The Fine Print On Wiretapping Review

notarus writes "Congress' new bill to 'force' the wiretapping program to be reviewed by FISA has some very doublespeak provisions. One nice line: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.'"

Comments

So let me get this straight...

[Umuri]

So, if i'm to understand that correctly, if you use the grey area rule a bit, that can be construed as to allow anyone exemption if they were considered an agent of a foreign power... And terrorists are certainly a foreign power.. so if they wanted to say i'm a suspected terrorrist, then i'm obviously connected to a foreign terrorist cell, and i'm free game for no legal protection? Or am i just missing something....

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think you're missing anything. The question is, what can we do to stop these maniacs?

Seriously, is there any way to stop them before they've entirely subjugated any tiny bit of control we still have over the behemoth that governs us?

They don't even flinch when they're accused of torture; instead, they argue they have the "right" to torture suspects. They don't even blink when they're caught spying on the communications of millions of innocent Americans; instead, they say they're doing it to protect us, and they blame the whistleblowers for undermining them.

What can you do to stop a criminal who accuses his victims? It's like a murderer who, when his crimes are exposed, calls for the exposers to be jailed for bringing grief to the families of the dead. This government has no remorse, and doesn't seem to even understand what it's doing -- unless it's all intentional, which is that much worse.

Is there any way to end the rampage before we're all locked up to protect us from "terrorists"?

Re:So let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just because the media convinces you something is true does not mean it is."

And unfortunately, the media have been hyping the "War on Terror" because it's sensational; they get more viewers and more ad revenue by playing into the hands of the power-hungry. Only very recently have the big media even slightly questioned what's going on -- and that's only because it's gone too far even for their taste. It's no longer in their financial interest to incite terror when the terror brings about laws that limit their business, but they'll happily promote government and corporate propaganda as long as it gives them a net profit.

Read the whole article, it's important

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The devil is in the details, and he's plotting busily away.

For one thing the bill allows FISC to issue, not individual warrants, but permission for exactly the kind of driftnet fishing expedition that's never been legal against US citizens.

Then comes the real land mine. If someone does challenge a domestic spying program, this bill says FISC can "dismiss a challenge to the legality of an electronic surveillance program for any reason". Think about that: "any reason". Not "any legal reason", not "any rational reason", not "any reason related to national security". This simply means the court can throw out any complaint without a hearing just because it wants to.

"...foreign powers and agents of foreign powers" makes this sound much better than it really is. Just remember that if spying on "agents" doesn't allow enough abuse to satisfy the people behind this, they'll interpret it as "suspected agents". After that, it will somehow expand to "alleged agents" and then to "possible agents", meaning everybody. Then they'll be able to bug the Democratic Party as before, only this time it will be legal.

Re:Read the whole article, it's important

[gettingbraver]

This administration does not want another Daniel Ellsberg leaking today's equivilant of the Pentagon Papers. Especially after reading this.

Re:Bend over

[9x320]

Hm... how can Congress say that the president may have inherent constitutional authority to spy on Americans when the Supreme Court already disagreed in East District of Michigan v. Nixon? That ruling was before FISA even came into existance, but considering this is about "inherent constitutional authority," FISA's existance can be disregarded in that consideration.

Nice Troll, Supreme Court Has Overrulled Bush

[MyNameIsFred]

...there's no way in hell that august body is gonna rule against Prez...

I realize you're probably trolling, but we can't ignore the facts. See, for example, the Supreme Court rebuking Bush on Gitmo or Supreme Court limits Bush's power.

In defence of freedom?!

[headkase]

Searching for "Laws fall silent in times of war" led to this page. Putting it in context, barring further violence US politics hopefully will begin to lose some hysteria and in another 5 years and we can get back to more pressing issues such as whether or not such and such president got or did not get a bj and whether we ought to impeach the bastard. And he didn't inhale.

Re:Bend over

[Daniel Dvorkin]

East District of Michigan v. Nixon

Don't you understand? It's a different world! 9/11 changed everything! The US has never ever ever faced an enemy as dangerous to its very existence as AlQaedaSaddamHusseinHezbollahSomeGuyDownTheStreetW hoSaidBushSucks! 9/11! The Nixon administration? 9/11! That's a different world you're talking about! 9/11!

Oh, and in case you forgot, 9/11! 9/11! MP3 pirates! 9/11! Child porn! 9/11! 9/11!

legal analysis

[herbiesdad]

i knew the law degree would come in handy some time. ok, sorry, but you guys have it wrong. the quoted language is to clarify that congress is making no attempt to divest the president of the rights he has in that office pursuant to article ii of the constitution. any efforts by the congress to limit the executive powers expressly granted to the president in article ii are illegal because they implicate a breach of separation of powers. along the same lines, the president could not pass a resolution or treaty that would take away legislative powers from the congress. i take no position on the proposed legislation.

FUD

[Evets]

I see all the political propoganda going around these days as nothing more than FUD. The text of the bill isn't even in TFA, so without doing some legwork (which I'm sure someone here will do), you really have no idea what is in the bill.

It's certainly within the power of congress to present a bill that would reduce the effectiveness of a previously passed bill.

My take on this is that anything going through congress should be thought through with the mindset that terrorism is not a factor. Terrorism today is like the war on drugs or the war on communism. It never ends and it's a tool used by the powers that be to do things to the citizenry that would under normal circumstances be impossible. If you strip away the fundamental principals of society to deal with a problem, then the solution is worse than the problem.

We are dealing with three things here - 1) we live an an information age society that is fundamentally different than the one's which gave birth to the majority of our laws and 2) we have a general populous that is ignorant of that which makes our society great. The third thing is that political maneuvering is based on a polling structure that encourages answering without any pontification or even any background information. Sure, we would all like to live in a well thought out society, but we can't even force the issue of working in a well thought out environment. We can blame our congressman for making bad decisions, but a better solution would be to become involved to the point where we were helping governmental decision making in general better.

I certainly see that government will always push the limits of it's own power and understand that laws which grant power to the government should be written with a conservative (conservative, not right-wing) mindset. But I also can see that lawmakers have a different perspective than the general populous. They sometimes have a better historical perspective. They sometimes have access to information that the general public does not which factors into their decision making, and they sometimes have motivations completely unrelated to a particular bill that push them to vote one way or another. In the end, they have to live with their decisions just as much as we do. If their track record is so bad, then why is the re-election rate upwards of 90%? Surely it couldn't be pure apathy on the part of their detractors.

Re:FUD

[WerewolfOfVulcan]

original bill

changes as of 6.14

The bill is S. 2453. Working title is National Security Surveillance Act of 2006.

There are a couple of other bills worth noting. One is S. 2455 (Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006), sponsored by Senators DeWine and Graham. The other is S . 3001 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006) sponsored by Senators Specter and Feinstein.

I've been following these bills since their introduction. I knew that one or more of them would make it to the table before November. If any of them pass, Bush will have gotten away with wiping his ass with the Constitution yet again

Re:FUD

[ortcutt]

What about the track record of the Republican-led Congress or Bush administration gives you any indication that they are concerned about civil liberties or even with the most effective means of combatting terrorism? Everything tells me that they'd rather just let the President off the hook and authorize whatever he wants to do. It is also short-sighted to see this as FUD. There are reports about what the bill will contain and many people are rightly concerned that the safeguards put in place by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act aren't eroded. This is not premature. If we wait until the t's are crossed and the i's dotted on Specter's FISA-Gutting-Act, it's going to be too late to respond to this travesty.

Wake-up call for techies!

[CurtMonash]

Let's be real. Government WILL wind up with huge amounts of information about us, and the technological means to filter it. Financial transactions, electronic communications, travel -- all of those are trackable in theory, and anything trackable can be stored and mined. Over the next couple of decades, that theory will increasingly become fact.

We need laws that protect us DESPITE this inevitable progression. I.e., since freedom will lose on the battlefield of what information government has access to, we need to find ANOTHER battlefield where freedom can win. And the only viable candidate I see is to greatly strengthen laws controlling what government can DO with data, even if it possesses same.

This winds up being a system design issue, as tough as the flip-side problem of "How will government integrate all that information to get at it anyway." So we need to start solving it right away, just like the integration problem is already being worked on, then get that solution out into the public consciousness.

I think I've made a good start at http://www.monashreport.com/2006/06/06/freedom-eve n-without-data-privacy/, but it's just a start. A lot more is needed.

the 9-11 changed everything rationale

[SethJohnson]

Like you, I'm getting pretty fed up with this excuse for trampling on the constitution and human faces in secret prisons scattered worldwide. While 9/11 was certainly a horrific tragedy, it certainly doesn't represent a threat of such proportions that we need to sidestep the trivialities of the constitution to preserve the continued existence of America.

While it's a completely different conflict, consider the threat that the Civil War posed to the country. 9-11 was baby crap compared to how close America came to disolving during the Civil War.

So, yeah, America has been guided through some spectacularly difficult times by that Constitution. And these neocons who are second guessing the original authors of the document, well, I wouldn't exactly put them on the same shelf of great thinkers occupied by the likes of Ben Franklin.

Seth

FISA != SCOTUS

[jlowery]

IANAL, but surely FISA has no business determining if something is constitutional. Specter has come up with a poorly negotiated compromise that weakens two branches of government to the point of being hobbled. I really, really hope that consequences are fully thought out by our congress and senate before they agree to this power-grab. I'm hopeful, not expectant.

Constitutional authority

[mybecq]

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President

The Legislative body doesn't have that power anyway.

What's the point again?

[lionchild]

One nice line: 'Nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit the constitutional authority of the President to collect intelligence with respect to foreign powers and agents of foreign powers.'

So, um...what's the whole point of this act, if the President can simply decide that this doesn't apply to what he's doing? Are we just paying our Congressmen to generate laws and paperwork that have no meaning or way for enforcement?

Whatever happened to a system of checks and balances? Geez.

Welcome!

[Sheetrock]

Project Vote Smart may be a good place to start (the website interface is a little confusing; if you pick the wrong state you can change it on the left-hand side of the page). Voting requirements are quite different depending on the state you're in. While the information on this website gives you a pretty good idea of what you need to do, you should look up your state's elections website (the link to which should be available on Project Vote Smart) to make sure you've got the most up-to-date information, and feel free to call your local election office with any questions (they can be found on Project Vote Smart if you know what county of your state you're in). The following points are, in my opinion, the most important to look for:

• Some states permit registration at the polling place on the day of the election, others require it before. But you will need to register before you can vote for the first time.
• There will likely be a requirement that you live in the state a period of time (such as 30 days) before voting.
• Depending on your state you may be challenged for proof-of-identity at the polling place every time you vote -- the easiest form for you to carry would be either a driver's license if you opt to get one or a state-issued photo ID if you don't (both are typically issued at your local Department of Motor Vehicles for a nominal fee; call them first and ask what identification you need to bring before they can issue you a card. Probably something as simple as your passport and Social Security card). In 2004 a number of such challenges were performed in Ohio and it's possible similar tricks could be played in other states, so I suggest bringing valid ID if you have it even if you don't think they'll require it.
• If you want to vote in primary elections, which are used by political parties to choose the candidate they're going to run in the general elections, your state may have the requirement that you register with that party. If that's the case it's likely to be on the same form you use to register to vote.
• Make sure you know where your polling place is before you vote (sometimes they get changed or your address gets moved to a different voting district).
• If you know in advance you won't be able to get to your polling place to cast your vote on the day of the election you can request an absentee ballot, which lets you mail in your vote. If you plan on voting absentee, request the ballot as soon as you can (to avoid any deadline on mailing them out) and mail it as soon as you can (to avoid the deadline on processing it; they will likely require receipt by Election Day.) Check with your local election office for more information.
• Plan on a significant delay when you go to vote. In 2004 there were waits of more than an hour in some polling places and a number were closing with lines of people yet to vote -- nothing has really been fixed since then and this election should draw almost as many people. If you think this will be a problem, get to your polling place as early in the day as you can or vote absentee.
• Subscribe to your local newspaper, or buy/read a copy for a few days leading up to the election. At least where I'm at, they print a copy of the ballot in there so you can see what you'll be voting on. Voting for candidates is fairly straightforward, but when you're asked to vote on an issue sometimes the wording will be convoluted to confuse voters into voting differently than they intended -- so it helps to look at it ahead of time, and warn family and friends if necessary.
• You should be able to leave a ballot item blank if you don't want to vote on it (ask an election official to be sure).

As far as deciding who to vote for, the least-biased sources take the most work to examine. Our next election in November will affect Congress (every member of the House of Representatives and a number of members of the Senate) -- when t

9/11 vs mccarthyism

[TheGratefulNet]

its just that simple. in the 50's there was the mccarthy 'commie hunts'. fix that and the world will be safe again.

60's had vietnam. fix that and the world will be safe again.

70's had watergate. fix that...

80's and 90's had war on drugs. if we can fix that, all our problems will be solved.

skip to the '00 century and we now have 'war on terror.

and guess what, it won't be won, it won't fix ANY of our problems and next decade (god willing) we'll have forgotton all about this silly gov power-play and we'll have a BRAND NEW chicken-little thing to run around saying 'the sky is falling', etc.

people - there IS no reason to keep giving gov more and more power. give it more power and we seem to get no new returns on our investment. soon, the gov has its fun and then goes off to choose another plaything.

this is just how the world works. and no, nothing got any better for winning or attempting to win any of these 'battles'. because they are not winnable and if it takes 10 or 30 years, we WILL finally realize that.

not everything in life is a 'war on ...'.