Slashdot Mirror
House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping Extension
An anonymous reader writes "The House of Representatives voted 227-183 to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow warrantless wiretapping of telephone and electronic communications. The vote extends the FISA amendment for six months. 'The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congres.'"
You put in your story
"The House of Representatives voted 227-183 to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow warrantless wiretapping of telephone and electronic communications."
But the first Sentence of the story you linked to reads
"The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States."
That last part about "warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States" is SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT!!!
You made it read as if the pres got full permission to wiretap anybody without a warrant which is completely wrong. Instead of omitting the parts that you don't like, be honest and include them.
The entire point of FISA is to provide oversight of surveillance involving foreign parties. Internal US wired calls is entirely outside the scope of FISA, for a very good reason: They are already covered elsewhere.
This -does- give full permission to wiretap anybody without a warrent. Anyone can be wiretapped without oversight as long as the claim is made that they are suspected of communicating with said foreign suspects.
The Democrats are totally useless. They get control of both Houses of Congress in part because the American public is tired of Bush and his blatant power grabs. Then they go and authorize the very programs that have been found illegal. They are gutless chicken shits and I am ashamed to have voted for them.
FISA allows them to do the wiretapping, and then get permission up to 72 hours later. How frivolous are their reasons that they can't even be arsed to get a retroactive warrant?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I can hear the Al Quaeda operatives now: "Oh shit, habibi! Talk quieter!"
Yeah, right. We had their communications shut down. Whenever a legislative lemming wants to pass more laws, you should ask whether the existing laws were inadequate, or the people that were supposed to be enforcing them. We had FBI alerts on the 9/11 hijackers and a briefing on President Bush's desk. We've had FISA for years and its restrictions are so lax - allowing even for warrants after the fact - that any protest of it can't be for good reason. Instead the incompetent and corrupt are getting more power to abuse, while making sure their buddies make money off the taxpayer.
I don't want to hear "Proud to be an American" from one more person who buys into this. Sit down and shut it up. I'm fed up with people who think it's patriotic to abandon the most basic, essential reasons this country exists. Not only should we listen to old Ben Franklin about giving up freedom for security, we should realize that freedom *is* our security. Bush and his crew have killed the last of our existing safeguards. They have paved the way for full-on oligarchic tyrrany here. We not only need to stop voting in people who do this, or supposed opposition parties that enable it, we need to re-establish the law of this land.
I was excited at last November's election, but I've repented of it now. I'm neither Libertarian nor Constitutionalist, but I wouldn't hesitate to work with them to fix this. We need Greens in on this because nothing's safe when the whims of the rich trump the law. Most Americans are convinced that something's really wrong with this country, we're just not agreed on what exactly, but this is should be clear to everyone - we need the rule of law back.
Bin Laden was never a good excuse for destroying our country from within in the first place!
"I will encrypt all my communications"
Email is easy, but are there any of the current crop of 'giveaway' cell phones that support it?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far"
Isn't this one of those things that a lot of people here thought the Democrats would fix once they took congress? Or is it simply OK now that the Democrats support warrant-less wiretaps?
Either way, we're getting a valuable lesson in two-party politics.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
The actual title of the story is "Bathrooms in Capitol Building run out of toilet paper; Senators forced to use Fourth Amendment instead."
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." Col. Jeff Cooper
What, do you think these foreign nationals go around, wearing t-shirts, saying, "Hi, I'm a foreign national engaged in terrorism against America!"? How does one differentiate between someone who is a terrorist and someone who is not?
Legislation like this makes me terribly uncomfortable for reasons I shouldn't have to explain, and anyone who believes that we should be jumping at every shadow needs their head examined. The biggest problem is how accepting of idiotic legislation that erodes basic freedoms the average American has become.
The issue here is doing what's right vs doing what's popular. The Democrats always went where the vote is, and the vote just wasn't in "helping terrorists win."
Face it, the American public at large does not care about FISA issues, Free Speech, or Habeas Corpus.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
First off, FISA=Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, so the idea that FISA should regulate "internal US wired calls" doesn't really make sense. Those calls fall under the purview of the regular courts.
."
The reason that this bill is so insidious is that it appears reasonable at a glance, but it greatly expands the power of the executive and allows for the surveillance of almost anyone. In section 105A of the statute, it redefines "electronic surveillance," and allows for any surveillance which is "directed" against a person overseas. It does not require that one of the parties in the email/phone call actually be overseas, merely that the surveillance be directed against someone overseas. Here, from the actual text of the Orwellian-named "Protect America Act of 2007":
"`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them. .
The key point is that the information need only concern persons reasonably believed to be outside the US. For example, if I were to send you an email from Rhode Island to Massachusetts, in which I discussed Osama Bin Laden, my email would be fair game under the act because it concerns a person (OBL) reasonably believed to be overseas. This would still violate the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because it is obviously a domestic wiretap. But Bush & Co. thought of this, so they inserted section 105(A) right in the beginning of the Protect America Act of 2007! It reads as follows:
"Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
You may notice that further down in the PAA of 2007, the following:
"SECT5: (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 105 the following:
105A. Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States."
The above merely points out the obvious modification of FISA--section 105A already technically modified it. So FISA has been modified by the act (obviously) and "electronic surveillance" is redefined to mean any surveillance directed against someone overseas. Think about that for a few minutes. The language change is substantial.
The statute effectively repeals the 4th Amendment (although this is not possible; a statute cannot repeal an amendment to the Constitution) because it provides for secret violation of the 4th Amendment. The government is not required to notify the person under surveillance; combined with the Military Commissions Act of last year, this statute gives the government carte blanche to secretly wiretap any person in the United States, even two citizens, and to secretly disappear them to Gitmo or anywhere else. The act is unconstitutional, but it can never be challenged; by the time someone is notified that they are under surveillance, they are already in an orange jumpsuit being tortured in an overseas concentration camp.
History should tell us that secret surveillance of an entire population, combined with extraordinary rendition and overseas camps run by government intelligence services which openly use torture to extract confessions is a recipe for disaster. But both parties in Congress are motivated only by Realpolitik considerations of re-election and fund raising. The state of the Union is secondary to their personal considerations and the
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
New definition: Freedom, the governments right to freely with no obstacles to do as they wish. This typically includes, but is not limited to trampling all over your individual rights.
See also "minilove" and "minitruth"
"Fix it"
There are 435 seats in the house of representatives. Of these, 410 voted. To gain a majority from those voting, they required 206 votes. The Republican party controls 202 seats, meaning that if they had voted en bloc, they only needed 4 Democrats to vote with them in order to win. I haven't seen the exact break down of voting for this act, but it's entirely possible that 202 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted for this bill, and 183 Democrats voted against it.
The Democrats only control congress if they all agree. It doesn't take many dissenters to lose that control. We've seen this a few times here in the UK where the party on government has had a very small majority; they've failed to get acts passed because one or two members of their own party decided to abstain, letting the other two parties get the majority vote.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What is does is change the previous definition where Gonzales would have to swear on oath that it is NOT domestic spying, to Gonzales swearing on oath that he REASONABLY BELIEVES it is not domestic spying based on the evidence given to him.
He had this power before, but he had to swear on oath the truth about the spying, now he can swear a lie on oath and simply claim he was misinformed or the evidence given to him was incomplete.
The new wording is this:
"`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--"
The old wording was this:
"(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; "
... the governement watches you.
Hollywood must be so happy. They now can re-use their old scripts and just replace KGB by Homeland Security,
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Wow, it's a good thing that the Congress majority is Democrat so this won't happen.
....
Oh wait
What, do you think these foreign nationals go around, wearing t-shirts, saying, "Hi, I'm a foreign national engaged in terrorism against America!"? How does one differentiate between someone who is a terrorist and someone who is not?
It doesn't matter.
A warrant is not required to listen to communications between foreign nationals outside of the United States, regardless of what kind of activity they are involved in. This is communication the United States has always been free to monitor at will.
The problem is that now some communication, even between foreigners outside of the United States, gets routed through networking or switching equipment inside the United States, which, under the outdated FISA rules, would require a warrant.
This fixes that problem, and for you to suggest the United States shouldn't be engaged in aggressive global foreign intelligence gathering and threat monitoring is ridiculous. And yes, you should have to explain why this update to an antiquated law makes you uncomfortable. It has NOTHING to do with jumping at shadows. This idea that people only support things like this out of fear is incorrect. This is fair-game surveillance of foreign communication which is perfectly legitimate on the global stage and has gone on for decades. Pretending the United States shouldn't be doing it is sticking your head in the sand to unprecedented depths.
Why? Because such people and communications are utterly outside the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. Think of it this way, should the US have to get a warrant (FISA or otherwise) to intercept a satellite phone conversation between Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in Pakistan? What jurisdiction does a US court have to rule on that matter? Answer: None.
remember, the constitution was supposed to be self-evident! why is wiretapping US citizens NOT OK while tapping foreigners OK?!?!?! what a great example of practicing your ideals.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
That's true. So, what's the cost of it? Possible violation of privacy... And the benefit? The government will be able to learn of foreign threats faster. You see, snooping on the two people abroad was and remains legal (Echelon, anyone?). It is just when one of the suspects is in the US, that the government runs into problems.
Is the benefit worth the cost? Not sure — but the majority of Congress have decided, that it is... The current (imperfect) law was extended for six months — until a better-designed one (all laws are software) can be produced...
Oh, and before anyone goes screaming about America sliding into BigBrother/Nazi Germany/whatever, just remember, that Frank Delano Roosevelt — the war-President respected even by the French today — has authorized illegal wiretaps (in the 1939 or thereabouts) with the argument, that went something like this: "I don't believe, an American court will interfere with the President fighting German saboteurs". Just who is a saboteur was up to the Executive to decide, of course... Or, sometimes, even up to the foreigners — the British agents, who were allowed to operate in the US.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The CIA/NSA is using the spying they've already done (illegally, massively for at least 5 years) to blackmail Congress into granting the Unitary Executive ("dictator") any powers he wants, under cover of a "struggle with Congress" that signs over war authorizations, spying authorizations, anything the dictator wants.
Blackmailing not just Democrats. Blackmailing Republicans, too, to enforce their lockstep rubber stamps. But Republicans also get the offer of getting cut in on some power (as long as it doesn't cross Cheney/Bush). Democrats just get cut in on cosmetic power sharing, so they can be the decoy party in our soviet politburo.
--
make install -not war
Cryptophone and use PGP and TOR online and be secure.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
anytime this corrupt Attorney General or this corrupt administration says so.
Anyone who believes this is limited to "foreign" intercepts is naive and ignorant to say the least.
We will never know who is being spied on because it is "secret".
Just assume it is you because it probably is then go read the fourth amendment to the constitution.
Prepare to be angry if you're not already.
There's a link at the bottom of the article that shows the vote breakdown.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
I have only three words...
Encrypt, encrypt, encrypt!
They have no right to listen, and no reason to be suspiscious. I happen to live in a two-party state where recording of phone calls has to be known to all parties on the call. Since they're not notifying me or the other party on the calls I make, their use of the data they may glean, is inadmissible and against the law.
Just encrypt everything, locking down your conversations, speak in code, use encrypted SMS messages and so on.
Don't let them in, because they have no right or reason to be there. Period.
They want to make it hard for us to enjoy our freedoms, then I'm more than happy to make them earn their right to violate them by making it ridiculously hard to decrypt/brute/crack any encryption that I may use.
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
We've come to expect this crap from the Republicans in the House and the Senate. But the Dem base is livid that the politicians they worked hard to elect, like Klobuchar, McCaskill, and Webb, just voted not just for fascism, but for incompetent fascism. The people in charge of this operation will be guys like Gonzalez, who despite shredding the Constitution on surveillance and torture and endless detentions are too fucking stupid to know when an Arab company is about to take over the largest ports in the U.S. And before some muslim, mexican hating wingnut suddenly starts crying racism, the problem wasn't an Arab company coming into the U.S., it's that the Administration didn't know it was happening. But back to the Democrats.
They are fools because they just rolled over to placate the 28% who will never vote for them anyway, while pissing off the millions that actually do vote for them. They are fools because they enable the Big Lie from the administration that we need to cut back on liberties and oversight because they endanger us.
They are cowards because 6 years after 911, they still roll over for the most unpopular president since Nixon when Bush accuses them of being weak. And they still haven't gotten it through their thick fucking skulls that by giving into the right wing rather than standing up to them, Democrats are epitomizing weakness, not strength.
And lastly, they are traitors for egregiously violating their oath of office, in which they promise to defend the Constitution. Not the country, though the right wing talking point that this is "to protect us" is bullshit. The Constitution. And this is why I hold Webb especially responsible: how many government jobs has the man had? How many oaths of office has he taken? He just broke those oaths and sold us out.
If it has "gone on for decades", then what is the problem NOW?
Why and How has the existing system suddenly failed?
What's going on here is that Democrats don't want to be "responsible" for another 9/11.
They want a bill that gives the administration wiretap powers, but subject to independent judicial oversight. However, any limitation on the Administration's power to wiretap faces a Republican filibuster in the Senate.
This leaves the Democrats with a choice: pass a bill without oversight measures, or be blamed for stopping the wirtap program altogether. Stopping the program altogether exposes them to an "October Surprise": a terrorist attack that might hypothetically been prevented if the administration could wiretap as they pleased.
Never mind the logical niceties: that the program could have operated effectively with judicial oversight, that the Republicans filibustered the bill, or that the Administration didn't have the Arabic language skills to handle all the intercepts they might have made. The Republican line from the last two elections was that a vote for a Democrat was a victory for the terrorist, that Democrats are traitors who are on the side of the terrorists. Nothing would suit them better than proclaiming that in front of another smoking hole in a major American city.
So, the Democrats punted for six months to see if the administration's popularity drops enough to get the bill they want through the Senate. The process will repeat until the Administration is so wounded nobody will stand up for it, or until after the 2008 elections.
Cowardly? Certainly. But you're right in one thin:, the problem is its the same old stupid, unreasonable boss. The problem is us. If we don't have the balls to defend the freedoms our ancestors handed down to us, then we don't deserve those freedoms.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This is o-so bad for Americans; no warrant, no check on whatever thing that should be OK to proceed. This is even worse for non-Americans (yes, we are the oppressed of the world) since our communication, that by accident passes over the USA, can be intercepted at will without any reasonable regulation at all. What if we would intercept any American traffic?
The problem is expecting Democrats to stand up for your constitutional rights. They don't believe in your "rights". Your rights are what they give you. And wiretapping you without a warrant IS their goal. That's why they are for it. They just happen to agree with the neocons on this one.
Don't expect a democrat to defend your liberties.
Don't expect a neocon to respect your freedoms either.
You need a CONSTITUTIONALIST to defend your LIBERTIES.
Until you recognize this, you're going to be disaapointed by people you think will represent you.
Vote Ron Paul!
Half of why she was elected was probably her years as a county prosecutor -- the "law and order" angle -- where she had strong media exposure for hard work and competence. But the other half of her image was as a nerdy bicycling granola-mom. I think we assumed she would be liberal.
But perhaps she isn't rising to the office where faithfully upholding the law means upholding the constitution and the _rule_of_law_.
To be completely fair, only 41 Democrats voted for the measure. Two Republicans voted against.
Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats control the House and should have insisted on more privacy safeguards. I really am starting to get tired of the Democrats calling foul on Bush administration law violations and then pass laws making the programs legal.
History has shown that when the Democrats throw away their focus groups and polls and start standing up for their beliefs, they do well. One day, they might find their collective spines. Don't hold your breath, though.
I link to the voting record. This should be in the summary in my opinion.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml
What more evidence do we need? Democrats were swept into power on the promise to get us out of Iraq, to restore our liberties that they and their Republican colleagues sold out wholesale after 9/11, and to bring this corrupt administration to justice.
/
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
We are still in Iraq and there is no end in sight. Rather than having the backbone to bringing the measure to withdraw back to the floor again and again to push it through, and continue to push their campaign promises in the media, they have effectively given up on the issue, whining to their supporters and the media that it is too hard.
And now these Democrats are actively working with this administration, the same administration they told us is the most corrupt and secretive in history, to sell out yet more of our freedoms, to give yet more power to this president and the executive branch.
They are, our representatives, nearly every one of them, pathetic, spineless, schmucks. They have betrayed us all once again.
And it should come as no surprise, because these are the same Democrats and Republicans who sold us out by writing the president a blank check in Iraq. The same Democrats and Republicans who sold out our liberties by signing onto the biggest forfeiture of our liberties since the establishment of this nation. The same Democrats and Republicans who proudly signed the bill granting retroactive immunity to prosecution for every military and government agent who has tortured, kidnapped, and committed atrocities in our name.
We must act now to take back our liberties, our dignity, and our good name in the world; it is the most important cause of this age. If 2008 leaves us with Giuliani, Hillary, McCain, Obama, Romney, or any of their ilk in office, we will see more of the same and worse, and it will be too late. It will be too late to restore the freedoms that have been stolen from us. 2012 will come and go, and the robbery of the patriot act and the legacy of this administration's unprecedented executive power grab will be solidified in our nation's history and in the public conscience.
If you do not act now, what has been taken from us will never be restored, and your children's children will look back upon this generation, if there is freedom enough to look at all, as the generation that finally lost it all, lost that for which the blood of countless patriots was shed, and November 4th 2008 as the day the Republic finally died.
It is only the office of President of the United States of America that can save us from this fate. And in this battle, Freedom has one final front. Your help is urgently needed this very week. Is your freedom worth even an hour of your time? Now is your opportunity to prove it. You must sign up today. Mission information will be emailed to you directly. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events/iowa-straw-poll
Jack Bauer is in the super secret NSA communication intercept room along with various other people.
...
Unnamed extra #1: "Sir, you need to see this. It's Osama's cell phone! And the call is coming across OUR circuit!"
JB: "Dammit! He's up to something. I want that call intercepted and get me a translator! I want to know what he's saying and to whom he is saying it!"
Unnamed extra #2: "But sir, if we don't get a warrant within the next 72 hours, that will be ILLEGAL!"
JB: "No problem. I only need 24. Just tap that call!"
JB walks over to a different phone and picks it up.
JB: "Get me the FISA court! This is an emergency!"
Begin one-way telephone communication bit
JB: "I have an emergency and I need a warrant! No, I'm not going to wait! Yes, I will be right over! That's right, I want your Liberal judge ass sitting on that bench when I arrive!"
JB slams down the phone and walks over to unnamed extra #1.
JB: "Are you getting it all?"
UE#1: "Yes sir. Will there be a problem with the warrant?"
JB: "Not as long as I still have 3 days to get it there won't be."
JB then grabs some paper work and runs to his car. He then races across D.C. avoiding enemy mines, fighter aircraft and snipers. He screeches to a halt outside of the Court and runs up the steps. He slams open the door to the judge's chambers and throws the paperwork at him.
JB: "Listen, you have less than 71 hours and 26 minutes to sign that warrant or I'll have your terrorist loving Liberal ass!"
Unnamed Judge: "Always nice to see you, Jack. Here's your warrant. Let's see, that leaves you 71 hours and 24 minutes to get back to your secret spy base. Can you manage that this time without speeding or running over anything? Hmmmmm?"
JB: "You Liberal judges make me sick! My ass is on the line every time I have to drive over here! Good bye!"
JB then runs down to his car, notices the parking ticket on the windshield and throws it away. He then gets in and races back to work. Avoiding various mines, attacking aircraft and snipers.
Yes, I can certainly see how a 72 hour limit on getting a warrant AFTER THE FACT would be a "crippling" restriction on our intelligence gathering.
What if the judge HAD BEEN AT LUNCH for an hour? What if Jack Bauer had decided to WAIT 3 DAYS before calling the judge? What if Jack Bauer's car had gotten a FLAT TIRE?!? Does he have a can of Fix-A-Flat?!?