sorry to say, a fool.
June 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
Rev,
And your attempt at equivalence between McVeigh and Al Qaeda is laughable. There is no international McVeigh terrorist group, you ninny.