From other threads......
That's just it. Is this a sell out, or is it a shrewed political move that in the end will benefit us all? (Obama Tactics)
In all the ranting about how the Congress has sold us out, why is it there are a few facts no one mentions?
That this compromise puts Court oversight of domestic wiretaps firmly back into place.
Granted, it should never have been out of place, however, this bill addresses that.
More important, why does NO ONE talk about the fact that this bill DOES NOT establish immunity from CRIMINAL prosecution? The ONLY people I have seen comment on these aspects, are John Dean and Keith Olbermann. Why is it that in the fury and claims of selling out the 4th amendment, that NO ONE discusses these other aspects????
Will someone PLEASE answer this question for me.
What exactly is it that is so bad about this FISA bill?
I don't want emotional rantings. For the last two days that's all I've seen.
I want to know specifically, what is so bad about this FISA compromise?
So far, NO ONE (not just this forum) has been able to answer this question.
Full Version: The FISA bill question.
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
well, I guess one could easily argue (?) that while the immunity protects the Telecom's liability against financial loss (civil prosecution), but leaves them at risk against criminal (jail time) prosecution against individuals.
I suppose that faith would require you to believe that Presidential pardons or 'executive priviledge' and/or don't think this neocon administration isn't above perverting the law's application to them (if they believed that, we probably wouldn't be talking about this bill)
I suppose that faith would require you to believe that Presidential pardons or 'executive priviledge' and/or don't think this neocon administration isn't above perverting the law's application to them (if they believed that, we probably wouldn't be talking about this bill)
QUOTE (ragincaucasian @ Thursday, 10 July 2008, 12:21 pm) 
well, I guess one could easily argue (?) that while the immunity protects the Telecom's liability against financial loss (civil prosecution), but leaves them at risk against criminal (jail time) prosecution against individuals.
I suppose that faith would require you to believe that Presidential pardons or 'executive priviledge' and/or don't think this neocon administration isn't above perverting the law's application to them (if they believed that, we probably wouldn't be talking about this bill)
I suppose that faith would require you to believe that Presidential pardons or 'executive priviledge' and/or don't think this neocon administration isn't above perverting the law's application to them (if they believed that, we probably wouldn't be talking about this bill)
That's all well and good, and i don't disagree with a single word.
However, it still does not answer the question.
QUOTE (sky of mind @ Thursday, 10 July 2008, 3:28 pm)
That's all well and good, and i don't disagree with a single word.
However, it still does not answer the question.
However, it still does not answer the question.
Sorry. I think the retro-immunity without review. There may have been gross abuse of powers during those years, and without addressing those first (before we wave the magic wand of amnesty) the bill gives the administration a mulligan, protecting themselves through shielding the Telecoms who acted as instruments in this endeavor.
Who knows what, specifically, we have pardoned by this act. We have eliminated a layer of accountability, without an assurance of WHY, as well as not investigating the broad usage of unlimited surveillence powers.
What is so bad? Hey, maybe nothing....but the ease and lack of review it has been given by Congress is disturbing. Without breaking out the tinfoil, we can use the boil-a-frog analogy because at what point do we actually think we are going to stand up (congress) and actually use the checks-and-balances system? The lack of accountability in government, the complacency in citizen's rights/dignity changes exactly when? If not with FISA, then what exactly would it take to put a caution to further abuses?
again, I don't disagree, and again that does not answer the question. Sorry, i wish that it had.
You only mentioned immunity, and did not specify immunity from Civil or Criminal activity, which doesn't take into account that only Civil activity is mentioned. This means that if anybody broke the law they can still be prosecuted.
This FISA compromise did not grant absolute immunity. The question of Bush Pardons can not be properly answered, and can only be partially answered with an opinionated guess.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question with specific reference to specific wording of this law that examples exactly why I should not like it. If this cannot be found, then I have to assume all the noise about FISA over the past two days is the result of the MSM doing what does best to rally up ratings!
This means that if the question cannot be properly answered, we have once again been suckered by the MSM.
You only mentioned immunity, and did not specify immunity from Civil or Criminal activity, which doesn't take into account that only Civil activity is mentioned. This means that if anybody broke the law they can still be prosecuted.
This FISA compromise did not grant absolute immunity. The question of Bush Pardons can not be properly answered, and can only be partially answered with an opinionated guess.
I am still waiting for an answer to my question with specific reference to specific wording of this law that examples exactly why I should not like it. If this cannot be found, then I have to assume all the noise about FISA over the past two days is the result of the MSM doing what does best to rally up ratings!
This means that if the question cannot be properly answered, we have once again been suckered by the MSM.
doh, thank you for your patience.
I am not the best articulator in the world and am prone to tangent myself out of relevancy.
I understand and I hear what you're saying.
While I might be misguided, I understand this move in that with near impossibility of proving criminal intent by telecoms through a 'criminal trial', it would be an uphill battle to even get a judge to warrant a criminal investigation into telecom / executive impropriety. We remove a level of accountability.
What is the reason we are removing this measure? Is there a legitimate reason TO prevent these agencies from recourse? I guess I don't understand what warrants that, and don't see how we are 'better' because we have given them more freedom to operate without regard to liability.
That's why these telecom lawsuits are the only real avenue left to ensure accountability and obtain a legal ruling on what was done.
I am not the best articulator in the world and am prone to tangent myself out of relevancy.
I understand and I hear what you're saying.
While I might be misguided, I understand this move in that with near impossibility of proving criminal intent by telecoms through a 'criminal trial', it would be an uphill battle to even get a judge to warrant a criminal investigation into telecom / executive impropriety. We remove a level of accountability.
What is the reason we are removing this measure? Is there a legitimate reason TO prevent these agencies from recourse? I guess I don't understand what warrants that, and don't see how we are 'better' because we have given them more freedom to operate without regard to liability.
That's why these telecom lawsuits are the only real avenue left to ensure accountability and obtain a legal ruling on what was done.
Yes, but we've already had a federal judge make a legal statement that the eaves dropping provisions of the Protect America Act (the law Bush used to circumvent the 1973 FISA) were illegal, making it quite clear that the president and the Telco's had ALREADY broken the law.
Sorry, but to me it doesn't seem as though proving intent would be all that difficult given that a federal judge has already said as much.
As of yet, I still do not know what is in the FISA compromise that I should not like.
Lots of discussion about what may or may not happen, but so far no statements about specific aspects of the law it's self.
Sorry, but to me it doesn't seem as though proving intent would be all that difficult given that a federal judge has already said as much.
As of yet, I still do not know what is in the FISA compromise that I should not like.
Lots of discussion about what may or may not happen, but so far no statements about specific aspects of the law it's self.
At last I have found my answer.
Clearly I cannot support this, and I would hope the SCOTUS would agree.
This is from the ACLU them selves
http://www.reddit.com/goto?id=6r8t3
ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law
(7/10/2008)
Group Also Asks Secret Intelligence Court Not To Exclude Public From Any Proceedings On New Law's Constitutionality
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
In today's legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in today's case are:
The Nation and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges
Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
Defense attorneys Dan Arshack, David Nevin, Scott McKay and Sylvia Royce
"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world - from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the U.S. will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."
The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."
Attorneys on the lawsuit Amnesty v. McConnell are Jaffer, Melissa Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. Attorneys on the motion filed with the FISC are Jaffer, Goodman, Tully, as well as Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
More information, including today's complaint, a video discussing the ACLU's legal challenge, plaintiff statements in support of the lawsuit and the FISC motion, is available at: www.aclu.org/faa
I still consider it interesting that so many made the noise, but few seemed to really know why they were making it.
Clearly I cannot support this, and I would hope the SCOTUS would agree.
This is from the ACLU them selves
http://www.reddit.com/goto?id=6r8t3
ACLU Sues Over Unconstitutional Dragnet Wiretapping Law
(7/10/2008)
Group Also Asks Secret Intelligence Court Not To Exclude Public From Any Proceedings On New Law's Constitutionality
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
NEW YORK - The American Civil Liberties Union filed a landmark lawsuit today to stop the government from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush administration virtually unchecked power to intercept Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls. The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights, labor, legal and media organizations whose ability to perform their work - which relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, passed by Congress on Wednesday and signed by President Bush today, not only legalizes the secret warrantless surveillance program the president approved in late 2001, it gives the government new spying powers, including the power to conduct dragnet surveillance of Americans' international communications.
"Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an abuse of government power - and that's exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged," said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. "Electronic surveillance must be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires."
In today's legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new spying law violates Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The new law permits the government to conduct intrusive surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines and email addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are located, why it's conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the communication of wrongdoing.
Plaintiffs in today's case are:
The Nation and its contributing journalists Naomi Klein and Chris Hedges
Amnesty International USA, Global Rights, Global Fund for Women, Human Rights Watch, PEN American Center, Service Employees International Union, Washington Office on Latin America, and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association
Defense attorneys Dan Arshack, David Nevin, Scott McKay and Sylvia Royce
"As a journalist, my job requires communication with people in all parts of the world - from Iraq to Argentina. If the U.S. government is given unchecked surveillance power to monitor reporters' confidential sources, my ability to do this work will be seriously compromised," said Naomi Klein, an award-winning columnist and best-selling author who is a plaintiff in today's lawsuit. "I cannot in good conscience accept that my conversations with people who live outside the U.S. will put them in harm's way as a result of overzealous government spying. Privacy in my communications is not simply an expectation, it's a right."
The ACLU's legal challenge, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York today, seeks a court order declaring that the new law is unconstitutional and ordering its immediate and permanent halt.
In a separate filing, the ACLU asked the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to ensure that any proceedings relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of the new law be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its briefs addressing the law's constitutionality, and to publish any judicial decision that is ultimately issued.
"The new law allows the mass acquisition of Americans' international e-mails and telephone calls," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. "The administration has argued that the law is necessary to address the threat of terrorism, but the truth is that the law sweeps much more broadly and implicates all kinds of communications that have nothing to do with terrorism or criminal activity of any kind."
In 2006, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the National Security Agency (NSA) to stop its illegal, warrantless spying program. A federal district court sided with the ACLU, ruling that warrantless wiretapping by the NSA violated Americans' rights to free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, ran counter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and violated the principle of separation of powers. The Bush administration appealed the ruling, and an appeals court panel dismissed the case. However, the court did not uphold the legality of the government's warrantless surveillance activity and the only judge to discuss the merits of the case clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless spying was unlawful. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case earlier this year.
"A democratic system depends on the rule of law, and not even the president or Congress can authorize a law that violates core constitutional principles," said Christopher Dunn, Associate Legal Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. "The only thing compromised in this so-called 'compromise' law is the Constitution."
Attorneys on the lawsuit Amnesty v. McConnell are Jaffer, Melissa Goodman and L. Danielle Tully of the ACLU National Security Project and Dunn and Arthur Eisenberg of the NYCLU. Attorneys on the motion filed with the FISC are Jaffer, Goodman, Tully, as well as Arthur Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
More information, including today's complaint, a video discussing the ACLU's legal challenge, plaintiff statements in support of the lawsuit and the FISC motion, is available at: www.aclu.org/faa
I still consider it interesting that so many made the noise, but few seemed to really know why they were making it.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/07/al-qaed...speed-dial.html
As Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman wrote today (emphasis his):
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...0,1553314.story
As Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman wrote today (emphasis his):
QUOTE
The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location, without making any showing to a court and without judicial oversight, whether or not the communication has anything to do with al Qaeda -- indeed, even if there is no evidence that the communication has anything to do with terrorism, or any threat to national security.
The most overlooked fact in the entire FISA debate -- the aspect of it that renders incoherent the case in favor of the new FISA law or even those who dismiss its significance -- is that virtually nobody knows what the spying program they're immunizing entailed and towards what ends it was used -- i.e., whether it was abused for improper purposes. Even those who acknowledge that the warrantless spying program was illegal like to assert that it was implemented for benign and proper counter-terrorism purposes -- but they have absolutely no idea whether that is true. None. Zero. To assert that is simply to make assertions with no basis whatsoever.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...0,1553314.story
QUOTE
Stop the new FISA
Allowing the new surveillance law to stand would seriously cripple our free press.
By Chris Hedges
July 11, 2008
If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday -- giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans -- is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society.
Allowing the new surveillance law to stand would seriously cripple our free press.
By Chris Hedges
July 11, 2008
If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday -- giving the U.S. government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and e-mails of innocent Americans -- is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society.
As I understand it, their are two issues.
One is data mining. The wholesale mining of virtually every thing through virtually every form of electronic communication. At this point no one person or group is singled out, but also virtually everyone is included and as such everyone is virtually spied on.
This form of spying is new, and is what is referred to when they talk about these so called new security tools. This is an issue that most certainly will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, it likely won't be until sometime in Obama's term that they actually decide their case. Maybe by then Obama will have had the chance to make an appointment that would be favorable to a decision favoring the 4th amendment?
Second, is the eves dropping on communications from over seas into the US. (how do they know it's into, and not out from?) Because it's international the law states they can spy on Americans as well, if they are not in country. I believe this aspect is counter to the 4th amendment and I believe with this aspect the ACLU has the strongest case.
All domestic electronic spying is covered by the FISA courts. The Protect America Act had removed this stipulation. Since then the courts have ruled that this is not legal, and this bill reinstates the FISA for domestic spying.
As to immunity. That aspect is probly the weakest, even though it will also likely be an issue for the SCOTUS. But even if this aspect remains in place, there is still no immunity or protection from Criminal prosecution.
One is data mining. The wholesale mining of virtually every thing through virtually every form of electronic communication. At this point no one person or group is singled out, but also virtually everyone is included and as such everyone is virtually spied on.
This form of spying is new, and is what is referred to when they talk about these so called new security tools. This is an issue that most certainly will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. Unfortunately, it likely won't be until sometime in Obama's term that they actually decide their case. Maybe by then Obama will have had the chance to make an appointment that would be favorable to a decision favoring the 4th amendment?
Second, is the eves dropping on communications from over seas into the US. (how do they know it's into, and not out from?) Because it's international the law states they can spy on Americans as well, if they are not in country. I believe this aspect is counter to the 4th amendment and I believe with this aspect the ACLU has the strongest case.
All domestic electronic spying is covered by the FISA courts. The Protect America Act had removed this stipulation. Since then the courts have ruled that this is not legal, and this bill reinstates the FISA for domestic spying.
As to immunity. That aspect is probly the weakest, even though it will also likely be an issue for the SCOTUS. But even if this aspect remains in place, there is still no immunity or protection from Criminal prosecution.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.