Comments (70)

GeorgeBush43 wrote on August 7, 2007 10:49 AM:

This act is all about protecting America. How can you object to that? Besides, I've been hearing chatter about "home grown" terrorists and we need to catch them to. Only people who are guilty of something are worried about us listening to their phone calls. Remember, the constitution was written back in the old days.

Steven Olson wrote on August 7, 2007 10:51 AM:

This thing is so loopy and so uncertain that it almost invites abuse. I can just see people in gun clubs and the like in this country getting spied on because their ISP uses the same 'backbone' as the the 'primary target.'

Since the House and Senate caved, all I can say is if I am ever on a jury deciding a case that involves information garnered through the Protect America Act of 2007, I'm voting not guilty, period. This is nuts.

Steven Olson

Anonymous wrote on August 7, 2007 10:51 AM:

At least we now know Karl Rove is willing to have his communications monitored, and that some day, through AT&T, we'll be able to read his missives.

http://valleywag.com/tech/politics/karl-rove-uses-an-iphone-286619.php

Pajarito wrote on August 7, 2007 11:07 AM:

There are thousands, perhaps millions, of U.S. Citizens (and their children) who play on-line computer games. The on-line audience for these games is international. The routing of game computer traffic is through U.S. servers. So, gamers are communicating electronically with foreign persons, who may be in an area (location)of NSA interest, or be persons of NSA interest.

Many hardcore gamers play for hours, with multiple on-line contacts. Often the games are "shooters" so the chat (text or voice communication via computer) may seem military or hostile in nature.

So now, these innocent folks are swept up in a broad, secret, undiscoverable net cast for communication patterns and key phrases. By the very nature of the contact pattern (e.g. frequent online contact with foreign nationals), these people may become subjects of interest.

The gamer's computer address thus known, all other traffic from that computer becomes swept into the NSA net.

Chilling prospect, one that congress should have never allowed! For that matter, where was Microsoft on this!

Jane wrote on August 7, 2007 11:21 AM:

Suppose Obama's campaign wants to contact a Pakistani journalist to explain what he really meant. This communication is fair game under this law. And there need be no record that Bushco collected this information.

What if some individual abroad -- main stream journalist there -- contacts WaPo to reveal Abu Ghraib or the secret jails. Bushco gets a heads up on this and no one knows.

Some Muslim U.S. citizen decides that it is no longer safe for Muslims in the U.S. and starts trying to arrange housing abroad. Is this the government's business?

In all of these situations it would be good to have a FISA court deciding if Bushco's interest is legitimate.

Bushco's spokepeople keep talking about this in terms of terrorists. I have heard nothing in this law which restricts it to terrorist nor indeed anything that restricts it to foreign persons. In order to capture the information all that needs to be true is that one end of the conversation be from someone reasonably believed to be abroad.

Memo to all non-Rethug politicians: Do not contact your campaign while returning from a trip
abroad -- it doesn't matter whether that trip was to Ireland or to North Korea.

litigatormom wrote on August 7, 2007 11:21 AM:

The Administration put out a statement yesterday calling "highly misleading" a NYT report yesterday that characterized the new FISA amendment as a significant expansion of the government's power to conduct warrantless eavesdropping.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/washington/07nsa.html?ref=washington

By the way, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Code word: "safe" as in "we're not."

Michael Lafferty wrote on August 7, 2007 11:27 AM:

Here is a very simple, pre-911 illustration of how problematic this sort of thing can be.

A pair of well intentioned narcotics investigators approached me while I was assigned to the Research & Development unit in the eleventh largest metropolitan police department in the nation, back in the early 1980s. They wanted me to query the statewide motor vehicle registration database and create a list of what they termed certain 'luxury automobiles' which exhibited no lien holder information in their registration records. Their working theory? That anyone who had paid cash for such a vehicle might be a drug dealer. Seriously: I am not kidding.

A computerized lists from which they could conduct their 'fishing expedition.' Records they thought would be in bounds, because they were vehicle registration records created and maintained by a governmental agency.

Had I produced such a record set, my mother—who was no drug dealer—would have been on it, along with tens of thousands of other innocent individuals. They wanted a working 'suspect list' of individuals who they could investigate and place under surveillance in order to identify the criminals, if any, among them.

I reminded them of the Constitutional and statutory protections, at both the Federal and State levels, afforded individuals about whom such data was collected, and suggested they go back and think about what they were asking for. The issue never came up again.

Well intentioned. Apparently oblivious to the law. A lot like many of those engaged in this mythical 'war against terror' today, only clearly less dangerous. But, not by much. It's all a matter of degrees.

For whatever reason, some—maybe many—motivated and often lazy individuals charged with protecting us and enforcing the law, find rules, procedures, statutes, court precedence and the Constitution inconvenient impediments to their job.

Don't think for even a moment that the revised FISA law will not be abused by the intelligence and law enforcement communities. It absolutely will be. It has been structured specifically to allow and even encourage such abuse.

kentuck wrote on August 7, 2007 11:27 AM:

But what are they going to do about it? Nancy Pelosi says they will address this issue again - as soon as they get off vacation. Will they call Admiral McConnell back before the Intelligence Committee and ask him why he cahnged his mind? At first, he was agreeable to the bill that the House drew up. He said it would do the job. But then, he talked with President Bush and he changed his mind? Why? Is he independent or a tool of the White House? Maybe he should look for employment elsewhere?

Bush will use the same scare tactics 6 months from now, when this FISA law expires. But, who really thinks Bush will wait for 6 months to pass before he argues for more power? Sooner or later, the Democrats have to face this demon, and come to terms with whether they are willing to defend our Constitution or whether they wish to give more power to Alberto Gonzales and George W Bush. It is as simple as that: Do they defend our Constitution or do they surrender to this White House?

If there were another attack, what Democrat would be so naive to not realize that they would be blamed, regardless if they passed the FISA law or not? Standing with this White House is not going to protect them from being blamed if something were to happen.

We have reached an unacceptable point in the Democratic Party. The so-called "centrists" and "Blue Dogs" are not part of the solution - they are part of the problem. They are in cahoots with those that would shred our Constitution. There is nothing "centrist" about that idea. They should be challenged and defeated in the next election and no one should give them one penny of campaign funds to run again. They have disqualified themselves as incompetent to represent the people of this great country. If they do not have the capacity to understand that the importance of our Constitution, then they are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

eric wrote on August 7, 2007 11:32 AM:

-The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.-

It has been years since I went to law school, but I am pretty sure that you still can't just bypass the Constitution with a simple law. WTF is going on here?

EH wrote on August 7, 2007 11:45 AM:

I think it would be a good use of journalism for a reporter to ask why the FISA junk can't be simply explained. Why does it have to be so complicated?

biff diggerence wrote on August 7, 2007 11:46 AM:

There is no reason to believe that this new capability will not be used in routine Federal law enforcement.

And we all know that this Administration has a rather peculiar law enforcement agenda.

chabuka wrote on August 7, 2007 11:50 AM:

effectively eliminating "probable cause" from the Constitution...thank you, Democratic party, you have earned my eternal disgust...

K. Trout wrote on August 7, 2007 11:53 AM:

Every activity of BushCo has everthing to do with making money. They are probably intercepting confidential corporate information with which to make financial market trades.

K. Trout wrote on August 7, 2007 11:54 AM:

Every activity of BushCo is concerned with making money. They are probably intercepting confidential corporate information with which to make financial market trades.

I can't wait for this to hit The Washington Post.

ralph489 wrote on August 7, 2007 11:58 AM:

I agree with eric. I am not completely familiar with the precedents on this one, but I thought that simply being an American citizen afforded you the protections of the Constitution, whether in or outside of the U.S. And I thought the Supreme Court had said that a warrant was necessary for a search. Can anyone who knows more about this than I do try to explain how this jibes with the Constitution?

TheraP wrote on August 7, 2007 12:00 PM:

I've been thinking about Anon's questions yesterday.

And you have to wonder, as Anon does, whether the same surveillance Rove now has access to is being used to influence the Congress - to make it bend to the president's will - to enlarge the president's powers... so more spying... can lead to more GOP power.

For Anon's questions on that - click my name.

jeffgee wrote on August 7, 2007 12:01 PM:

Targeted. Right. Joe McCarthy had targets too, all of them Democrats. Since the modern GOP is more the party of Joe McCarthy than Abe Lincoln, I don't for a minute trust these people not to use these tools to spy on their political adversaries and dissidents. This is as much about using electronic eavesdropping to rig the next election as it is about security, no matter how much they try to tell us otherwise. They have already shown us that they are willing to use the U.S. Attorneys' offices to rig elections

Roberta wrote on August 7, 2007 12:03 PM:

We're not being paranoid in worrying about the likelihood of abuses that is built into this perversion of FISA's original mission.

It's about power, getting more power, and keeping that power at any expense. Knowledge is power, and the ability to monitor communications virtually unchecked opens up possibilities for greater and greater power for the few and increasing impotence for those subject to this invasion. I think power can be thought of as zero sum: Increasing one's own power necessarily reduces someone else's power.

But there's an underside to this, implied in some of the comments above: Monitor your political enemies, and you not only know their strategies but have leverage to reduce their strength, either through countering their strategies or using your knowledge to intimidate them, stopping them from opposing your policies.

The Watergate break-in, which was aimed at getting information on the Democratic Party's campaign to undermine it, was restricted to the ham-handed tactics of the time. It is naïve to think that the same mindset of the Republican Party in 1972--which has been honed expertly over the last 25 years--would resist using the technology available today, especially when the Republicans own the Executive Branch.

No matter what the umbrella reasons are for hobbling the protections formerly provided by FISA, the threat of terrorism is a valuable tool the Administration has used effectively to keep people in fear, distracted from noticing the loss of their freedoms.

Karl Rove has stated proudly that his goal is to have a permanent Republican majority in Congress and Republican Executive. Never forget that. I believe that this is the subtext for every action the Administration has taken since January 20, 2001.

SC: keep
You can't keep something valuable if you don't guard it. That applies to freedom and tyranny.

nation wrote on August 7, 2007 12:09 PM:

All this bill really does is allow Rove to spy on anyone, with legal cover. He can get what he needs to know, and then when the 6 months are up, say, oh, we were targeting the wrong individual (or whatever excuse they use to justify why they shouldn't have done it). And that's that.

PeeJ wrote on August 7, 2007 12:10 PM:

If there was a new American revolution, based upon the tenets of the original Declaration of Independence, would the new patriots be called terrorists if they dumped tea into Boston Harbor? Would they be called terrorists for standing up to troops descending upon Concord? We have met the terrorists and soon they are to be us. Please have mercy upon us God.

Peace!

TheraP wrote on August 7, 2007 12:21 PM:

This kind of surveillance seems to have caught as many Terrorists as Torture has produced real evidence.

So what is its purpose? If not to accrue power, as Roberta suggests above.

Torture is about power. Surveillance - and access to the data - are about power.

And what feeds both of these things? War Powers?

Certainly War Powers have been used to justify both of these activities.

So, is the bottom line question this one: Did we go to war in Iraq, and has it been bungled so we have to stay there - in order to have a "War President" - with power to arrest, to spy, to torture with impunity - all in the name of "national security?"

Is the war the underlying crime here? As the excuse to use political spying to maintain power? As a way to siphon off money to pay for private companies to spy on us? And a way to keep the Congress in line?

If so... then Anon's advice to turn to the States may be necessary now.

Where is the courage to stand up to this tyranny?

eric wrote on August 7, 2007 12:24 PM:

Posted by: ralph489
Date: August 7, 2007 11:58 AM

Exactly the right question. The Constitution doesn't say that one is only protected from searches so long as one talks to people who are also in this country.

It's ridiculous. It's all ridiculous. Bush didn't even pay attention to the intelligence that we DID have before 9-11.

Security Code:
snake

Margaret Chase Smith wrote on August 7, 2007 12:25 PM:

"My creed is that public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly. It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation with full recognition that every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration, that constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought, that smears are not only to be expected but fought, that honor is to be earned but not bought."

Richard L. Adlof wrote on August 7, 2007 12:25 PM:

A handful of people estimated to be about 330 million warm bodies . . . Where are the fucking conservatives decrying government crawling up folks' asses?

Margaret wrote on August 7, 2007 12:29 PM:

Declaration of Conscience (June 1, 1950):

"Mr. President, I would like to speak briefly and simply about a serious national condition. It is a national feeling of fear and frustration that could result in national suicide and the end of everything that we Americans hold dear. It is a condition that comes from the lack of effective leadership in either the legislative branch or the executive branch of our Government.

That leadership is so lacking that serious and responsible proposals are being made that national advisory commissions be appointed to provide such critically needed leadership.

I speak as briefly as possible because too much harm has already been done with irresponsible words of bitterness and selfish political opportunism. I speak as simply as possible because the issue is too great to be obscured by eloquence. I speak simply and briefly in the hope that my words will be taken to heart.

I speak as a Republican. I speak as a woman. I speak as a United States Senator. I speak as an American."

Austin Cooper wrote on August 7, 2007 12:29 PM:

My best guess is that the 'administration' has been intercepting as much voice and email traffic as passes through American service providers and hosts as they have the Terabyte storage for -- all utterly without reference to the Constitution, and completely illegal.

When you sift and cross-reference this data mining against all the other records available to them, it's Admiral Poindexter's TIA program -- not really technologically possible in the 1980's, but is possible now.

When technology is available to perform some act, or produce some result, all it takes is the 'political will' to use it for certain ends. But they've crossed a line in the sand by doing this which can't be taken back.

It's one more lurching step towards a very different, very alien country that reflects the psyches of a number of twisted, secretive, manipulative and oligarchical men -- and not the minds of the founders of the United States.

What's next?

eric wrote on August 7, 2007 12:30 PM:

Where is the courage to stand up to this tyranny?

Posted by: TheraP
Date: August 7, 2007 12:21 PM

Excellent insight in your comment. About courage...well, I think it is too late for that. Stand up to this tyranny, and you are a terrorist. I am probably on some watch list because I am typing this.

Someone paraphrased a line from the recent Michael Moore movie that seems fitting...

-In France the government is afraid of the people, but in America the people are afraid of the government.-

Stand up to tyranny? I'm too afraid to do much more than type this.

JimBob wrote on August 7, 2007 12:38 PM:

Does anyone think a real terrorist with a real plan (not some hookah-smoking bullshit artist) is going to pick up his/her phone and start talking about it? Only people who feel they have no reason to worry about being surveilled are going to talk treason on the phone. And who decides what constitutes treason?

JimBob wrote on August 7, 2007 12:40 PM:

PeeJay: Minutemen were considered terrorists because they hid behind trees and in ditches and fired on Redcoats from hiding. They didn't play by the rules of engagement because they were outnumbered and outgunned. The terrorist is always the Other Guy, never Us.

Just Asking wrote on August 7, 2007 12:46 PM:

What about phone calls and internet traffic through Canada? Does Canada count in the defintion of foreign surveillance?

Service providers routinely route a large volume of calls through Canada. What's to stop the government from asking providers to deliberately route calls through Canada so they qualify under this new law?

TheraP wrote on August 7, 2007 12:53 PM:

Anon suggested last week: Money moves around.

In Iran/Contra - money moved around.

In Watergate - spying on political enemies.

Now:

War Powers + Iran/Contra (money) + Watergate (spying)

Well, they're stuck in one way! How can they spy on us if they close down the Internets?

But if the Internets are not closed down, then we can still exchange information and maintain some power.

If Congress is too cowardly to act, then we must act.

Each state must act. To compel the federal government to Comply with the Constitution.

HAS TO HAPPEN: Constitutional Compliance

(click my name - read - help)

TheraP wrote on August 7, 2007 12:56 PM:

Sorry. Link is now there.

As someone said one here: Post in haste. Repent at leisure.

Lord Garth wrote on August 7, 2007 12:57 PM:

BushCo was spying on the Kerry Campaign, and now they're spying on the current Dem candidates. You can just smell it.

HipHopLawyer wrote on August 7, 2007 12:58 PM:

Good point about Canada. To take this one step further (and I can't take credit for this as it was first mentioned by a commenter on another thread):

what about communications that are routed to an orbiting satellite? Such as a call from NYC to LA? Does such a call leave the U.S.?

The problem you get into here is that if the NSA (and, uh, that paragon on detached objectivity, Alberto Gonzales) determines that such a call *does* leave the U.S., and is thus a proper target for surveillance, then, according to the new and improved FISA, unless such determination is "clearly erroneous" (in legal terms, a VERY weak and deferential standard), the FISA court cannot overrule it.

Jess wrote on August 7, 2007 1:00 PM:

Gee, in countries like the former Soviet Union, China, and probably most of Asia, they don't need laws (or change laws that have been deemed to be unconstitutional) to eavesdrop. They just do it. In fact, we train many of them.

We are truly spreading democracy by embracing their values and ways.

Jess wrote on August 7, 2007 1:01 PM:

Gee, in countries like the former Soviet Union, China, and probably most of Asia, they don't need laws (or change laws that have been deemed to be unconstitutional) to eavesdrop. They just do it. In fact, we train many of them.

We are truly spreading democracy by embracing their values and ways.

~ Jess

judyinnm wrote on August 7, 2007 1:12 PM:

TheraP: What you said. Only the STATES have the power to amend the Constitution; Congress can't legally repeal the Bill of Rights, by simply passing a bill - they have to propose amending the Constitution, and wait for the states to ratify. But then, we have congresspeople who don't know they have the power to impeach the attorney general.....

Murka wrote on August 7, 2007 1:13 PM:

If Congress can't get a straight answer from Gonzalez about his department's screaming violations of the Hatch Act, what makes anybody think it will be possible to even begin to untangle the mess that will surely result from "Protect" America? Now might be a good time to impeach Gonzalez.

Bob wrote on August 7, 2007 1:17 PM:

Hey. What about the fact that we're now all arguing about about the potential for abuse built into the new law instead of the past violations of the old law? Pretty effective move - change the topic. In six months as the election season really ramps up, the talking point will be "Congress needs to renew the Protect America Act so we can have the tools to protect America." Any Dem who tries to oppose the renewal in 6 months will be tagged as not protecting America.

dee illuminati wrote on August 7, 2007 1:20 PM:

Suppose some misguided fool, fueled with a political agenda, contacts an individual in AIPAC, and says: "hey this guy is making allot of noise about Neocons." and that individual takes that information as a zealot, and has an asset in Israel contact an informant in Hamas, whom is 'fed' the name of the target and uses it in chatter. Then you could have the case where people investigating Aipac are made targets, and possibly these people are cooperating with law enforcement and suddenly get a cold chill as NSL's start rolling out all over the place.

So lets imagine a scenario where people in Afghanastan start calling the weekly standard, and the pattern of calls is triggering investigation... and we are supposed to imagine that Bill Kristol would not be targeted if Gonzales is in charge?

And there is the rub... it is a purely political target where the target itself, Sunni's that are now allies in Anbar province, were yesterdays targets.

Now if the information is agnostic, well so be it.. but the problem with this whitehouse is that they have manipulated intel, have retaliated against loyal americans over what the VP calls 'policy disputes' and the system is as good as disrupting investigations as it is for intelligence activities.

To say that an independent group of judges should not exercise review invites the abuses cited above...

And the OIG's reports of errors and abuses, years after the fact, and the AG's seemingly ignorance of them, leaves me wondering what investigations can be derailed between now and six months?

It is amazing, we state categorically that we will not use force in Pakistan without Pakistanian approval, and I guess we have to ask for permission to do so with NSA?

Yeah, yesterday the Sunni was the foe, now an alliance in Iraq, and the politics of this abuse is continuing.

What you really find is that the goal is to database EVERYTHING so that those whom have political control can attempt to sustain it, and that might include rigging an election or two at the DOJ as well.

Can this be good for government and national security if it undermines democracy and freedom?

Well I guess if you want that democracy and freedom that some still talk about you need to go to Iraq to find it....

These powers have been abused and wil be abused again.

Paul wrote on August 7, 2007 1:43 PM:

The republic is over. We have two options now: accept tyrrany, or take to the streets. Sadly, I expect we will do the former.

trank wrote on August 7, 2007 2:05 PM:

i don't want to have to talk to possible terrorists for my tech support. i'll have to start using different companies. change my portfolio.

does this mean overseas tech support subcontractors will have to give their $1/hour employees security screenings? keep them in compounds so they can't consort with possible terrorists?

tech support will have to be US-based again. costs will skyrocket.

Scott L wrote on August 7, 2007 2:05 PM:

As a person that grew up in the 60's I can tell you for a fact that J Edger Hoover would be proud of this goverment. I consider it a MAJOR shame of my generation that it is my generation thats doing this crap. We KNOW better because we went to the streets to fight this kind of goverment and now we have become what despised. SHAME ON YOU that are dismantling the Republic.

trank wrote on August 7, 2007 2:07 PM:

i don't want to have to talk to possible terrorists for my tech support. i'll have to start using different companies. change my portfolio.

does this mean overseas tech support subcontractors will have to give their $1/hour employees security screenings? keep them in compounds so they can't consort with possible terrorists?

tech support will have to be US-based again. costs will skyrocket.

Pilgrim wrote on August 7, 2007 2:18 PM:

Now we know where they will get "probable cause" to implement the suspension of due process as presented in the July 17 "Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." Gonzo names the target (assumed foreigner because they are in Iraq) and W seizes the property. Nice way to get rid of private contractor competition.

lysias wrote on August 7, 2007 2:20 PM:

I'm just now reading Macaulay on the last months of James II's rule. The invasion of Britain from Holland by William of Orange was welcomed -- or at least not resisted -- by most British because James II's tyranny had become so unpopular.

Is Bush's misrule now making foreign invasion of the U.S. a more reasonable possibility?

lysias wrote on August 7, 2007 2:26 PM:

Lord Halifax's observation about James II (noted on p. 60 of Vol. 2 of the Everyman's Library edition of Macaulay's History of England) applies equally to Bush and his treatment of FISA; "If laws are binding on you, observe the law which now exists. If laws are not binding on you, it is idle to offer us a law as a security."

Mark F wrote on August 7, 2007 3:21 PM:

God damn the Democrats once again. They just don't get it. They think, if they get some sort of legislation passed to get us out of Iraq, then all will be right with the voters. They don't understand that they were elected to put a stop to ALL of Bush's abuses. Amy Klobuchar is my Senator. I've already given her an earful. God damn Democrats...

Rick Rettberg, Esq. wrote on August 7, 2007 3:36 PM:

I recall that earlier attempts by BushCo to modify FISA also included language precluding prosecution of administration officials who violated the FISA law previous to the amendment. Does this bill contain such a provision?

cl-Oregon Girl wrote on August 7, 2007 3:38 PM:

The way I see it the Dems gave Bush CO amnesty from the crimes of spying on us since 2001. Spread the phrase -- No amnesty for Bush felonies!

Maybe we need to stop using our fucking phones.

parrot wrote on August 7, 2007 3:42 PM:

"Ripe for abuse"? Hmmm...how about the law was violated previously and the Bushites are slowly making it all legal...just like they sought to do with Guantanamo and torture, it is all about "protecting us from you".

GeorgeBush43 wrote on August 7, 2007 4:00 PM:

Eric, You ask how the 4th amendment can be overturned by a simple law. Here's the answer: Unless you have standing with a court, you cannot file or prosecute a case. Standing requires proof that someone was harmed. No one can prove that they were wiretapped. (Exception: Read about the Seattle case which, at one time, had access to "the document.") But, should some future administration decide to raise criminal issues or appoint a special prosecutor, then NSA and other staff and the phone companies would need indemnity. This law was a step in that direction and I will ask that Congress consider outright legal indemnity when they reconsider the bill.

Clay wrote on August 7, 2007 4:10 PM:

Need to watch the Boern Ultimatum for a "ripped from the headlines" look at what NSA/CIA abuse will look like. They even included near real time computer word parsing (identifying key word: blackthorne), accent analysis, and some of the state of the art NSA wiretapping features that came from Poindexter's DOD shop and the TIA program.

lysias wrote on August 7, 2007 4:19 PM:

Statute of limitations for most federal felonies, like violations of FISA, is five years. Statutes of limitations for civil wrongs like torts are generally considerably shorter.

There is, however, no statute of limitations for federal felonies carrying the death penalty. This includes violations of the Federal Torture Act and the Federal War Crimes Act (including conspiracy to violate them) where death results to at least one victim.

judyinnm wrote on August 7, 2007 4:27 PM:

With the exception of Chris Dodd's "Restore Habeas Corpus Act", I haven't heard anything from the presidential candidates indicating any concern over the erosion of the Constitution. Even those cute little "surveys" they send wanting "your opinion" have never included anthing about "how important do you think it is to restore civil liberties in this country?" This should have been our clue that the Democrats are just as willing as the Republicans to shred the Constitution in the name of "protecting" us. Even now, they have been silent on the latest atrocity.

Diane wrote on August 7, 2007 5:10 PM:

Although some people say we can rewrite this law in six months....there is reason to believe that will not happen as anticipated. As pointed out on Balkinization http://balkin.blogspot.com/ it is not clear if there really is a sunset clause in this law.
"Although section 6(c) provides that the operative provisions of the Act "shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act," i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:

AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT.—Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Thus, "acquisitions" authorized by Attorney General Gonzales will be permissible for one year, even if that period extends beyond the ostensible February 1, 2008 sunset date. "

So what's to stop these crooks from authorizing such aquisitions on Feb 1, 2008 which would then be in effect until Feb 1, 2009....ten days after the new president is sworn in.

Long Memory wrote on August 7, 2007 5:33 PM:

"nowhere in the bill is there anything approaching individualized suspicion of who is to be monitored."

As most of you have figured out, that's because we're ALL going to be monitored. Behold, Big Brother. The Republicans suggested it, but they'll never take the fall for it because now they have had a Democratic-controlled Congress sign off on it. What a farce.

If they'd just admit that any and all Muslim communications will be monitored, many Americans would be OK with that. Unfortunately.

But they won't admit it, and they won't be able to stop themselves from using the monitoring to just check up on their political rivals. The monitors are only human, like those guys who monitor the CCTVs in malls and elsewhere. They get bored, so they start watching girls.

Still, this might all come to an end someday. I personally think that we'll be able to count within hours of a Democratic president taking the oath for Republican lawmakers to begin howling about what a blot this law is on the Constitution. Alas, they'll be right.

Aaron G. Stock wrote on August 7, 2007 5:44 PM:

WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE

Stop blaming "the Democrats" when it wasn't all of them, not even a majority of them.

Those of you who say this are stating claims that are inaccurate and, dare I say, unhelpful at best.

"Some Democrats," if you must.

thomas wrote on August 7, 2007 5:47 PM:

Can someone please explain how we can "be at war" if Congress has not declared one? I realize that there was a foolish congressional action in the fall of '02 but that wasnot a declaration of war.

Phil wrote on August 7, 2007 5:52 PM:

Give the Democratic Congress credit for thinking long term. They realize a Democratic President will be elected and then she can use these new powers to wiretap and convict all the corrupt Republican politicians. This strategy is so obvious I am surprised I have to explain it.

Yossarian wrote on August 7, 2007 5:57 PM:

I am all for liberals taking over all three branches of our government but I am totally against giving power back to the DADs (Dumb Ass Democrats.) It is not as if I like the Repukelicans either but giving more power to DADs will be just disastrous. For one thing these guys are just neutered/spayed cowards who just rolled over and played dead to this dumb prez's bullying over the whole FISA thing. But they did the same thing back during 2002-2003 over the Iraq war authority. They are incapable of leading with any courage and a complete failure when it comes to a "profile in courage." I urge you fellow liberals to not vote these lily livered rogue DADs back into/more power next year. Put 'em out of their misery and vote them out of office. We need to start looking at bringing up a new party. Maybe something through the DailyKos site. Just a suggestion. Thank you.

Sam Taylor wrote on August 7, 2007 8:38 PM:

Perhaps like many of you but apparently few of our elected representatives, my wife and I have actually traveled abroad as private citizens not a part of an "official visit" or even part of a tour.

We have made friends who visited us and we them. We have all used e-mail, text messaging and the telephone to call back to our country of origin to check on the status of children,grandchildren and/or parents.

We have family, neighbors and friends who have children, grandchildren, parents and grandparents living all over the world. They and we talk, e-mail and text message.

We call, e-mail and fax hotels and even restuarants all over the world.

In addition to the support of fear mongering and the shredding of important constitutional protections, this legislation and this president reflect a profound ignorance of the modern world.

Sam Taylor

DallasNE wrote on August 7, 2007 9:59 PM:

My understanding is that this is still a data mining operation where the telecom company supplies all the data, which includes calls of millions of Americans, and the filtering is all done by NSA. Since the filtering algorthm is classified nobody will ever know which Americans are being intercepted. The biggest losers here could be news organizations reporting on war related items and possible embarrassing leaks. The language is certainly broad enough to permit such monitoring and the oversight is next to non-existant.

Yossarian wrote on August 7, 2007 10:35 PM:

Just send DADs (Dumb Ass Democrats)back to where they came from. Same with the Repukelicans. We need a progressive party in America. And by that I don't mean trying to elect Perots or Naders. I mean a true progressive party that believes in balance between the power of business and people, so that neither can ruin each other. Government isn't always bad just as Business isn't always bad! The current two party system needs to go. We need at least 4 different parties in congress to have true over site otherwise we aren't any different than Mexico.

The Oracle wrote on August 8, 2007 12:37 AM:

Everything BushCo does is political.

They politicized 9/11.

They politicized the executive branch, with the politicization of the Justice Department being just one example of their gross, un-American partisanship.

And we know what the goal of BushCo is...to win elections in any way possible, legal or illegal.

Thus, the following "dots":

BushCo pays Halliburton to build $385 million worth of detention centers by the end of 2007 (the year before a major presidential election), to hold illegal immigrants..."and for other purposes."

BushCo pressures Congress into giving Alberto Gonzales unchecked and unlimited spying authority, with him granted the ability to completely bypass the legal controls of FISA

BushCo wants a taxpayer-funded citizen snitch program, similar to what the Stasi had in Communist East Germany, with citizens spying on and turning in other citizens.

And we're to believe that these are non-political, non-partisan in intent?

My theory is that the "culture of corruption" Republicans are getting ready to take "caging" of Democrats to the next level...literally spying on, charging and convicting Democrats, and locking them away.

Hmmmm, don't "convicts" lose their right to vote?

And to think that no one will be the wiser. With no habeas corpus protection, Democratic voters will just start disappearing from the voter rolls as well as their homes.

Gonzales' secret spying program. BushCo's secret snitch program, with only "loyal Bushie" Republican snitches allowed to join. Secret "detention centers" around the country. Secret courts with secret testimony regarding secret evidence from secret witnesses and other secret sources.

Hey, the "national security" trump card can be played over and over again, so no Democratic defendant will have any recourse, especially with BushCo having packed the federal judiciary with so many "loyal Bushie" judges.

Hey, call me paranoid, but I wouldn't put anything past the most corrupt and lying administration in American history.

Security Code: Fear.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself...and the "culture of corruption, lying and cheating" Republican Party leadership of today.

Kent Mueller wrote on August 8, 2007 12:45 AM:

It's hard to believe how far we've come from arguing that FISA was a mere rubber-stamp and needed more teeth to protect our civil liberities. Those days seem quiant and innocent-minded now.

Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels truly, and it will take four or five times the effort it took for the Bush Admininstration to pass this to even begin to undo it. The constitution is losing ground fast. No one knows what these bastards might concoct in the next six months, meanwhile they buy six months for more blatant foolishness with no oversight whatsoever.

And to give absolute power to Gonzalez after what we've learned in the past 7 months is astounding. Maybe the Loyal Bushies DO want more than to just rob the country blind on behalf of their friends...

SC: pain

'nuff said

Kent Mueller

wigwam wrote on August 8, 2007 1:07 AM:

The FISA fix, in effect, turns the NSA over to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales through January 2009, which includes the 2008 election cycle. Specifically, until the fix's 2/4/08 sunset, Gonzales can approve year-long surveillance programs targeting any communications that he "reasonably suspects" might go outside the U.S. And, what's available to Gonzales is apparently available to Rove, a master of opposition research. That's the law that got passed.

The administration would like to shift the discussion to their intentions rathar than the actual law. Justice Louis Brandeis gave the best answer: "The defendants’ objections to the evidence obtained by wire-tapping must, in my opinion, be sustained. It is, of course, immaterial where the physical connection with the telephone wires leading into the defendants’ premises was made. And it is also immaterial that the intrusion was in aid of law enforcement. Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

Mark Bialkowski wrote on August 8, 2007 1:49 AM:

What about phone calls and internet traffic through Canada? Does Canada count in the defintion of foreign surveillance?

Damn skippy it does, and you can bet our intel crew has already been given their marching orders regarding American telecom routing.

The word you're looking for is "Echelon". The capability has existed for over a decade. The law is now being massaged to make the kind of surveillance it allows perfectly legal, instead of existing in the quasi-legal netherworld of the spooks.

Interesting times.

Code word: weight, as in the weight of the master's boot on our necks is getting heavier.

TheraP wrote on August 8, 2007 8:32 AM:

Are you that "one person?"

"Some do Care."

Click my name.

Mohammed Golodberg wrote on August 11, 2007 3:28 PM:

I'm comfortable - I make a living. Ptuy!