Sorry Folks, Obama HASN'T Failed Us on FISA

[berni_mccoy]

He hasn't.

There hasn't even been a vote yet. Obama has only made a statement that he supports passing the current legislation. He's doing what he is supposed to be doing. Voting with his conscience. He has listened to his constituency. He has considered the evidence that we are not privy to. He has explained his position. He's even said it's not a Bill that he would author. But it's enough of a compromise.

Does this mean we have to agree with him? No. Does this mean it's ok to feel that he's wrong? Yes.

But has Obama failed us? If you believe that, then you have not considered what it is like to be Obama. You have not put yourself in his position. And you are not giving your leader the benefit of the doubt.

Obama has proven he has what it takes to be a great leader. If he were President, I guarantee the current FISA bill would not be an issue. And that's what this is all really about.

As another poster has said here:

"Keep on keeping on. Keep working to get in as many REAL progressives in Senate and Congressional seats as humanly possible. Keep educating the public. Keep protesting. Keep speaking out."

But don't jump to the conclusion that our leaders are failing us. They need more help than they are getting from us. That much is clear.

[John Q. Citizen]

There was a vote on cloture, and Obama wasn't there, even though he pledged to help filibuster

any bill that contained telecom immunity.

You can call that fine if you want, but please present the facts as they actually happened.

Obama's switch has made a significant amount of people reconsider the help they have already been providing to the campaign.


I personally feel the bill in front of the Senate isn't worth voting for and it's worth working hard to defeat it. I wish Obama hadn't first taken a different position and then switched to this.

I feel it's both a mistake for the country and a mistake for his campaign.

[AdHocSolver]

10. Repeat after me! "Obama is NOT Superman."

He is ONE out of 100 Senators. I have NO doubt that the Senate Democratic Party leadership put considerable pressure on him not to make them look like the sellouts that they are.

The Democrats in Congress sold us out and, if you want to rant about it, complain about them. We still have to ensure that we put a Democrat in the White House in January, 2009. There are still plenty of Democrats in the Party who would sell us out come November.

Obama is walking a fine line here. Cut him some slack!

[John Q. Citizen]

19. So all Senators lie and so does Obama is what you are saying? I don't think that helps him out.

Making excuses is bad politics, it's bad for the campaign.

If he needs to have slack cut for him in order to win, then perhaps you think he's too weak to do it based on his issues and his character?

See, I think you hurt him far worse than I do by speaking my mind. I think you hurt him much worse by trying to make apologies for him out of fantasy scenarios that you have absolutely no way of knowing about. What evidence do you have that the leadership put pressure on him? None, right? It's all just your fantasy.

Well, I think your fantasies are hurting Obama. How do you like that? So cut him some slack and quit making up stuff.

If you care to argue facts, fine. If you want to argue fantasy, well good luck.

[midnight]

1. So badly I want to agree with your statements. I want to

know that come November this oppression will wind down. But if Senator Obama even suggests that this bill is a comprimise, he is voting for it. The FISA Amendments Act is a wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights. Every call or email coming in to or out of the U.S. could be tapped – including the calls and emails of innocent Americans – with minimal to no court oversight. This is an oppressive vote if Senator Obama votes for it.

While congressional leaders are trying to paint this as a “compromise” bill, the truth is, it’s a colossal failure of leadership. The only things that have been compromised are the Constitution and the rule of law. No president should have unchecked powerhttp://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/35872res20080701.html

[berni_mccoy]

2. I do not agree that this Amendment is a "wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights"

That is simply not true. If you studied the Amendment, you would realize that.

Any lawmaker who makes that statement is doing it for political reasons.

[merh]

58. exactly

Most folks miss the obvious, even if it gives immunity as alleged (which I don't see as immunity, but as defined in the bill, statutory defenses which must be established by "substantial evidence provided to the court",) the key thing is the time span covered in provision 802.

‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

The illegal monitoring began BEFORE September 11, 2001, shortly after GWB took office.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3570855#3584863

[inna]

9. EXACTLY, Midnight.

not a "compromise", a "cave in".

epic fail, to say the very least.

[rpannier]

22. I'm with you Midnight

Thanks for the link

[On the Road]

33. My Reading of the Bill

is that is not exactly that "every call or email coming in to or out of the U.S. could be tapped."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304

In Sec. 702, it appeared to me that first an overseas non-citizen is targeted for surveillance as a terrorism suspect. In the course of that, any call originating overseas to a US citizen could be monitored by filing for a warrant with the FISC within seven days.

Is that an incorrect understanding of what it does? Is there another provision that is causing more difficulty?

[CTLawGuy]

62. I agree

I don't get, other than the immunity provision, why everyone is so furious about this bill. It provides for judicial review, and it is limited to international communications - which have questionable 4th amendment protection to begin with. See US v. Ramsey, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=431&invol=606

All I want is a check and balance to make sure the gov't is not abusing the wiretaps and this seems to do the trick. Now, I'm no fan of the immunity, but neither is Obama.

[Joe Fields]

3. Sorry. Doesn't pass the smell test.

We need some real leadership on this, and his stance isn't helping us or him.

[berni_mccoy]

4. Like many here, you are wrapped up in a false frenzy that this bill is an attack on the Constitution

Which it is not.

[bowens43]

7. It certainly is an attack on the Consitution and our freedom.

[inna]

11. quit being an appeaser, it doesn't hep anyone. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

13. The ACLU says it is. So does Dodd, Sanders, Leahy, Biden, Boxer, Kerry,

Durbin, John Dean, and a bunch of other folks.

bush likes this bill. So do the telecoms and their lobbyists. No body else says they like it, even those voting for it.

Those voting for it say, "It's not as bad as the last one."

[berni_mccoy]

14. Then explain to me, in your own words, how this is "an attack on the Constitution"

[John Q. Citizen]

25. It allows collection and retetion of information on law abiding Americans with little to no oversite

from the courts.

It undermines the implicit right to privacy that the court found as a major basis for Roe v Wade.

The government needs probable cause to get a warrant. When you don't need a warrant and there is no probable cause, then it pretty well undermines the constitution. Wouldn't you say?

[berni_mccoy]

29. I'm glad you admitted below that you hadn't read it.

Because you are seriously ill-informed as to what this Amendment actually does.

[John Q. Citizen]

41. bush read it though? The ACLU didn't? Neither did Sanders? Dodd? Biden?

I read part of it, but when I saw would have to access many other codes, laws, and committee reports, that's when I decided I didn't 5 or 6 hours to wade through the 166 pages and all the referenced law at other locations.

I'm glad you are able to get all the other material quick and easy, and that your analysis is superior to the ACLU's and to Kerry, and Boxers, but I don't buy it.

I'm going with the tried and true, not with some anonymous poster who claims to have a better interpretation than everybody else.

I saw people on this site trying to claim that the bill as written doesn't provide immunity from civil suits for crying out load. So you know, given that I myself am not an attorney, I'm going with the folks I trust. Even the people I've read who try to defend this bill all say 'I wouldn't have written it like this, etc.'

So it's not like anybody anywhere thinks it's a great bill as written.

A majority of the House Dems voted against it. I don't think it's all that difficult to get a very good idea as to why it's bad policy.

[woolldog]

40. This is already happening w/o the FISA amendment!

There was already non-particularized surveillance of a broad swathe of communications to or from the US. This type of surveillance has never been subject to FISA unless it's conducted using domestic telco infrastructure. The easy way around that was just to collect those communications outside the US. The new bill just says that in conducting this surveillance the government can now use the domestic telco infrastructure to collect those communications without necessarily implicating FISA.

Any particularized sureveillance will require a warrant if it involves a US person, whether that US person is in the US or abroad.

[CTLawGuy]

66. searches legal under the 4th amendment without a warrant OR probable cause

1. airports,
2. subways,
3. children's school lockers,
4. drug testing of customs agents in drug enforcement or who carry firearms,
5. DUI roadblocks,
6. persons at national borders,
7. pat downs of persons police believe to be armed and dangerous,
8. searches of persons (or car passenger compartments from which the person was arrested) right after a lawful arrest,
9. searches of items impounded by the police, conducted according to procedure, in order to safeguard property,
10. gov't employees' workspaces, by employer
11. contraband found in plain sight
12. searches of your garbage on the curb
13. dog sniffs of your person/car/luggage
14. flyovers of your open land
15. conversations (telephone/in person or otherwise) with people where one consents to being bugged.
16. information about you held by ANYONE else (bank accounts, phone records)
17. areas or containers of yours, that others have lawful access to and who consent to let police search (unless you are there to object).
18. mail going over or coming over a national border

the 4th amendment is a reasonableness test, and if #18 is any indiciation, it could have limited applicability to international phone calls.

[mix]

64. willful ignorance

eom

[bowens43]

5. It's not compromise, it's capitulation

If his conscience tells him to support legislation that is a blatant violation of the Constitution , then we are in deep shit.

[AZBlue]

6. But they are supposed to do all the work while we

sit around and criticize them!
:sarcasm:

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. It is not a compromise; it is a cave-in

And a vote for it is a vote against the Constitution, therefore a violation of any Senator's or Representative's oath of office to support and defend the Constitution, therefore malfeasance if not treason.

Obama has expressed his intent to violate his oath of office. If he actually does cast such a vote.... We will know tomorrow how many Democrats are traitors. I sincerely hope that Obama is not one of them.

[davidpdx]

12. It's funny Bernie my friend

how quickly some have jumped on the demonizing bus to mow down Obama. There are three or four people on here that continue to bash him about FISA. I have no problem with decent, but bashing our nominee is wrong. Demonizing our nominee is wrong. Making your voice heard and bashing him are two different things. It's time to put a stop to this shit.

[skooooo]

15. I agree...

I thought during the 2004 election, there was some control over the constant bashing of Kerry that went on. Can't remember exactly how it was done, but it was never this bad then.

[Joe Fields]

17. I see that the irony of your position is completely lost on you.

The mindless, uncritical lionizing of leaders is the kind of enabling that gets this country in a lot of trouble.

[skooooo]

18. Yeah I'm mindless...whatever.

[berni_mccoy]

20. Joe, have you actually read the Amendment?

Just asking.

[Joe Fields]

21. Naturally. I have a curious mind.

I have read it, and I've listened to experts, read many articles on it, and must agree that it is not only a bad and dangerous bill, but it is totally unnecessary.

The fact that Bush is pushing for it should be a clue for all who haven't read it.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. 116 pages. With lots of references to other codes, laws, and committes reports. Did

you go read all the referenced material also?

That must have taken a long long time to do.

I relied on the ACLU, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Bernie Sanders, Pat Leahy, and Barbera Boxer. I've found them to be pretty reliable over time.

[berni_mccoy]

24. It doesn't take as long as you think to read the entire Amendment.

And I like to think for myself thanks. I happen to agree with the people and organizations you listed. But I still like to read the things that divide our party so severely and get the far left of the party ready to dismantle their nominee.

[John Q. Citizen]

26. I thought Kerry was rather strong on our nominee. Or did i miss something?

Our nominee contributed his own efforts to call his own good word into question by switching on FISA and immunity. As an Obama supporter, I think that's bad for his campaign, not good for it.

I think, as do the people I mentioned as well as many others, that the bill is bad for our country.

So of course I'm opposed to passing it, and of course I call anyone voting for it out on their vote. That's my job as a citizen.

[immoderate]

16. Maybe he'll skip this vote.

McCain can't say much because his attendance is the worst. I think he only voted 40% of the bills -- that's just a vague recollection of something.

--IMM

[Yukari Yakumo]

27. Almost everyone harps on the fact that the Telecoms gets immunity from civil suits...

However, they forget to notice it doesn't immunize them from criminal charges.

[Two Americas]

37. arbitrary distinction there

Citizens can bring civil suits. That is a key check on abuse of power. This arbitrary distinction is just a fig leaf. In many ways immunity from civil suits is worse. That makes the mountain much higher to climb. It is silly to think that the government would grant suspects immunity from criminal prosecution. So it is a red herring and a distraction.

[woolldog]

43. it seems strange to punish the telcoms

for capitulating to government pressure. Doesn't it make more sense to punish the government for putting pressure on the telcoms?

Weren't the telcoms assured that what they were being asked to do was legal?

[Two Americas]

57. I don't know

I don't even know what that means. We are trying to "punish the government," in the only ways that we can, but people here and in the leadership of the party keep telling us not to. One of the (few remaining, such as it is) avenues we have to get at the truth and hold people accountable is through the courts.

But no doubt all will walk and all will be covered up and we can all move on. Who are we to ask what the big players are doing, anyway? It is their country after all, and we are lucky they "let" us have choices and stuff. I don't think we should worry our silly little heads over this. The people in power know a lot more than we do about this, and they know what they are doing and don't need any interference from us nobodies.

Yeah I think that if Bush says torture is legal, then all are guilt-free and have done no wrong, because they were assured by the government that it was all legal. So whatever our leaders ask us to do, we should just do it, and we have no right to actually know what is going on. That would make us too difficult to govern.

I think that all of us little nobodies should shut up and stop rocking the boat. It isn't as though anything bad is going on or anything, and there really is nothing to worry about so we should stop being alarmists and purists and crybabies and whiners.

[TexasObserver]

60. You're right. That's also why it's NOT a fourth amendment issue.

The failure of many to comprehend the difference between granting civil immunity to telecoms and altering criminal law is obvious. They either don't get it, can't get it, or don't want to get it.

The fourth amendment is about government, not private, actions. The telecoms acted as agents of the government to violate the constitution, but it is the government, not the telecoms, who are responsible for those fourth amendment violations. The act to which objection is made (and I don't like it, either) is about limiting the exposure of telecoms to CIVIL damages in CIVIL cases by their customers for breach of contract and invasion of privacy. It doesn't have anything to do with the 4th amendment.

[NorthCarolina]

68. I think I'll take Jonathan Turley's interpretation which is in disagreement with your assessment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x155735

[TexasObserver]

69. You are ignoring the author of this thread

Sorry, I can't read the thread you want me to read, but if you'll quote Turley, I'll read it.

[NorthCarolina]

70. It was a link to the Jonathan Turley interview by Rachel Maddow

that is on DU's main page right now. If you haven't seen it then you may want to take a look. Not sure why the link didn't work but it's still on the main page.

[TexasObserver]

71. I'll take a look at it. I respect Jonathan. Wouldn't mind seeing him on the Court.

[TexasObserver]

72. Here's a link to the youtube of the Maddow interview of Turley

Here's a link to the youtube of the Maddow interview of Turley.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzvcWMbfAOI

Let me be clear. I don't want to see the telecoms get immunity from civil liability. I prefer to see them held accountable in civil cases. However, I see the telecom civil immunity issue to be a different from the issue of the CRIMES committed by the Bush administration, which crimes include requiring the telecoms to aid the Bush administration in violating the law.

The way the administration treated Qwest is sufficient evidence that the telecoms were effectively extorted or forced to comply with the Bush administration's demands.

Turley's read is that we are losing part of the 4th amendment protections by the passage of this bill, and he bases that upon his belief that the Bush administration acted criminally by using the telecoms as agents of the government to illegally obtain information against citizens. I don't disagree with Turley on that point. I disagree with him that the passage of telecom immunity is a bar to criminal prosecutions of the individuals who violated the 4th amendment rights of citizens, which is what the 4th amendment addresses, not civil liability against private concerns. Turley even admits that such prosecutions are possible nonetheless, but says the passage of telecom immunity lessens the likelihood of that action occurring. I agree with him on that point, as I have stated many times. I prefer that telecoms not get civil immunity, because I know that having trial lawyers conduct discovery in civil cases will reveal much wrongdoing directed by the government.

I hate the telecom immunity provisions, but I still don't see it as a fourth amendment issue. What the telecoms did at the behest of the government IS a 4th amendment issue, but immunity from civil lawsuits by the telecoms, private concerns, is not. But even the invasive acts of the telecoms were acts done as agents of the government, ergo, the acts of the government. I find the government to be responsible for the acts of the telecoms, and that responsibility to be both civil and criminal.

[vaberella]

28. You know what really gets me...

And this is completely putting the language of the bill aside. Is the fact that so many people are ready to say that Obama is some sort of "turncoat" and he's supporting a bill that denies us our civil liberties.

People, I'm just appalled. I'm really appalled and surprised. You'd think people who read up on Obama's background and history would know that the man built his career or protecting the people's civil rights in this nation. He made a point when he went into political office to do the same, which he did.

He even supported the courts in regards to the detainees because he wanted to uphold our constitution and now people are so ready to believe that Obama would pick a bill that would undermine his own beliefs and earlier actions. Actions that aren't even a month old. People are willing to completely think that Obama would willing take up a bill that would tarnish our civil liberties. Our Civil liberties first of all was already under check with the Patriot Act running around and causing havoc on people.

The FISA is not perfect, and this has been said ad nauseum however, we also have to realize that foreign threat is relevant. I live in New York and we're still being basically policed (or maybe it's my area because it's predominantly minority peoples), I'd rather see that toned down. However, I do think that we do have some threats to worry about and blowback is no joke considering what this administration has done for the past bloody 7.5 years.

FISA doesn't undermine the rights of the people and states clearly that information can not be solicited without warrants. This is what Bush did and why he broke the laws and why HE basically shitted on our civil liberties and the constitution.

[Two Americas]

30. his constituency

We are all his constituency now, in effect, to whom he should be listening, and we are saying exactly what we want him to hear. Why would you have a problem with that?

"Don't jump to the conclusion that our leaders are failing us?" Are you kidding? Have you been living in the same country as the rest of us the last few years? If this is not a case of "our leaders failing us" then I don't know what would be.

[berni_mccoy]

31. And he has listened, and responded to all of us. And as far as our DEMOCRATIC Leaders

They haven't been in a position to succeed. We don't even hold a majority in the Senate, so I'm not sure how you expect them to pass everything you want them too. What country have you been living in?

[vaberella]

32. Exactly.

[Two Americas]

34. whatever

We give them feedback without calculating whether we have a winning hand or not, nor assessing how popular our views might be, otherwise we never will have a winning hand. That is how a representative democracy works.

No, when you are bending over for the extreme right wingers you most definitely are not "in a position to succeed," so I agree with you there.

[berni_mccoy]

35. And I agree with you that we should continue to give our input

regardless of the outcome. This is why I'm still hopelessly for Impeachment. Even though I know it will never happen, and would not likely pass, I still think we need to keep screaming IMPEACH!

And I know Obama would probably oppose that as well. But I'm not going to tear him apart for it.

[Two Americas]

36. cool

We agree then.

[dailykoff]

38. "He has considered the evidence that we are not privy to. "

That's what they said about Iraq, that's what they said about 911. I'm sorry you've joined the neocons.

[grantcart]

39. two items that were not previously reported on the compromise is that

1) Congress will now have oversight responsibility for FISA/PAA where it was previously an exclusive Executive Branch operation with no Congressional oversight at all.

2) Americans travelling overseas now are protected against warrantless survelliance.

In the end Senator Obama and his 86% ACLU has my trust.

Finally even more important that getting a 100% ACLU proof package (which really isn't possible anyway) is getting control of appointments of prosecutors and judges because lazy judges and dishonest prosecutors are an even greater threat to the principles of the constitution than this compromised legislation.

Good job Berni

[dailykoff]

42. Wrong. The FISC and congress can review "certificates," not determinations.

The AG will have sole power to make and review determinations, which is a total violation of OUR CONSTITUTION, the 4th amendment of which requires PROBABLE CAUSE and a WARRANT to be issued BEFORE searches , seizures or surveillance of individuals. You are intentionally trying to deceive us about this criminal legislation in post after post. I don't want to know why.

[NattPang]

44. What do we have currently in place?

Do you know?

[dailykoff]

45. FISA, which is supposed to govern FOREIGN surveillance

but has been used as a handy figleaf to cover totally criminal surveillance of US citizens by the Bush spy operation, which got Congress to pass one its many cover-up-for-Bushco bills last year, the PAA, which expired in February. This latest "amendment" to FISA is basically a 4-year extension of the same bullshit.

[NattPang]

46. So if nothing happens,

what are the current rules?
Would there still be a FISA court?

[dailykoff]

48. Under current law the telecoms acted illegally,

as did the White House in ordering them too. Therefore they are legally liable, and they're understandably eager to make their crimes go away. I'm not.

[NattPang]

50. But what is the current law?

Are the FISA courts your problem
or the Telecom Immunity,
or Both, or what?

[dailykoff]

51. The current law is FISA and it doesn't allow what Bush did,

which is why he wants the amendment to make what he did legal. How can I explain that any more clearly for you?

[NattPang]

53. Didn't Bush circumvent the FISA Courts originally?

Wasn't that the whole problem to begin with?

[dailykoff]

55. Yes, that is indeed the problem.

You're catching on. :)

[grantcart]

47. Your diatribes are becoming quite boring

You never discuss anything on point and never have an authority

Here is my authority for the two points I raised Mr Morton Halperin a National expert on national security and civil rights
who was targeting as one of the top "Nixon enemies on Nixon's enemy list" - in the top 10 and was actually taped illegally by the FBI at the time

Here is his Wikipedia backround http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton_Halperin

Halperin holds a Ph.D. in International Relations from Yale University. He received his B.A. from Columbia College. With his first wife Ina Weinstein Young, he has three sons--David, Gary, and Mark Halperin, political analyst for ABC News, Time magazine and Time.com. He is married to Diane Orentlicher, professor of Law at American University. He is the brother of Daniel Halperin, the Stanley S. Surrey Professor of Law at Harvard.

A member of the Harvard Center for International Affairs, he authored the book Contemporary Military Strategy in 1967, where he defended "large-scale American bombing in South Vietnam" on the grounds that although it "may have antagonized a number of people" it nonetheless "demonstrated to these people that the Vietcong could not guarantee their security" -- thus "illustrat the fact that most people tend to be motivated, not by abstract appeals, but rather by their perception of the course of action that is most likely to lead to their own personal security". (141, qtd. in APNM, 56)

Halperin served in the Department of Defense in the 1960s as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and was dovish on the Vietnam War, calling for a halt to bombing Vietnam. When Nixon became president in 1969, Henry Kissinger, his new National Security Advisor announced Halperin would join the staff of the National Security Council. The appointment of Halperin, a colleague of Kissinger's at Harvard University in the 1960s, was immediately criticized by General Earle G. Wheeler, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; FBI director J. Edgar Hoover; and Senator Barry Goldwater.

Kissinger soon lost faith in Halperin. A front page story in The New York Times on May 9, 1969, stated the United States had been bombing Cambodia, a neutral country. Kissinger immediately called Hoover to find out who might have leaked this information to the press. Hoover suggested Halperin and Kissinger agreed that was likely. That very day, the FBI began tapping Halperin's phones at Kissinger's direction. (Kissinger says nothing of this in his memoirs and mentions Halperin in passing about four times.) Halperin left the NSC in September 1969 after only nine months but the tapping continued until February 1971. Halperin was also placed on Nixon's Enemies List.

He was a friend of Daniel Ellsberg. When Ellsberg was investigated in connection with the Pentagon Papers, suspicion fell on Halperin, who some Nixon aides believed had kept classified documents when he left government service. John Dean claimed that Jack Caulfield had told him of a plan to fire-bomb the Brookings Institution, Halperin's employer, to destroy Halperin's files.



Here is an excerpt of his statement of support for the legislation that was reported in depth in an earlier thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6469873

The fact is that the alternative to Congress passing this bill is Congress enacting far worse legislation that the Senate had already passed by a filibuster-proof margin, and which a majority of House members were on record as supporting.

What’s more, this bill provides important safeguards for civil liberties. It includes effective mechanisms for oversight of the new surveillance authorities by the FISA court, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and now the Judiciary Committees. It mandates reports by inspectors general of the Justice Department, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies that will provide the committees with the information they need to conduct this oversight. (The reports by the inspectors general will also provide accountability for the potential unlawful misconduct that occurred during the Bush administration.) Finally, the bill for the first time requires FISA court warrants for surveillance of Americans overseas.

As someone whose civil liberties were violated by the government, I understand this legislation isn’t perfect. But I also believe — and here I am speaking only for myself — that it represents our best chance to protect both our national security and our civil liberties. For that reason, it has my personal support.


As has been explained several times there are four parts of FISA


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 is a U.S. federal law prescribing procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" (which may include American citizens and permanent residents engaged in espionage and violating U.S. law: §1801(b)(2)(B)) on territory under United States control.<1>

FISA is codified in 50 U.S.C. ch.36.<1> The subchapters of FISA provide for:

1)Electronic Surveillance
2)Physical Searches
3)Pen Registers and Trap & Trace Devices for Foreign Intelligence Purposes
4)Access to certain Business Records for Foreign Intelligence Purposes



Warrants are required for surveillance although the new legislation now lifts the need for warrants for domestic to foriegn communication (which is indeed unfortunate) it does however expand protection to Americans overseas - where warrants were not previously required.

The certificates that you speak of have to do with requests for data base information from the telecoms (item 4 above) which, because they are not centered on a particular person but are looking for patterns of calls - and do not involve electronic intercepts do not fit a warrant - the investigators are searching for a pattern that might center on a person with suspicious calling patterns not focused on a particular person. These requests for information are determined by the certificates that you speak of and now fall under Congressional review. Warrants are issued by the courts and are not under Congressional review.


You speak in a confused mumbo jumbo and have taken over exclusive control over the lunatic fringe by supporting the complete elimination of all FISA courts. You cannot cite (despite a dozen requests) the support of a single major Democratic leader that supports your position to eliminate the entire FISA system. The only question left is why don't you stand on the principles that you have painted yourself into a corner with and renounce completely your support of Senator Obama for President?

[dailykoff]

49. Yawn. I got tired of baloney in fourth grade. (n/t)

[NattPang]

52. This is how you respond?

with a one sentence dismissal?

I am trying to learn more
about this FISA controversy,
and so far, you haven't really helped a lot.
You have made accusations,
called people out,
mentioned that this is a do or die thing,
but you have provided little information.

Please respond to that post in a way
where I might learn something.

Thank you.

[dailykoff]

54. Okay, let's say you've been in a coma for two weeks. I'd start here:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

[NattPang]

56. So it isn't the old 1978 FISA bill that at issue,

it is the changes that the Patriot Act
allowed to the original FISA procedures?

This is in the link you gave.
The USA Patriot Act, passed by Congress in 2001 and re-authorized in 2006, expanded FISA to allow the government to obtain the personal records of ordinary Americans from libraries and Internet Service Providers, even when they have no connection to terrorism. Recent amendments in the Protect America Act authorized the government to use FISA to get around the constitutional requirement that it show a judge that it has probable cause of involvement with a foreign country or terror group before it eavesdrops on a communication.

[berni_mccoy]

74. Don't bother responding to him. He chooses to remain uninformed.

You won't convince him.

[NattPang]

59. OK. I have researched this bill.

It isn't perfect,
But it isn't what
many people are saying
that it is.

[berni_mccoy]

61. Thanks for making the time and effort.

[mix]

63. how's it feel

to be on the same side as bush, cheney, mccain et al on one of the most destructive pieces of legislation to come out of congress in decades?

[berni_mccoy]

65. You should ask yourself that.

You haven't obviously read the bill, and you've let politics decide your thoughts and words.

You are simply parroting what you think is right, but not what you know is right. And that is what makes you the same as Bush's remaining 29%.

And for the record, I do not support the bill. I'm supporting Obama.

[mix]

67. that's a nuance that escapes me

despite your confusion, it is clear you are wrong about one thing: the bill is an attack on the constitution

[berni_mccoy]

73. Have you actually read the Bill?

Or are you just parroting the things you want to hear.

You are the one who is confused.