Democratic Congress To Continue Wiretaps

[Fairweather]

Spoken like a true worm.

 

 

Speaking of worms, Tvrash, might I suggest a dose of Albendazole for that "gut" issue you seem unable to beat?

 

I've taken it already. It worked beautifully to get rid of the 'little friend' that hitched a ride back home with me after my last Himalayan climbing trip.

 

I didn't know it was effective against Gerbilworm!

[JayB]

Isn't the actual legislation here a rather minor modification of FISA rules that pertain to the monitoring of either overseas communications and/or communications which originate with terror suspects overseas and terminate with US citizens?

 

 

No, it's actually a major modification. Prior to the current legislated changes, there was judiciary oversight, complete with probable cause requirements etc.; now, citing executive privelege, the current administration claims the right to surveil those it deems as risks (tell me how they might establish this?), without the need to report ANY case specifics to any oversight entity, EVER. Only a quarterly report outlining "procedures" is required.

 

(And to compare the un-monitered illegal unconstitutional collection of information on americans to the monitered collection of medical information within a format yet to be decided on seems, on the surface, to be nothing but a play on a rather naive and blithely dismissive reading of "left" and "right" political stereotyping).

 

 

I was able to locate what appears to be the administration's case here:

 

http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/Wainstein092007.pdf

 

A more concise summary of this case here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html

 

which I'll post below.

 

And the full text of the various versions of the legislation here:

 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.1927:

 

 

I won't have time to read through the documents for a while, so perhaps you can assist me by identifying the specific passages that grant the administration the right to surveil everyone at all times with no oversight? Or are those powers outlined somewhere else?

 

 

 

 

 

 

"For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

August 6, 2007

 

Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007

President Bush Signs Legislation Modernizing Foreign Intelligence Law To

Better Protect America

 

 

RSS Feed White House News

 

Fact sheet In Focus: National Security

 

"We know that information we have been able to acquire about foreign threats will help us detect and prevent attacks on our homeland. Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has assured me that this bill gives him the most immediate tools he needs to defeat the intentions of our enemies. And so in signing this legislation today I am heartened to know that his critical work will be strengthened and we will be better armed to prevent attacks in the future."

 

President George W. Bush, 8/5/07

 

The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas.

 

* Changes In Technology Since 1978 Had The Effect Of Expanding The Scope Of FISA's Coverage To Include Intelligence Collection Efforts That Congress Excluded From The Law's Requirements. This unintended expansion of FISA's scope meant the government, in a significant number of cases, needed to obtain a court order to collect foreign intelligence information against a target located overseas. This created an unnecessary obstacle to our Intelligence Community's ability to gain real-time information about the intent of our enemies overseas and diverted scarce resources that would be better spent safeguarding the civil liberties of people in the United States, not foreign terrorists who wish to do us harm.

 

* The Government Should Not Have To Obtain A Court Order To Conduct Surveillance On Foreign Intelligence Targets Located In Foreign Countries. This was not Congress' intent when it enacted FISA. As the Director of National Intelligence stated, continuing to operate under this outdated law meant our intelligence professionals were "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."

 

The Protect America Act Modernizes FISA In Four Important Ways

 

1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S.

 

2. The Act Provides A Role For The FISA Court In Reviewing The Procedures The Intelligence Community Uses To Ensure That Surveillance Efforts Target Persons Located Overseas. The Attorney General is required to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which intelligence professionals will determine that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance that is, the procedures by which the government determines that the acquisitions are directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.

 

3. The Act Provides For The FISA Court To Direct Third Parties To Assist The Intelligence Community In Its Collection Efforts. The Act permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct third parties to provide the information, facilities, and assistance necessary to conduct surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located overseas.

 

4. The Act Protects Third Parties From Private Lawsuits Arising From Assistance They Provide The Government. No cause of action may be brought in any court against any person for complying with a directive to provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition of foreign intelligence information.

 

Our Work Is Not Done — This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

 

As for the left/right "play," that's not my intention at all, but it does seem odd that one can simultaneously argue for granting the government much broader powers in one arena with no consideration of the potential implications while constantly issuing forth jeremiads about the malign intent of the same government in another arena. Odder still that it can be undertaken with no explanation, no logical asterisk, and no awareness of the manifold logical contradictions inherent in such a position.

 

 

[JayB]

Some of us care that my doomsday scenario has already happened for others.

 

Fair enough - and the fact that I choose to not be preoccupied/obsessed with this particular issue isn't because I'm a conservative yuppie - but feel free to continue with your stereotypes if it makes life more entertaining for you. From my personal standpoint I have a limited amount of emotional/intellectual bandwidth that I can spend as I like. If I wanted to get really wound up about big-brother, that would certainly consume a good bit of it. I personally don't believe that the potential civil rights abuses enabled by the program being discussed collectively rank that high in the grand scale of international human suffering. For example, my wife recently spent 2-weeks in Zambia working with AIDS orphans, and we are trying to figure out how we can do more to help from both a financial and advocacy standpoint now that a baby will keep us stateside for the immediate future.

 

 

 

 

It doesn't take much bandwidth to stop rooting for the wrong side.

 

Since Congress, with the full participation of the Democratic majority, is responsible for this legislation - which side is it that you are referring to here?

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

Since Congress, with the full participation of the Democratic majority, is responsible for this legislation - which side is it that you are referring to here?

 

Exactly! Back on topic, Jay!

 

[sexual_chocolate]

 

 

I won't have time to read through the documents for a while, so perhaps you can assist me by identifying the specific passages that grant the administration the right to surveil everyone at all times with no oversight? Or are those powers outlined somewhere else?

 

BY the omission of previous safeguards against such activities, the concern arises that indeed such activity can be imagined possible, with no mechanism to ensure that it isn't.

 

I would be inclined to think (as would you) that the administration would not outline such powers explicitly (since such an act would quite obviously be outside of law and constitution), but please answer: Does it not concern you that the current administration seeks to reduce judiciary oversight to levels below FISA? Does it not concern you that the current administration seeks to reduce judiciary oversight to a quarterly "procedural" review? Does it not concern you that during these quarterly "reviews", no specific case information will be discussed?

 

 

It seems to me, that without resorting to paranoia, a reasonable mind might conclude that indeed the situation could be ripe for abuse.

 

 

As for the left/right "play," that's not my intention at all, but it does seem odd that one can simultaneously argue for granting the government much broader powers in one arena with no consideration of the potential implications while constantly issuing forth jeremiads about the malign intent of the same government in another arena. Odder still that it can be undertaken with no explanation, no logical asterisk, and no awareness of the manifold logical contradictions inherent in such a position.

 

To whom you are refering above is anybody's guess, so I have a hard time responding. I'll assume it's the lefty boogyman, so I'll leave it to him to craft a repartee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kevbone]

You are either for or against the use of wiretapping without a court order. If you see fit to support such an hypocrisy……you might not be laughing so hard when it happened to you.

[sexual_chocolate]

You are either for or against the use of wiretapping without a court order. If you see fit to support such an hypocrisy……you might not be laughing so hard when it happened to you.

 

How does a non-court authorized wire tap violate Habeas Corpus and the 4th amendment?

[JayB]

 

BY the omission of previous safeguards against such activities, the concern arises that indeed such activity can be imagined possible, with no mechanism to ensure that it isn't.

 

I would be inclined to think (as would you) that the administration would not outline such powers explicitly (since such an act would quite obviously be outside of law and constitution), but please answer: Does it not concern you that the current administration seeks to reduce judiciary oversight to levels below FISA? Does it not concern you that the current administration seeks to reduce judiciary oversight to a quarterly "procedural" review? Does it not concern you that during these quarterly "reviews", no specific case information will be discussed?

 

 

It seems to me, that without resorting to paranoia, a reasonable mind might conclude that indeed the situation could be ripe for abuse.

 

 

Which safeguards are you referring to? In the context of what I've read thus far - my answer is no, the modifications to FISA do not concern me, and I don't see a significant threat to our civil liberties or freedoms encompassed within them. If someone can find the specific passages that demonstrate why I should conclude otherwise, I hope someone will point them out.

 

If the administration does not outline the powers that you are concerned that they are intent on abusing explicitly, then even if one assumes that they have both the intent and the means to do so, are you convinced that the said abuses, were they to occur would persist beyond the present administration? On what basis would the next Clinton administration carry forward the abuses that you are concerned will originate in this administration if they aren't supported by the actual text of the legislation?

 

Finally, your claims here seem rather more constrained than the proclamations heralding the arrival of an oversight free surveilo-state. Do you really think that the language that you used to characterize this legislation in your original post is valid here, in light of the actual proposals that are on the table?

[kevbone]

 

How does a non-court authorized wire tap violate Habeas Corpus and the 4th amendment?

 

 

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that searches and seizures conducted under governmental authority be "reasonable". Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

 

How does a non-court authorized wire tap violate Habeas Corpus and the 4th amendment?

 

 

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that searches and seizures conducted under governmental authority be "reasonable". Toward that end, the amendment specifies that judicially sanctioned search and arrest warrants must be supported by probable cause and be limited in scope according to specific information supplied by a person (usually a peace officer) who has sworn by it and is therefore accountable to the issuing court.

 

 

Did FISA comply with the above?

[kevbone]

The real question is did you comply with the Jerry Curl rule? Too much or too little.

 

This is spray…..right?

 

 

 

[noliquidity]

 

To whom you are refering above is anybody's guess, so I have a hard time responding. I'll assume it's the lefty boogyman, so I'll leave it to him to craft a repartee.

 

 

 

 

Sorry it took so long, this repartee was crafted by a libertereo/conservative lefty so I dont know if it will be p to standard. When crafting this repartee it in involved the use of cardboard, salsa, epoxy, some extra bodily fluids I had built up and lots of duct tape. I now need to figure out how to upload a picture of it.

[sexual_chocolate]

Which safeguards are you referring to?

 

Judiciary oversight. Previously, if the government had probable cause, it would take it to the FISA court and attempt to obtain a warrant. The court would rule on its merits. In "emergencies", the government could execute a search, but would need to report to the court within 72 hours with case specifics.

The current protocol does away with this mechanism entirely, replacing it with a quarterly judiciary review that does not even go into case specifics. No evidence is brought before a court, no probable cause in any case by case sense. This should trouble anyone with constitutional and legal precedent knowledge.

 

If the administration does not outline the powers that you are concerned that they are intent on abusing explicitly, then even if one assumes that they have both the intent and the means to do so,

 

? I'm a little confused here; I thought it was self-evident that the "powers" we speak of are surveillance powers, unmitigated by constitutional safeguards?

 

In this context, "intent" and the "means" are somewhat insignificant and misleading, since the legislation itself is a product of the "intent", and the "means" are given by said legislation (both of which have no bearing on the constitutionality of the legislation).

 

are you convinced that the said abuses, were they to occur would persist beyond the present administration? On what basis would the next Clinton administration carry forward the abuses that you are concerned will originate in this administration if they aren't supported by the actual text of the legislation?

 

It is said that the "abuses" have already occurred, if we mean by "abuses" non-constitutional activity. And yes the "abuse" would occur into the next administration, as long as non-constitutional legislation existed.

 

And since we all know what YOU meant by the above, I'd have to answer by saying that it could be difficult to know, due to the seemingly limited amount of judiciary oversight (back to this one again).

 

 

 

Do you really think that the language that you used to characterize this legislation in your original post is valid here, in light of the actual proposals that are on the table?

 

Remind me of this language, for seemingly I have, how does one put it....Spaced.

[sexual_chocolate]

The real question is did you comply with the Jerry Curl rule? Too much or too little.

 

This is spray…..right?

 

 

 

 

Treat a brother with love, holmes, and speak to me softly about FISA and the constitution.

 

Yo brother, I need answers! Use all sources necessary to obtain answer:

 

Did FISA violate any constitutional standards?

 

 

[kevbone]

The real question is did you comply with the Jerry Curl rule? Too much or too little.

 

This is spray…..right?

 

 

 

 

Treat a brother with love, holmes, and speak to me softly about FISA and the constitution.

 

Yo brother, I need answers! Use all sources necessary to obtain answer:

 

Did FISA violate any constitutional standards?

 

 

 

Just a friendly poke in the ribs…….trying to bring some humor to this heated debate. Even if I am the only one who thinks it to be funny……ha ha.

 

To answer your question above…..I honestly don’t know. I cant hang with all you college types……brainy folk……

 

I do know how to belay and lead climb.

 

I guess I play guitar a lot too……

 

 

 

[sexual_chocolate]

 

 

 

 

Just a friendly poke in the ribs…….trying to bring some humor to this heated debate. Even if I am the only one who thinks it to be funny……ha ha.

 

To answer your question above…..I honestly don’t know. I cant hang with all you college types……brainy folk……

 

I do know how to belay and lead climb.

 

I guess I play guitar a lot too……

 

 

 

It's all good, no offense taken.

 

I was hoping you knew something about FISA constitutionality, that's all.

 

 

[JayB]

Which safeguards are you referring to?

 

Judiciary oversight. Previously, if the government had probable cause, it would take it to the FISA court and attempt to obtain a warrant. The court would rule on its merits. In "emergencies", the government could execute a search, but would need to report to the court within 72 hours with case specifics.

The current protocol does away with this mechanism entirely, replacing it with a quarterly judiciary review that does not even go into case specifics. No evidence is brought before a court, no probable cause in any case by case sense. This should trouble anyone with constitutional and legal precedent knowledge.

 

If the administration does not outline the powers that you are concerned that they are intent on abusing explicitly, then even if one assumes that they have both the intent and the means to do so,

 

? I'm a little confused here; I thought it was self-evident that the "powers" we speak of are surveillance powers, unmitigated by constitutional safeguards?

 

In this context, "intent" and the "means" are somewhat insignificant and misleading, since the legislation itself is a product of the "intent", and the "means" are given by said legislation (both of which have no bearing on the constitutionality of the legislation).

 

are you convinced that the said abuses, were they to occur would persist beyond the present administration? On what basis would the next Clinton administration carry forward the abuses that you are concerned will originate in this administration if they aren't supported by the actual text of the legislation?

 

It is said that the "abuses" have already occurred, if we mean by "abuses" non-constitutional activity. And yes the "abuse" would occur into the next administration, as long as non-constitutional legislation existed.

 

And since we all know what YOU meant by the above, I'd have to answer by saying that it could be difficult to know, due to the seemingly limited amount of judiciary oversight (back to this one again).

 

 

 

Do you really think that the language that you used to characterize this legislation in your original post is valid here, in light of the actual proposals that are on the table?

 

Remind me of this language, for seemingly I have, how does one put it....Spaced.

 

Are you talking about domestic surveillance, overseas surveillance, or the grey-zone where overseas targets originate communications from outside the US to persons located inside the US who may or may not be citizens?

 

If this summary is accurate:

 

" 1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S.

 

2. The Act Provides A Role For The FISA Court In Reviewing The Procedures The Intelligence Community Uses To Ensure That Surveillance Efforts Target Persons Located Overseas. The Attorney General is required to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which intelligence professionals will determine that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance that is, the procedures by which the government determines that the acquisitions are directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States. "

 

The addition that I'd personally like to see would be quarterly audits of all activities authorized above to insure that the law is being obeyed, and granting the FISA court the authority to stop or modify any programs that have been found in violation, and discipline and/or remove any persons found to be responsible for doing so. Perhaps there's a mechanism of some sort in the text, perhaps not, perhaps there'll be one in the final version that passes the Senate. Anyone with the time to read through the three versions should feel free to chime in with their findings.

 

Having a Supreme Court doesn't prevent violations of the Constitution, only seeks to remedy them after the fact - so I can personally live with this kind of a safeguard.

[JayB]

 

 

 

 

Just a friendly poke in the ribs…….trying to bring some humor to this heated debate. Even if I am the only one who thinks it to be funny……ha ha.

 

To answer your question above…..I honestly don’t know. I cant hang with all you college types……brainy folk……

 

I do know how to belay and lead climb.

 

I guess I play guitar a lot too……

 

 

 

It's all good, no offense taken.

 

I was hoping you knew something about FISA constitutionality, that's all.

 

 

First hit on Google...

 

Link

[pink]

I love it! The same losers who gripe about the government listening in on suspect overseas communications are the very same idiots who scream the loudest on Monday morning that the government "failed to connect the dots!" ala 9/11. They also happen to be the same screwballs who support government/single payer health care and have no problem whatsoever with some future agent of the government sticking his gloved hand up their ass and recording his findings in a government database. Fucking idiots, all. The ultimate hypocrites.

 

i doubt if it will stop at overseas communications. 9/11 might have never happened if clinton would have taken binladen out when he had a chance, but democrats don't like stir the pot unless it's thumbed into tight.anyway, wasn't 9/11 an inside job.

 

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

i doubt if it will stop at overseas communications. 9/11 might have never happened if clinton would have taken binladen out when he had a chance, but democrats don't like stir the pot unless it's thumbed into tight.anyway, wasn't 9/11 an inside job.

 

The Bushies orchestrated 9/11 along with the Freemasons, World Bank, and Zionists. The aircraft were piloted by remote control by Dick Cheney himself, and charges were detonated in the twin towers to ensure they collapsed!! Booga booga!

 

[pink]

those diabolical

[kevbone]

 

The Bushies orchestrated 9/11 along with the Freemasons, World Bank, and Zionists.

 

 

Now you are finally getting it.

 

[pink]

if it was an inside job then bush probably wasn't the only president in on it.

Edited October 10, 2007 by pink

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

The Bushies orchestrated 9/11 along with the Freemasons, World Bank, and Zionists.

 

 

Now you are finally getting it.

 

And let's not forget Skull and Bones!!

[ericb]

 

The Bushies orchestrated 9/11 along with the Freemasons, World Bank, and Zionists.

 

 

Now you are finally getting it.

 

And let's not forget Skull and Bones!!

 

all funded by the Scientologists, of course