Tag: FISA (page 4)

Rachel Perrone of the ACLU sends this Novemebr 1, 2007 letter from Brandon Mayfield to Sen Russ Feingold on FISA. The highlights:

I have read the “FISA Amendments Act of 2007” which is touted as being a balance by those who support it, but it is anything but balanced. The balance between liberty and security has already been hammered out by an earlier, apparently more enlightened generation of Americans and can be seen in the language of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. That perfect balance between criminal investigation and respect for a person’s privacy is known as probable cause. No search or arrest should be made without a warrant, and no warrant should issue without probable cause that a crime has been committed. Further the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person to be seized. . . .

Full text in extended.

On the SJC page. Via the Daily Kos Live Blog, the schedule:

More...

Yesterday Senator Chris Dodd said:

While the President may think that it's right to offer immunity to those who break the law and violate the right to privacy of thousands of law-abiding Americans, I want to assure him it is not a value we have in common and I hope the same can be said of my fellow Democrats in the Senate.

"For too long we have failed to respect the rule of law and failed to protect our fundamental civil liberties. I will do what I can to see to it that no telecommunications giant that was complicit in this Administration's assault on the Constitution is given a get-out-of-jail-free card."

Senator Dodd, what you must do is lead the fight against the capitulation by your fellow Dem Senators on this issue:

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.

. . . It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' [House] bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage. The draft Senate bill has the support of the intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), and Bush's director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.

More...

Total capitulation.

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.

Here's more:

The draft Senate bill has the support of the intelligence committee's chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), and Bush's director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. It will include full immunity for those companies that can demonstrate to a court that they acted pursuant to a legal directive in helping the government with surveillance in the United States.

Such a demonstration, which the bill says could be made in secret, would wipe out a series of pending lawsuits alleging violations of privacy rights by telecommunications companies that provided telephone records, summaries of e-mail traffic and other information to the government after Sept. 11, 2001, without receiving court warrants. Bush had repeatedly threatened to veto any legislation that lacked this provision.

Why am I not surprised? Because I never expected anything else since August when the Dems signed onto Bush's bill so they could go home and vacation during the August recess.

More...

The vote on the Democrats' proposed changes to FISA was delayed today.

Consideration of the Democratic-crafted measure to strengthen oversight by a special intelligence court was halted by Democratic leaders amid uncertainty about whether it could pass, and in the face of a veto threat from President Bush.

What it means: The Dems may not be able to pass a bill that revises and limits the powers included in Bush's August bill they allowed to pass right under our noses.

Inability of Democrats to achieve a vote in the House this week raises additional questions about its fate.

Any bill the House approves would have to be reconciled with a Senate version, with additional changes likely in that process.

So all those promises by the Dems telling us they voted for Bush's bill because they'd have a chance to redo it? Looks less likely now. Which means Bush's bill stays.

Think Progress has more.

Christy at Firedoglake has all the update details, phone numbers and more on FISA and S-CHIP.

Roll Call (subscriber only) reports the GOP is spoiling for a FISA fight, hoping to distract attention from S-CHIP. The Carpetbagger Report has this quote from the Roll Call article:

Specifically, Republicans are planning to use the kidnapping and subsequent murder of three U.S. soldiers in Iraq earlier this year to put a “human face” on the issue, the House staffer explained. According to this aide, while Democrats’ arguments about privacy may resonate with some voters, Republicans believe using real-world examples of how a weak FISA has put U.S. troops in danger will help galvanize public support for their position.

The House Judiciary Committee today passed the RESTORE Act, the Democrats' answer to August's FISA rewrite. There were three amendments that passed as well.

• Jackson-Lee (TX): An amendment to clarify the bill's language and prevent "reverse targeting" by requiring the Administration to obtain a regular FISA warrant whenever a “significant purpose of an acquisition is to acquire the communications of a specific person reasonably believed to be located in the United States” rather than waiting until said person formally becomes a target.

• Nadler (NY): An amendment to improve court oversight over the government’s compliance with the FISA Court’s orders by requiring the court to assess compliance with its orders as opposed to merely authorizing it to do so and by removing limitations on its review.

More....

The Democrats will introduce their FISA wiretap bill tomorrow.

The Justice Department would have to reveal to Congress the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since Sept. 11, 2001, including the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, if a new Democratic wiretapping bill is approved.

The draft bill, scheduled to be introduced to Congress Tuesday, would also require the Justice Department to maintain a database of all Americans subjected to government eavesdropping without a court order, including whether their names have been revealed to other government agencies.

This is the rewrite bill Dems promised before the August recess:

More...

House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers announced today the committee will hold a hearing on FISA on September 5, 2007.

"Warrantless Surveillance and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): The Role of Checks and Balances in Protecting Americans’ Privacy Rights." The hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 5, at 10:15 a.m. in room 2141 of the Rayburn House Office Building.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had asked for the hearing in an August 4 letter.

Tonight, the House passed S. 1927, a bill approved by the Senate yesterday, which is an interim response to the Administration's request for changes in FISA, and which was sought to fill an intelligence gap which is asserted to exist. Many provisions of this legislation are unacceptable, and, although the bill has a six month sunset clause, I do not believe the American people will want to wait that long before corrective action is taken.

Accordingly, I request that your committees send to the House, as soon as possible after Congress reconvenes, legislation which responds comprehensively to the Administration's proposal while addressing the many deficiencies in S. 1927.

Scarecrow at Firedoglake and Marcy at The Next Hurrah are covering today's New York Times article suggesting that the FISA Amendment grants far more power than previously thought to intercept phone calls and obtain call and e-mail records of ordinary Americans not suspected of being involved in terrorism.

Broad new surveillance powers approved by Congress this month could allow the Bush administration to conduct spy operations that go well beyond wiretapping to include — without court approval — certain types of physical searches on American soil and the collection of Americans’ business records, Democratic Congressional officials and other experts said.

I'd like to focus on one other aspect: deficiencies in reporting requirements. How will the American whose conversations, business records, call records or e-mails are intercepted by virtue of the FISA Amendment find out and how will they be able to challenge it? The answer, as far as I can tell, is they won't know about it and they won't be able to make a legal challenge. The ACLU describes the paltry reporting requirements here.

More...

Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus in the Washington Post have some behind the scenes details of how the FISA Amendment passed.

It doesn't change anything. The Dems caved and Speaker Pelosi promising to revisit the bill doesn't make their rollover any more palatable.

The ACLU today filed a motion today with the FISA Court (text here, pdf) demanding that the secret court release its opinions that led to the new FISA legislation.

In the first effort of its kind, the American Civil Liberties Union will today file legal papers with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) requesting that it disclose recent legal opinions discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in secret wiretapping of Americans

"Publication of these secret court orders is vitally important to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "Virtually everything we know about these orders we've had to learn from executive branch officials, but executive branch officials are plainly not disinterested parties in a debate about the appropriate reach of executive branch surveillance. The public has a right to first-hand information about what the court permitted and what it disallowed."