As I understand it, the only authority for the imposition of the FISA framework upon the collection of signals intelligence between two overseas parties is the decision of a single district court level FISA court judge, which is in turn based upon packets for such a call passing through a U.S. router.
This is in contrast to the inherent authority of the executive branch to conduct foreign policy and the commander-in-chief authority, and the authorization to use military force against terrorists, and to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan. These authorizations to use force necessarily carry with them the authority to intercept enemy signals, which has been an inherent aspect of making war since the inception of organized conflict.
In other words, if we can kill them, we can listen to their phone calls.
Therefore, while I yield to no man in my contempt for Congressional Democrats on this issue, I think the Administration is unnecessarily ceding a crucial point of executive authority when they admit that such legislation is even necessary to authorize the interception of overseas signals intelligence.
The lunatic FISA court decision should have been appealed, and failing that should simply have been ignored. The President should order the signals collected, the idiot judge be damned. Let bin Laden file an appeal if he doesn’t like it, or better yet, let the Democrats get themselves in a froth about it.
As far as I’m concerned, the Administration should have just continued to march. What the hell are Congressional Dems going to do about it? Just let them try and convince the American people that their way is the only way for GW Bush.
A side note: Reyes is a congressional example of what has happened to all large American institutions in the past 30 years or so. Affirmative action brought in many lower qualified individuals and, of course they had to be pushed up the ranks so that glass ceilings weren’t created. I guess the assumption was that such promotions would be OK because there were competent underlings to prop them up. But the notion of competence got to be so dumbed down that too few now have an idea what the word means. Hence, people like Reyes have no one to prop them up. The poor old fellow can’t even be called a worthy adversary.
I’ve just committed a gross violation of PC standards!
If the Bush administration thinks the Protect America Act is essential for our security, why did Bush and the Republicans refuse to extend it? The Democrats wanted to extend the PAA, while Bush threatened to veto it and Republicans all voted against it.
The PAA expired because Bush and the Republicans wanted it to expire; this means either a) Bush wants the terrorists to win, or b) Bush knows that the PAA is not in fact essential to protect us from terrorists. I would guess b, since I don’t impute the worst motives to Bush.
Also, this part of the Mukasey/McConnell letter is just plain silly:
FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of “probable cause” before such surveillance can begin. This standard makes sense in the context of targeting persons in the United States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated. But it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to thee Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution.
All the Democrats were willing to vote for a law that would make it easier to target “overseas foreign targets.” The problem was that Bush insisted on retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped the administration spy on Americans in America, which is illegal under FISA by McConnell/Mukasey’s own admission.
So, to review: Democrats wanted to make it easier for the government to spy on foreign-to-foreign calls, but Bush was more interested in immunity for telecoms that illegally spied on Americans in America. Therefore, the distinction is clear: Democrats want to spy on terrorists, while Bush is willing to block anti-terror legislation to help telecom companies. No wonder Democrats are the party of national security and Republicans are the party that, well, that just blocked a surveillance law they claim to be essential.
- The Odious Tolliver (TOD)
I’m so glad the Democrats are willing to sacrifice American civilian lives so that they can feel better about not infringing on the rights of terrorists. In my mind, they’ve guaranteed that another terrorist attack on America is coming, and that it is a necessary step in taking our security seriously. Perhaps in their next attack, terrorists won’t fail to hit the Capitol building.
I’ll take advantage of the duplicate entry to say something snarky.
Perhaps the messiah Obama will save us. Perhaps like Saul, he’ll appear before Osama who will see a bright light and be converted. Thus changing his name from Osama to Obama.
I’ll take advantage of the duplicate entry to say something snarky.
Perhaps the messiah Obama will save us. Perhaps like Saul, he’ll appear before Osama who will see a bright light and be converted. Thus changing his name from Osama to Obama.
Ya.
While his Attorney General, John Edwards, gets started extorting billions from the TeleComs who assisted the government.
Tolliver: “So, to review: Democrats wanted to make it easier for the government to spy on foreign-to-foreign calls, but Bush was more interested in immunity for telecoms that illegally spied on Americans in America. Therefore, the distinction is clear: Democrats want to spy on terrorists, while Bush is willing to block anti-terror legislation to help telecom companies.”
- The Odious Tolliver (TOD)
Those of us with an I.Q. above room temperature can see through that little charade of yours. You aint lecturing little kids, Oh Odious One.
All the Democrats were willing to vote for a law that would make it easier to target “overseas foreign targets.” The problem was that Bush insisted on retroactive immunity for telecoms that helped the administration spy on Americans in America, which is illegal under FISA by McConnell/Mukasey’s own admission.
Can you prove any of this?
All of the Democrats? So why did Pelosi not bring this to the floor before her vacation? Wouldn’t it seem to America that the Democrats were solidly behind the effort to protect the citizenry? All? Come now.
How would this new law make it easier? Why is any law required for America to spy on non americans? Hmmm?
How did the telecoms help the administration do something illegal? What cases can you cite?
Offer some proof, I’d be interested in reading it.
Those who are willing to throw away freedom in the hope of being resecued and having security from politicians to whom they have given their freedom, will soon have neither.
Read sec. 214 of the FISA act, all it does is destroy the bill of rights and gives any president who wants to size the reins of power in the form of a dictatorship
a free ride to do so.
And if you don’t beleive it, go read it, I have and that is what it does.
The fact that all most any law enforcement group can tap your phone, check your bank account, see who you have sex with, know what your income is,and has the power to toss you in jail, and invade your home, takes away your right to a speedy and fair trial, and anyone who votes for such insanity is just flat nuts.
No warrant to tap your phone? No call to an atty. if your arrested? Jailed for as long as they wish to keep you? Thats Nazi Germany and the Jews, not the United states of America that I beleive in.
Those who are willing to throw away freedom in the hope of being resecued and having security from politicians to whom they have given their freedom, will soon have neither.
Read sec. 214 of the FISA act, all it does is destroy the bill of rights and gives any president who wants to size the reins of power in the form of a dictatorship
a free ride to do so.
And if you don’t beleive it, go read it, I have and that is what it does.
The fact that all most any law enforcement group can tap your phone, check your bank account, see who you have sex with, know what your income is,and has the power to toss you in jail, and invade your home, takes away your right to a speedy and fair trial, and anyone who votes for such insanity is just flat nuts.
No warrant to tap your phone? No call to an atty. if your arrested? Jailed for as long as they wish to keep you? Thats Nazi Germany and the Jews, not the United states of America that I beleive in.
No pop, you go get the language you think is problematic and then cite some cases where the language was used to diminish our freedom and then I’ll take you seriously.
Show us exactly how the government has used the language in FISA that troubles you to do terrible things to ordinary Americans. If you really think that this is the equivalent of Nazi germany you should be able to find thousands of examples, right? Why they are probably loading Americans into box cars even as we speak!
The Squeaker of the House issued this astonishing press release yesterday:
Pelosi Statement on FISA Negotiations
WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/—Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on negotiations on a new Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA):
“The House and Senate met again today to produce a strong new FISA bill and once again, Republicans and the White House refused to come to the negotiating table. Despite the Republicans’ apparent insistence on turning this into a partisan issue, Congressional Democrats will continue to reach out in a bipartisan way to finalize a strong FISA law that protects our national security and our civil liberties.
“Meanwhile, in a letter to the Congress today, the Bush Administration repeated its claim that the expiration of the Protect America Act (PAA) has resulted in intelligence gaps. If the expiration of the PAA has lessened the willingness of telecommunications companies to comply with surveillance requests to protect our national security, the President and Congressional Republicans have only themselves to blame for refusing to support the PAA’s extension.
“The existing FISA statute provides a remedy: convert the surveillance requests to compulsory court orders. The Director of National Intelligence has admitted that the backlog at the FISA court that prompted the passage of the PAA last summer no longer exists. FISA court orders can therefore be issued even more quickly than they were in the past.”
Facts About FISA:
1. Under FISA, the Attorney General can approve surveillance in minutes. Surveillance can begin immediately and approval of the FISA Court can be obtained within three days.
2. Unlike last summer, there is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court. Michael McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, has stated: “We’re caught up to all of it now.” [2/7/08]
3. The FISA Court can approve surveillance orders quickly, and according to public reports, it has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice over the past 30 years.
4. Under FISA, telecommunications companies can be compelled by the FISA court to help with surveillance and have legal protection for compliance.
Facts About the Legislative Process:
1. The House passed the RESTORE Act in November 2007. Because of Senate Republican delay tactics, the Senate did not pass its bill until February 12.
2. Congressional Republicans blocked a second extension of the Protect America Act on February 13th after President Bush said he would veto it and reiterated his intention to veto any FISA bill that does not include immunity for telecommunications companies.
3. Now that both the House and Senate passed legislation, Committee leaders from both chambers are attempting to working on a bipartisan compromise that would pass both the House and Senate and get signed into law. Unfortunately, House and Senate Republicans and the Bush Administration have refused to come to the negotiating table.
Visit: Speaker.gov
First Call Analyst:
FCMN Contact:
Source: Office of the Speaker of the House
The amount of spin and disingenuousness in this press release sets a new record.
All Ms. Pelosi had to do was bring the Senate bill up for a vote in the House. It would have passed. That is all there is to it.
I get the impression that the democrats are honestly hoping for another 9/11; one in which with aide of the mindless media, they’ll attempt to blame on President Bush and his Administration. That would be the only way they could pretend to be more interested in national security.
reyes is probably getting bribes from smugglers along the border and doesn’t want the government to intercept any messages that might entangle him.
