House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping Extension 342
An anonymous reader writes "The House of Representatives voted 227-183 to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow warrantless wiretapping of telephone and electronic communications. The vote extends the FISA amendment for six months. 'The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency's ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals "reasonably believed to be outside the United States." Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congres.'"
poster...post right (Score:2, Informative)
"The House of Representatives voted 227-183 to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow warrantless wiretapping of telephone and electronic communications."
But the first Sentence of the story you linked to reads
"The House handed President Bush a victory Saturday, voting to expand the government's abilities to eavesdrop without warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States."
That last part about "warrants on foreign suspects whose communications pass through the United States" is SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT!!!
You made it read as if the pres got full permission to wiretap anybody without a warrant which is completely wrong. Instead of omitting the parts that you don't like, be honest and include them.
mod parent down (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FISA allows permission three days later already (Score:5, Informative)
First, the basics of "FISA". FISA is a statue meant to govern how and when government agencies may gather FOREIGN intelligence. FISA warrants are warrants issued by FISA-established courts authorizing the government to wiretap or survey individuals or phone numbers. A FISA warrant cannot be issued on domestic communications, since American residents and citizens are (yes, still) covered by the United States Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. So, to boil it down,
Second, warrantless wiretaps are and will always be legal (and constitutional) when both ends of the communication are outside the United States, not American citizens, and no part of the communication is routed electronically through the territorial US. Why? Because such people and communications are utterly outside the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. Think of it this way, should the US have to get a warrant (FISA or otherwise) to intercept a satellite phone conversation between Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri in Pakistan? What jurisdiction does a US court have to rule on that matter? Answer: None.
Third, the legislation in question was needed and rushed in before Congress goes on vacation because of a new ruling by a FISA judge, which had the effect of overruling the NSA's previously established powers under FISA. In other words, a judge decided in a new ruling to overturn the way things had been previously been done. This had the effect of placing our intelligence community in <a panic because it effectively crippled our ability to intercept foreign communications. See this Newsweek article for more info. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20075751/site/newswee
Fourth, the legal issue at hand. The brand new FISA judge ruling concerned the issue of when you know one end of the conversation is foreign, but you don't know where the other one is. In other words, should an unknown second party be assumed to be American or in the US for purposes of foreign intelligence? The new ruling said yes, but previous rulings had said no. For more info on this, see the LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la
The concern of the intelligence community was that given the current advanced state of technology and the ability to mask identities, the ruling effectively destroyed the ability of the US to wiretap ANY communication where one side was anonymous.
Maybe that's what some people here on Slashdot want, which is fine to argue. But I hope the discussion is at least conducted soberly and with some attachment to the actual difficult legal and national defense questions at hand.
Re:And The Reason Is (Score:2, Informative)
The reason that this bill is so insidious is that it appears reasonable at a glance, but it greatly expands the power of the executive and allows for the surveillance of almost anyone. In section 105A of the statute, it redefines "electronic surveillance," and allows for any surveillance which is "directed" against a person overseas. It does not require that one of the parties in the email/phone call actually be overseas, merely that the surveillance be directed against someone overseas. Here, from the actual text of the Orwellian-named "Protect America Act of 2007":
"`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them. .
The key point is that the information need only concern persons reasonably believed to be outside the US. For example, if I were to send you an email from Rhode Island to Massachusetts, in which I discussed Osama Bin Laden, my email would be fair game under the act because it concerns a person (OBL) reasonably believed to be overseas. This would still violate the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 because it is obviously a domestic wiretap. But Bush & Co. thought of this, so they inserted section 105(A) right in the beginning of the Protect America Act of 2007! It reads as follows:
"Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
You may notice that further down in the PAA of 2007, the following:
"SECT5: (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 105 the following:
105A. Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States."
The above merely points out the obvious modification of FISA--section 105A already technically modified it. So FISA has been modified by the act (obviously) and "electronic surveillance" is redefined to mean any surveillance directed against someone overseas. Think about that for a few minutes. The language change is substantial.
The statute effectively repeals the 4th Amendment (although this is not possible; a statute cannot repeal an amendment to the Constitution) because it provides for secret violation of the 4th Amendment. The government is not required to notify the person under surveillance; combined with the Military Commissions Act of last year, this statute gives the government carte blanche to secretly wiretap any person in the United States, even two citizens, and to secretly disappear them to Gitmo or anywhere else. The act is unconstitutional, but it can never be challenged; by the time someone is notified that they are under surveillance, they are already in an orange jumpsuit being tortured in an overseas concentration camp.
History should tell us that secret surveillance of an entire population, combined with extraordinary rendition and overseas camps run by government intelligence services which openly use torture to extract confessions is a recipe for disaster. But both parties in Congress are motivated only by Realpolitik considerations of re-election and fund raising. The state of the Union is secondary to their personal considerations and the
Re:poster...post right (Score:5, Informative)
The opportunity for judicial review is minimal, but Lofgren overstates the matter by saying that there are no checks and balances at all.
Re:Every one of these idiots should be shot... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Remember Democrats are the Majority (Score:5, Informative)
There are 435 seats in the house of representatives. Of these, 410 voted. To gain a majority from those voting, they required 206 votes. The Republican party controls 202 seats, meaning that if they had voted en bloc, they only needed 4 Democrats to vote with them in order to win. I haven't seen the exact break down of voting for this act, but it's entirely possible that 202 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted for this bill, and 183 Democrats voted against it.
The Democrats only control congress if they all agree. It doesn't take many dissenters to lose that control. We've seen this a few times here in the UK where the party on government has had a very small majority; they've failed to get acts passed because one or two members of their own party decided to abstain, letting the other two parties get the majority vote.
'Protect America Act' adds a big loophole (Score:3, Informative)
He had this power before, but he had to swear on oath the truth about the spying, now he can swear a lie on oath and simply claim he was misinformed or the evidence given to him was incomplete.
The new wording is this:
"`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--"
The old wording was this:
"(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at--
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; "
Re:poster...post right (Score:3, Informative)
1. If, the suspect ever said anything bad about me, President Bush or "tricky" Dick Cheney,
2. Or, the suspect has ever filed a petition to challenge the legality of the warrentless surveillance,
3. Or, I, President Bush, "tricky" Dick Cheney, or the editorial board at Fox News really want the warrentless serveillance to be approved,
4. Then, approval for warrentless surveillance on the suspect is to be approved.
Re:mod parent down (Score:3, Informative)
DEM: 41 yea, 181 nay. REP: 186 yea, 2 nay. (Score:2, Informative)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml [house.gov]
Up to 72 hours later. (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it does. And that warrant may be applied for up to 72 hours AFTER the event.
You continue to ignore that. Because it invalidates your entire position.
The traffic HAS to cross the US. This isn't about anything we pick up from Echelon or whatever. So it's already a sub-set of everything out there.
The traffic HAS to be from or to a suspected terrorist. So it's even a smaller sub-set of the sub-set.
And a warrant is allowed up to 72 hours AFTER the event.
You keep claiming that. Yet you have been unable throughout all you posts to explain how it is "crippled" (your word).
They can still tap it. The tap can still happen. There is nothing saying they cannot tap it.
There is no "crippled" as you like to claim.
Fascism begins when the efficiency of the Government becomes more important than the Rights of the People.
Re:Every one of these idiots should be shot... (Score:4, Informative)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml [house.gov]
Re:poster...post right (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like the naive Bush cheerleaders in the Democrat controlled house? I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but I think ignoring the fact that both parties are at least ok enough with it to get it passed worries me somewhat. The Democrats, if they had a backbone, could've stopped it.
Democrats will not protect your freedom either (Score:3, Informative)
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend.
We are still in Iraq and there is no end in sight. Rather than having the backbone to bringing the measure to withdraw back to the floor again and again to push it through, and continue to push their campaign promises in the media, they have effectively given up on the issue, whining to their supporters and the media that it is too hard.
And now these Democrats are actively working with this administration, the same administration they told us is the most corrupt and secretive in history, to sell out yet more of our freedoms, to give yet more power to this president and the executive branch.
They are, our representatives, nearly every one of them, pathetic, spineless, schmucks. They have betrayed us all once again.
And it should come as no surprise, because these are the same Democrats and Republicans who sold us out by writing the president a blank check in Iraq. The same Democrats and Republicans who sold out our liberties by signing onto the biggest forfeiture of our liberties since the establishment of this nation. The same Democrats and Republicans who proudly signed the bill granting retroactive immunity to prosecution for every military and government agent who has tortured, kidnapped, and committed atrocities in our name.
We must act now to take back our liberties, our dignity, and our good name in the world; it is the most important cause of this age. If 2008 leaves us with Giuliani, Hillary, McCain, Obama, Romney, or any of their ilk in office, we will see more of the same and worse, and it will be too late. It will be too late to restore the freedoms that have been stolen from us. 2012 will come and go, and the robbery of the patriot act and the legacy of this administration's unprecedented executive power grab will be solidified in our nation's history and in the public conscience.
If you do not act now, what has been taken from us will never be restored, and your children's children will look back upon this generation, if there is freedom enough to look at all, as the generation that finally lost it all, lost that for which the blood of countless patriots was shed, and November 4th 2008 as the day the Republic finally died.
It is only the office of President of the United States of America that can save us from this fate. And in this battle, Freedom has one final front. Your help is urgently needed this very week. Is your freedom worth even an hour of your time? Now is your opportunity to prove it. You must sign up today. Mission information will be emailed to you directly. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/events/iowa-straw-poll
Re:Up to 72 hours later. (Score:1, Informative)
That is just plainly false. Quoting from the bill:
(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign
intelligence information from or with the assistance of a
communications service provider, custodian, or other person
(including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified
person of such service provider, custodian, or other person)
who has access to communications, either as they are
transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is
being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;
You really should read the legislation. It is not that long.
That is neither the intent nor wording of the law. So no, I don't believe that the law, either in letter or spirit, allows any of the slippery slope you describe.
I have been quoting from the legislation. If there is wording in the law that supports your position, I would be happy to look at it. Your proclamations that the law says something absent any quotations from that law are unpersuasive.
Re:Sheepocrats (Score:5, Informative)
Chances are your congressional Democrats voted against the measure, unlike a single Republican senator and only two Republican representatives.
Democrats currently have 49 votes in the Senate (Senator Johnson from South Dakota is still out sick). That's 11 votes shy of passing legislation -- you need 60 votes to defeat Republican filibusters -- and 18 votes shy of overcoming a Bush veto of any nonevil legislation.
The 41 House Democrats [house.gov] who voted for this measure disgust me -- but 181 Democrats voted no. (Republicans? They rushed to destroy the Fourth Amendment by a vote of 186 to 2.)
In the Senate, the goddamned Republicans were unanimously in favor of this bill. Sixteen goddamned Democrats joined them [yahoo.com], and if any one of them represents you I hope you consider it your duty to let them know early, often, and loudly how ashamed you are of them.
But the other 27 Democrats, joined by all zero of their nonevil Republican colleagues, voted against this horrible law.
Am I sick with anger about this? Sicker than you -- but I'm also angry about this "Democrats are totally useless" crap. Don't like how thin and impotent the congressional Democrats are? Don't like how imperfect their leadership is in the face of nearly total Republican evil? Fine, neither do I -- but I think it's a bit less counterproductive to dwell on monolithic Republican evil than the Democrats' failure to achieve omnipotence in the last election, won't you?
I posted five angry letters to congresspeople (and two big thank yous to my good Democratic senator and my good Democratic congressperson) before I came posting to Slashdot. What did you do?