While dems are certainly being a bit spineless standing up to the criminal president. At least there is a sunset clause in the new legislation. And dems are introducing compromise to curb somewhat the damage of this bill. What the bill doesn't include, much to the administration's chagrin, is retroactive immunity for all the telecoms that (allegedly) helped the administration conduct warrant less surveillance during all the years the program remained secret. the compromise bill -- The RESTORE ACT: 1. Clarifies that No Court Warrant is Required to Intercept Communications of Non-United States Persons When Both Ends of the Communications are Outside the United States. 2. Requires an Individualized Court Warrant from the FISA Court When Targeting Persons in the United States. (Same as current law.) 3. Creates a Program of Court Authorized Targeting of Non-U.S. Persons Outside the United States. Grants the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) authority to apply to the FISA Court for an order to conduct surveillance of foreign targets, or groups of targets, for up to one year — but RESTORES the following checks and balances that were absent under the PAA: a. Court Review of Targeting Procedures. The FISA Court must review targeting procedures to ensure that they are reasonably designed to target only people outside the United States. In emergencies, the FISA Court review may take place after the surveillance has begun — for up to 45 days. DNI McConnell told Congress in September that he did not oppose FISA Court review of these targeting procedures. b. Court Review of Minimization Procedures. The FISA Court must review minimization procedures. DNI McConnell told Congress in September that he did not oppose FISA Court review of these minimization procedures. c. Court Review of Guidelines to ensure that, when the government seeks to conduct electronic surveillance of a person in the United States, the government obtains a traditional individualized warrant from the FISA Court. 4. Clarifies Ambiguous Language on Warrantless Domestic Searches. The bill clarifies and eliminates ambiguous language in the PAA that appeared to authorize warrantless searches inside the United States, including physical searches of American homes, offices, computers, and medical records. 5. A RESTORE ACT Authorization May Not Be Used to Target Any Known U.S. Person. If the government learns that the target of surveillance is a U.S. person (say, an American traveling abroad), it cannot use this new authority. 6. Limits Authority to Terrorism, Espionage, Sabotage, and Threats to National Security. The Administration’s bill allowed for surveillance for all foreign intelligence, including a broad category of information related to “foreign affairs.” This bill allows the Intelligence Community to deal with the threats facing the United States from terrorism, espionage, sabotage, clandestine intelligence activities, and to collect information related to the national defense or security of the U.S., without authorizing the collection on the broad category of “foreign affairs.” 7. Requires Quarterly Audits and Reports. Requires quarterly audits by the Justice Department Inspector General (DOJ IG) on communications collected under this authority and the number of U.S. persons identified in intelligence reports disseminated pursuant to this collection. These audits would be provided to the FISA Court and to Congress (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.) 8. Requires an Audit of the President’s Surveillance Program and Other Warrantless Surveillance Programs. This audit mandates a report and documents related to these programs be provided to Congress in unclassified form with a classified annex. 9. Requires Record-keeping of the Use of United States Persons Information. Mandates that the Executive Branch record every instance in which the identity of a United States person whose communication was acquired by the Intelligence Community is disseminated to an element or person within the Executive Branch and that it submit an annual report to Congress on the dissemination. 10. Adds Resources for FISA. Adds funding for personnel and technology resources at DOJ and NSA to speed the FISA process and to ensure that audits can be conducted expeditiously. 11. Reiterates the Exclusivity of FISA. Includes House-passed bipartisan Schiff-Flake language stating that FISA is the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection. 12. No Retroactive Immunity. The bill is silent on retroactive immunity because the Administration has refused to provide Congress with documents on the specifics of the President’s warrantless surveillance program. However, the bill does provide prospective immunity for those complying with court orders issued pursuant to this authority. 13. Establishes En Banc Review. Allows the FISA Court to sit en banc. The FISA Court requested this, and the Administration does not oppose it. 14. Provides Sunset, Transition Procedures and Report on PAA. Sunsets this new authority on December 31, 2009, when certain PATRIOT Act provisions sunset. However, the legislation will allow for a transition from the existing warrants to the new ones to ensure that the Intelligence Community does not go “dark” on any surveillance. The Administration will be required to submit a report on U.S.-person information collected and disseminated under the PAA authorities. http://thinkprogress.org/restore-act-summary/ I could live with that.
As a Constitution-loving conservative, I know I am butting in here .... apologies. However, whereas I do prefer a Congressionally-mandated procedure for these actions, I have not and do not see a problem here -- especially if the actions prevent people like mc mark, samfisher, newyorker, etc. from being removed by a 9-11-style terrorist. It's the pragmatic side of me winning over the idealistic side.
The only constitution-loving outspoken congress member is -- Ron Paul. He isn't really part of the abomination known as modern day GOP, but more of an one man army who is in his own league. The dem is running a circus that has not been entertaining for a year, what else is new.
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the two certifiable loons in the race ... just my opinon. But they are fun ... and funny .. kind of like that stripper in the California gubernatorial race.
You know the political system had went to hell when making sense and using words like 'constitution' makes you a loon. Guess what, if the seating president is a dem then you would had been screaming for small and open government, limited spending, and butt the heck out of unnecessary conflict. Oh, I would rather take my 0.001% chance of being perished than live in United State of Soviet Russia (new USSR). Thank you very much.
I don't see why allowing intelligence agencies the leeway to ease-drop on suspected terrorists communication is a bad thing. Certainly, steps must be taken to prevent abuses, but it's refreshing to see that there is a difference between democrats and the extreme liberals.
That's never been the issue as without this law the NSA and other agencies could they just had to get a warrant.
You're called crazy if you ever say your 'free' country is headed towards tyranny or a police state... but once it happens, don't say anything just shut up because if you say anything once it's too late then you are more than crazy you are arrested.
You're being a little melodramatic, but that's okay. My problem with Mike Gravel and Ron Paul is that they go off on wild rants every time they have the forum. Okay, I was being melodramatic by calling them certifiable loons, but they would help their causes immeasurably by slowing down to merely passionate rational discourse. I don't see the electorate being swayed by two candidates who are almost always on the verge of a nervous meltdown.
There is wide opportunity for abuse, I agree, but so much of intelligence nowadays is listening to "chatter" trying to pick up on terrorist activities. It's something to consider - how do we allow intelligence agencies to listen to "chatter" and pick up activities without allowing for abuse? Not sure a warrant will work for that.
I love Ron Paul, he is honest and very intelligent. He honors the US constitution to a fault, he is absolutely motivated by the best interests of the country and does not have any selfish ambition politically. He is compassionate and cares about people. He will not lie, nor will he hide anything unless it is vital to the national security of the nation. He will never say one thing in public and something else in private. His character and integrity is impeccable. He was my wife's OB gyn, his son and I worked together for years and I have spent lots of time with him discussing our government. He is the best candidate for president we have had in over 75 years and I will vote for him even though his chances are slim at best. He is sober, to the point of being boring, but he is not a loon. He is passionate about this country and if elected he will not let the bankers continue to gradually destroy our economy. Although in some ways we don't deserve a true statesman, an honest and unselfish leader; I do pray that through some miracle he gets elected. I really believe if you sat down one hour and discussed the issues with him personally you would vote for him. Might even put a sign in your yard.
That is all that I and others are asking. The warrants are those steps -- no one has even proposed steps to prevent abuse otherwise. And the laws were changed pre-Bush such that any difficulty obtaining warrants was reduced to virtually none -- in fact warrants can be obtained up to 30 days AFTER the surveillance takes place. But not only have no other steps been proposed to prevent abuse, the admin has never explained (and in fact has refused to explain) their reason for blowing off the warrants. The closest they have come is to say that they don't have time to obtain them before conducting the surveillance. That is clearly BS as they aren't even required to obtain them before but can get them after. If they are intent on violating the order of the FISA court, they should say why.
Do you have any documentation or something to back up that they aren't required to obtain warrants before doing the surveillance? And if they don't need to get the warrants beforehand, what difference does a warrant make anyway? So the NSA can listen in without a warrant, and then get one when they hear terrorist activity?
I don't have documentation. It's been posted here before. It's common knowledge and if search was on you could find it here. Otherwise you're welcome to google it. I'm not inclined to spend time searching for you. The difference a warrant makes, before or after the fact, is that all spying is subject to approval (even after the fact) by a secret court dedicated to oversight of such things. The point is oversight to avoid abuse.
What happens if a warrant is denied after surveillance is done? What's the reprecussions? And we haven't address what impact getting a warrant after the affect has. The concern is two fold. One one hand you don't want to limit the ability of the NSA to go after terrorists because they fear a judge may rule against them after the fact, which could cause them to lose thier job for instance. At the same time, you don't want them to abuse their power. Like I said, I don't have a problem with the NSA listening to "chatter" and searching for dangerous language. There is no right to privacy really. Illegal search and seizure was to prevent just that, illegal seizure. But if you believe you have privacy, well, I never fell under that spell. Does it affect my conversations? No. Because nothing I say is criminal.
