House Approves Warrantless Wiretapping Extension

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.'"

FISA allows permission three days later already

[Dr. Manhattan]

FISA allows them to do the wiretapping, and then get permission up to 72 hours later. How frivolous are their reasons that they can't even be arsed to get a retroactive warrant?

Re:Imagined responses to this

[vertinox]

I was excited at last November's election, but I've repented of it now. I'm neither Libertarian nor Constitutionalist, but I wouldn't hesitate to work with them to fix this. We need Greens in on this because nothing's safe when the whims of the rich trump the law. Most Americans are convinced that something's really wrong with this country, we're just not agreed on what exactly, but this is should be clear to everyone - we need the rule of law back.

If you really want change, hack the 2008 election by registering republican and vote Ron Paul [wikipedia.org] in your state primaries regardless of your political affiliation. He's the only 2008 candidate that has voted against the war Iraq and the Patriot Act. I don't agree with all his views, but after hearing him speak out against Giuliani during the debates I realized he knew what many of us had been thinking all along about what is happening in Washington and overseas for the past several decades.

Personally, I don't think he's got a chance in hell at this point, but its worth trying I figured... And even if he looses its better to have him running as the republican candidate and loose than rather than have Rudy or the others win. If he wins so much the better.

If you don't know who this guy is you should see the video of him at Google HQ [youtube.com] where they invited him to speak. He's quite against wire tapings, Patriot Act, and knows the real reason behind terrorism isn't because they hate our freedoms but rather our government foreign policy for the past 50 years.

(To be fair, he didn't vote in this particular bill for or against since he wasn't in DC because of the campaign but in 2001 he was one of the handful of people to actually vote against the original update)

foreigner are "people" too...!

[majid_aldo]

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.

remember, the constitution was supposed to be self-evident! why is wiretapping US citizens NOT OK while tapping foreigners OK?!?!?! what a great example of practicing your ideals.

Re:Imagined responses to this

[DavidTC]

For once, this isn't actually throwing your vote away, either.

Ron Paul is the only Republican who actually would have a chance of winning the general election. Anyone who thinks Giuliani or Romney can win the general election are entirely delusional, as both those are positioning themselves as Bush 2.0 to win the primary. You can't 'move outside for the primary, move to the center for the election' when moving back to the center in that time would require FTL travel.

In other words, thanks to the large disconnect between the 23% that still support Bush, and vote in the Republican primary, and the actual sane people who vote in the general election, a vote for Ron Paul is basically the only way to not throw your vote away in the Republican primary, as he's the only Republican that could possibly win.

However, thanks to the stupidity of people currently voting in the Republican primary, Ron Paul has almost no chance of winning it, and hence the Republicans will lose in 2008. A concentrated effort to stir up support among disgruntled Republicans might let him win, but most people stopped being Republicans when they lost their minds, and really have no interest in going back and trying to fix the problems.

Me? I'd like Ron Paul as president and a powerful Democratic Senate and House with enough people for a veto-override. But more in 2012 than in 2008, because there's some stuff that needs to be be done before then. I'd like Edwards in 2008, but odds are I will not have to pick between Ron Paul and a Democrat in the first place.

Re:huh?

[stinerman]

To be completely fair, only 41 Democrats voted for the measure. Two Republicans voted against.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that the Democrats control the House and should have insisted on more privacy safeguards. I really am starting to get tired of the Democrats calling foul on Bush administration law violations and then pass laws making the programs legal.

History has shown that when the Democrats throw away their focus groups and polls and start standing up for their beliefs, they do well. One day, they might find their collective spines. Don't hold your breath, though.

Re:Apparently not enough Democrats

[tom's a-cold]

Either way, we're getting a valuable lesson in two-party politics.

Tweedledum and Tweedledee. There is only one party, the corporate party. The so-called parties just represent different corporate factions within that party. There's going to have to be a lot more pushing back from the public before the Democrats will do anything. Even then it will be reluctant and half-assed. They're just playing good cop to the Republicans' bad cop. If you want to understand the Democrats, go back and learn about Kennedy's response to the civil rights movement. And in 45 years it hasn't changed much. This is not the party of real change. It's a party of mitigation and excuses. They're the PR shills for the ruling class; the Republicans are the goons with tire irons. But they ultimately serve the same interests.

Positive change will never originate from Washington. They will have to be dragged along, as always.

Re:Cost-benefit

[keeman]

> You see, snooping on the two people abroad was and remains legal

No, sorry, it is and always has been illegal. The fact that our Constitution is has been shredded through constant government propaganda against the bogeyman du jour, amendment 4 makes no exception to whether or not the target is inside the country (or in an airport, or on a public road in a car, or any of the other throusands of "exceptions" invented by would-be tyrants).

If the Feds want to search somebody or seize something, you get a warrant, in a public court with evidence presented for public scrutiny. This couldn't be more clear from the Constitution, or the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers. Yes, probably this would help the "terrorists", such as they are. The founders of this country understood this very well. They were more worried about secretive, power-mad government kind of government that we have had in various degrees since the Civil War.

They were worried about presidents starting wars.

They were worried about people getting thrown into turture dungeons with no legal recourse and without even being accused of anything.

They were worried about the the police arming itself to the teeth while banning weapons from the population.

They were worried that the government would confiscate property without going through open, public courts (drug-war confiscations, anyone?).

They were worried that the republic could not function if the government operates in secrecy.

In short, they were worried about real problems that have killed millions of people in the 20th Century. They were worried about this country becoming a Soviet Union, a Cambodia, a Red China, a Nazi Germany, an imperial Rome... They knew that the price of being trying become completely safe from threats like terrorism would come at a cost of joining these countries in tyranny. The fact that we are now talking about how we need to make greater concessions to our Constitutional protections to fight terrorists (body count 3000 odd, territory conquered: some crappy mountains in Afghanistan, notable weapons: pissed off people) than were "needed" to fight the Soviets (body count: millions, territory conquered: nearly half the world, notable weapons: enough nukes to pave the planet and the kind of army needed to roll through Europe in a week) shows exactly how this road is traveled down.

How can you have system where the country is ruled through power of decree by one man in total secrecy, with powers to disappear people at will, and no oversight whatsoever and NOT get a dictatorship after a few elections? Let's pretend Bush really IS a nice guy who we can trust with these powers. What happens when some psychopath like Hitler manages to get elected to hold that office(and he was).

> just remember, that Frank Delano Roosevelt

And if the the guy who did his best to create full governmental over the economy (bullying the supreme court into reversing itself on Constitutional decisions against it) thought it was ok, them who are we to argue?

Roosevelt the economic genius that managed to sustain a depression for more than 10 years, but somehow now gets credit for ending it although anyone proposing the kinds of policy he implemented will get laughed out of Econ 101.

Roosevelt the patriot who was actively plotting ways to get the Japanese to attack us (so that we could get into war with Germany, we didn't give a rip about the Chinese at the time) while campaigning on a platform of having done such an awesome job of keeping the country out of foreign wars.

Roosevelt the supporter of international democracy, who worked with Stalin to decide which countries got to have the pleasure of nearly a half-decade of Soviet occupation.

How anyone can use this guy as a positive example of how to be president will be for historians to scratch their heads over.

Scott