Concerns about the new foreign surveillance measure are overblown

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/08/AR2008070802587.html

FISA's Fetters
Concerns about the new foreign surveillance measure are overblown.


THE AMERICAN Civil Liberties Union, in a letter we printed yesterday, accused us of backing a surveillance bill that would give the president "unfettered power to spy on Americans," reducing the role of the court overseeing the surveillance to "little more than serving as a rubber stamp." Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), in another letter, said the measure overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, on the verge of congressional passage, "gives the government broad new powers to collect information on innocent Americans within the United States without providing nearly enough protections for privacy." It means, Mr. Feingold said, that "Americans e-mailing relatives abroad or calling business associates overseas could be monitored with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing by anyone."

These are serious concerns, worth taking seriously. We are under no illusion that the measure is perfect; future fine-tuning may well be called for. The classified nature of the surveillance program makes it impossible to assess the implications with anything near certainty. But the legislation reflects, as far as we can tell, a reasonable compromise, worked out over long months of negotiations, between the legitimate needs of intelligence agencies and the legitimate privacy interests of Americans.

The measure requires an individualized, court-approved warrant to conduct surveillance targeted at Americans' communications with those overseas and -- in an expansion of existing FISA protections -- at Americans abroad. Purely domestic-to-domestic communications, even among foreigners here, would require a warrant as well. Intelligence agencies would be able to target and collect the communications of non-Americans "reasonably believed to be located outside the United States," even if their phone calls or e-mails passed through or were stored in the United States. But the agencies are required to adopt procedures to "prevent the intentional acquisition" of purely domestic communications and to minimize the retention and dissemination of such information.

It is true, as Mr. Feingold suggested, that Americans' communications with parties overseas could be monitored without any showing of cause -- but it is true, as well, that such warrantless monitoring is permitted under the original FISA so long as the collection is done overseas. In addition to the extra protections for Americans abroad, the special FISA court would have to approve the targeting and minimization procedures involving domestic surveillance to ensure that they are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the law. In addition, the measure prohibits so-called "reverse targeting" -- using the authority to intercept foreign communications without an individual warrant if the real purpose is to spy on a "particular, known person" in this country. This hardly seems unfettered.

Moreover, the legislation provides for enhanced oversight by Congress and inspectors general. It reiterates that the legislation is the "exclusive means" by which the president is authorized to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance on U.S. soil -- preventing, we hope, a repeat of the Bush administration's end-run around the statute. The legislation is far preferable to two likely alternatives -- returning to the outdated strictures of the original FISA or returning to the overly lax authorities of the now-expired Protect America Act, last year's flawed FISA rewrite.

[ixion]

1. I can see that this author has just come from

the Kool-Aid® water cooler. The air of delusion reigns mightly o'er his thought processes.

[rhett o rick]

2. Yes, freedom is so overrated. nm

[Captain Hilts]

3. The WashPost op-ed page is very conservative and pro-Iraq War.

And hired Michael Gerson.

They've no clout with me and I've cancelled my subscription.

[gateley]

4. Feingold just this minute said -- that although there have been a couple

of 'gives' - the bill itself is EXPANDED!

Leahy is up now.

http://cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

[bemildred]

5. WaPo is just spouting propaganda as usual.

A charter member of the Mighty Wurlitzer.

Maybe the public should to have a say in whether these concerns are overblown.

[babylonsister]

6. Agreed, this is one person's opinion. That's the nature of

an editorial, but it's not a bad thing to read another POV, however twisted it might be.

[bemildred]

8. I am not suggesting not posting it Sis.

I've been known to post such things myself. "Know your enemy" and all that; plus sometimes it can be amusing to watch the verbal contortions and distortions.

[On the Road]

7. I Think It's Fascinating

That when a substantive article with specific claims comes out defending the bill, no one can address any the claims. That is very telling.

[bemildred]

9. The editorial pretty much refutes itself.

It is full of caveats, weasel words, and confessions of ignorance about the government's voyeurism. But more to the point, the US government does not follow it's own laws as it is, a fact that the Bushites have made repeatedly and abundantly made clear in myriad ways; so picking apart the details of another law whose primary purpose it to propagandize the public rather than to control policy is a waste of time. In fact that is one of the primary purposes of the law, to distract the public from the fact that there is no rule of law at the federal level, they do whatever they want and are accountable to no legal process.

[On the Road]

10. The Caveats and Weasel Words,

make it a better characterization that the sweeping generalizations. It is by no mean an ideal bill.

It is absolutely true that Bush has broken the law. The anger at that is more appropriately directed at the lack of prosecution rather than at passing a revision.

The alternative of not passing the bill is either (1) assuring that Bush will continue to violate the law in three weeks when the current one expires, or (2) stop the types of terrorist surveillance covered by the bill. You don't have to be paranoid about al Qaida to realize that's a bad outcome, both for security and political reasons.

You're reading a lot into the actions of a lot of people to conclude that the whole amendment is a sham designed to fool the public.