how-to block ads
|
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!
* Action Alert: Call Congress Now - NSA Spying Bill Headed
for Vote This Week!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that Congress may take
action this week on a bill that could rubberstamp the NSA's
spying program. The Bush Administration is trying to sell
its latest proposal as a serious compromise, but don't be
fooled -- it represents an unprecedented power grab that
endangers the checks and balances that define our
democracy. Please call your representatives now before it's
too late:
»action.eff.org/fisa
Contrary to the Administration's characterizations, its
"FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about updating the
law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign
communications. Instead, it could radically expand the
government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant.
On its own terms, this bill is awful, and it's highly
irresponsible for Congress to even consider it before
uncovering the truth about the still-shadowy spying
program. In recent weeks, Congress has made strides towards
more vigorous oversight and authorized subpoenas for key
information, but the proposed bill would short-circuit such
scrutiny.
Tell your representatives to stand strong against the
Administration and stop the abuse of surveillance powers:
»action.eff.org/fisa
"Bush Urges Congress to Update Terrorism Surveillance
Program," (Bloomberg, July 28):
»www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···refer=us
To learn about EFF's case against AT&T for its role in the
spying program:
»www.eff.org/legal/cases/att
For this post and related links:
»www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005382.php | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| »www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291704,00.html
"Democrats Optimistic on Terror Surveillance Compromise
WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders said Wednesday they want to expand the government's surveillance authority over suspected terrorists and get it done before going on recess at week's end. But they remain in a stalemate with President Bush over spending, with no signs of progress.
The administration is pushing to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow surveillance without a warrant of terror suspects who are overseas. The proposal, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is designed to fix what the White House says is a glaring problem: the missing of significant foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks.
"To the extent that more flexibility is needed, as Director McConnell has indicated, we are prepared to make those accommodations under the law," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after congressional leaders met with Bush at the White House Wednesday. "We hope to do that this week."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he, too, thought the matter would be worked out. But he would not predict timing, as Pelosi did.
"In the Senate, I don't promise any legislation," Reid said. He said the hang-up is "what the involvement of the attorney general will be."
Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have openly questioned the truthfulness of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom they also accuse of helping Bush exploit executive power at the expense of civil liberties and possibly beyond the law on an array of matters.
The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he saw bipartisan willingness to get the legislation done before the Congress goes into recess.
The White House responded with measured optimism.
"I think they understand and appreciate the importance," Bush spokesman Tony Snow said of Democratic leaders. "We will see."
The administration believes the FISA court under existing law must approve certain spying because many conversations and contacts taking place overseas are routed through U.S.-based communication carriers, satellites or Internet providers.
Its latest proposal is narrower than what the administration sought in April: a slew of changes to the 1978 FISA law.
That law created a court which meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the NSA and other agencies to investigate suspected spies, terrorists or other national security threats. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without requiring a warrant beforehand from the FISA court — on calls between people in the U.S. and others overseas when terrorism is suspected.
After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush earlier this year put it under FISA court supervision."
=========================================
People - this FISA "modernization" act is a sham that absolutely MUST be stopped. It is simply a massive increase in the governments' ability to ILLEGALLY spy on legitmate, legal citizens and will give the government retroactive cover and blessing for all the spying already done.
PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS (BOTH OF THEM!) - TODAY!
»action.aclu.org/site/R?i=wLTy2l1···uswh0cAg..
Pete | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| »www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/···dex.html
"Spy chief: Anti-terrorist programs MORE EXTENSIVE THAN ACKNOWLEDGED
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration's anti-terrorist surveillance efforts are more extensive than top officials have acknowledged, going beyond the controversial no-warrant eavesdropping program, the U.S. intelligence chief said Tuesday."
....
"In a letter defending the embattled attorney general, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell states that eavesdropping is JUST ONE of the programs President Bush authorized after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
"This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been fully acknowledged," McConnell wrote."
============================================
What's it gonna take, people, before you finally realize that the government wants to - quite literally - stick a microphone and a videocam up your ass and RECORD YOUR WHOLE LIFE so that you can wind up being a "file" in some super-secret government agency?
FIGHT IT! They're behind on "1984" - but they're doing their level-best to catch up and SURPASS that! Pete | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to spy1
(The following are qoutes from the UN-classified version of the "modernization" act - there is also a CLASSIFIED version, which of course, we'll never get to see or know the details of...) -
»www.usdoj.gov/nsd/pdf/ODNIintell···3-07.pdf
(First brief mention of "cover my ass")
‘‘(h) LIABILITY.—No cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section."
(MAIN ***RETROACTIVE*** "Cover my ass"):
SEC. 408. LIABILITY DEFENSE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. This section shall apply to all actions, claims, or proceedings pending on or after the effective date of this Act. | |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| reply to spy1
This is their own explanation of Section 408:
"Sec. 408. Liability Defense.
Telecommunications providers who are alleged to have assisted the government with intelligence activities after September 11th have faced numerous lawsuits as a result of their alleged activities in support of the government’s efforts to prevent another terrorist attack. Companies that cooperate with the Government in the war on terror deserve our appreciation and protection – not litigation. This provision would protect providers from liability based upon allegations that they assisted the government in connection with alleged classified communications intelligence activities intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. Section 408 also provides for the removal of any such actions from state to federal court."
This totally defeats ALL previous, current and FUTURE lawsuits against AT&T and similar telcos who have been handing over your phone calls and Internet activities to the government illegally - INSTANTLY.
Hope you're down wid dat. Pete | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
 ·Digizip
| reply to spy1
said by spy1  :* Action Alert: Call Congress Now - NSA Spying Bill Headed for Vote This Week! House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that Congress may take action this week on a bill that could rubberstamp the NSA's spying program. The Bush Administration is trying to sell its latest proposal as a serious compromise, but don't be fooled -- it represents an unprecedented power grab that endangers the checks and balances that define our democracy. Please call your representatives now before it's too late: » action.eff.org/fisaContrary to the Administration's characterizations, its "FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about updating the law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, it could radically expand the government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant. On its own terms, this bill is awful, and it's highly irresponsible for Congress to even consider it before uncovering the truth about the still-shadowy spying program. In recent weeks, Congress has made strides towards more vigorous oversight and authorized subpoenas for key information, but the proposed bill would short-circuit such scrutiny. Tell your representatives to stand strong against the Administration and stop the abuse of surveillance powers: » action.eff.org/fisa"Bush Urges Congress to Update Terrorism Surveillance Program," (Bloomberg, July 28): » www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···refer=usTo learn about EFF's case against AT&T for its role in the spying program: » www.eff.org/legal/cases/attFor this post and related links: » www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005382.php Thanks for the heads-up! Called Feinstein's office to urge her to vote down any expansion or extension of the F.I.S.A. court authority, or the CYA provisions of this proposed legislation. I'm sure it fell on deaf ears, but I feel better.
Sorry your post wasn't turned into a front page item as it should have been. | |
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
moderated:
August 5th, @07:24AM
| reply to spy1
Dark day for Americans...
The Senate voted to pass the FISA Modernization bill with little alteration from the White House bill submitted.
»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_···eillance
...and, apparently, nobody gives a shit.
edit: it was the Senate, not the House. The House gets its arm twisted off today. | |
SUMware
Premium
join:2002-05-21
| From the linked article: quote:
By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted. It requires:
_Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The administration relented to Democrats leery of Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight.
_FISA Court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and conclude within a month of the surveillance starting
_The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House initially wanted the bill to be permanent.
Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.
"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy — not the executive branch."
Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.
"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control — it's mind-boggling."
It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days of rejecting White House offers.
And how long ago was Orwell's book published?
And how many of us supposedly read it? | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 | reply to spy1
Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!
We should be happy because now terrorists cannot kill us. Take that Osama!!  | |
OZO
Premium
join:2003-01-17 | reply to spy1
With this kind of attitude what Osama can't do to us - we'll do it to yourself. It's a matter of the time 
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself... | |
GILXA1226
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-29
London, OH
clubs:
| reply to spy1
Wasn't one of the compromises made with this bill that it dies in 6 months? That it was basically a stop gap so Congress could take their summer vacation? Or when I read that somewhere was the article mistaken?
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O! | |
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
 ·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
edit:
August 4th, @11:06AM
| said by GILXA1226 :Wasn't one of the compromises made with this bill that it dies in 6 months? That it was basically a stop gap so Congress could take their summer vacation? Or when I read that somewhere was the article mistaken? I don't know what's wrong with the *guberment*, wanting to bring our security methods up to date and out of the 1970's. Why would we possible want to listen into terrorist conversations in real time or track them on their websites? This must be just another sneaky, underhanded way to listen to what grandma is saying on the phone. Oh, wait....maybe it's because we want to keep up with the methods the enemy is using? 
Yes, six months is correct. That's the trade off so Congress would stop whining and actually do something productive.
--
~~"As long as America is an infidel enemy, terrorizing it is a duty." Sayed Imam Abdul-Aziz el-Sheriff~~
| |
FiOS Dan
Premium
join:2001-07-06
Redondo Beach, CA
 ·Verizon FIOS
·EarthLink
| reply to spy1
said by spy1 :Contrary to the Administration's characterizations, its "FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about updating the law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, it could radically expand the government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant. Big time FUD. I just read the entire proposal and it does no such thing. In fact, there are several references to "non-U.S. person" and "located outside the United States". For example (underlining mine):
SEC. 405. CLARIFICATION ON THE DEFINITION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is hereby amended by adding a new section 112 as follows:
"Section 112. Clarifications on the Definition of Electronic Surveillance. (1) Whenever a member of the Intelligence Community, as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a), as amended, intentionally acquires the communications of a non-U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and the primary purpose of such acquisition to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be located in the United States, such activities shall be considered "electronic surveillance" as defined in section 101(f) (1)."
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.
| |
spy1
Welcome to Amerika
Premium
join:2002-06-24
Charlotte, NC
| La Luna and FiOS Dan - You're both living in a constant, never-ending state of denial.
»www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html :
"The Chairman's New Legislation Would Not Modernize FISA -- It Would Turn Back the Clock to an Era of Warrantless Domestic Surveillance
Since last December, the President, the Attorney General, and other senior Administration officials have stated that the President's program of warrantless wiretapping is narrowly focused on international calls of suspected terrorists, that the program is used in circumstances where immediate monitoring is necessary for some short period of time, that domestic calls are not covered, and that in every case there is reasonable ground (or "probable cause") to believe that the target is associated with al Qaeda. The Administration has repeatedly assured lawmakers and the public that it is not engaged in a program of "domestic surveillance."
Chairman Specter has negotiated with the Administration a bill that would turn back the clock, not only by repealing FISA's exclusivity provision but also by authorizing a domestic program far broader -- and far more intrusive on the privacy of American citizens -- than the one the President and Attorney General have described.
Section 4 -- The Chairman's Bill Would Not Guarantee Judicial Review of Future Surveillance Programs Affecting Americans
The President has promised that he will submit his warrantless surveillance program for FISA court review if the Chairman's bill is enacted. With the highest respect for the Chairman, this is a small if not meaningless concession.
First, it is not clear that any legislation is necessary to get the President's program reviewed, since the program is already the subject of 30 pending cases. In the lead case, the district court last week turned aside a government effort to dismiss the case and is headed towards consideration of the merits.
Second, the Chairman's bill does not bind this President to submit for judicial review future programs nor does it require future Presidents to submit their programs for court review -- programs that may be substantially different from this President's program.
Third, the definitions used in the Chairman's bill might fail to give the FISA court jurisdiction to review the President's program:
# The President has said that his program only allows short term monitoring, but the Chairman's bill applies only to programs of long term monitoring.
# The Attorney General has said that in every case, the President's program targets a specific suspected member or affiliate of al Qaeda, but the Chairman's bill applies only when it is not possible to specify who is being targeted.
Even assuming that the Chairman's bill would allow the FISA court to review the President's program, in other key ways the bill undermines judicial review by forcing transfer to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) of any case initiated by a citizen challenging a communications intelligence activity of the government. In these cases, the government would have the benefit not only of all its normal procedural grounds for seeking dismissal of a case but also of the largely ex parte and in camera processes of the FISCR, making it virtually impossible for parties challenging the government program to overcome the evidentiary burdens they would face.
Finally, the Chairman's bill imposes no consequences on the Administration should the Court refuse to approve the President's program. Unlike FISA, which states that surveillance begun without court approval must cease if the surveillance is later found to be unjustified, the Chairman's bill does not say that the government must cease programmatic activity that the court refuses to approve.
The Price Is Too High -- Turning the Clock Back to an Era of Unchecked Presidential Power and Warrantless Domestic Surveillance
What did it take to get the President to agree to submit his program to judicial review? It took a radical rewrite of FISA: the authorization of a broad new category of domestic surveillance, under "programmatic" or "general search" warrants; the repeal of FISA's exclusivity provision, making the entire statute, including the Chairman's amendments, merely optional; the repeal FISA's wartime exception, granting the President a blank check in domestic surveillance; and, in Section 9, major new exceptions to the warrant requirement for communications to which Americans are a party.
Sections 5-6 --General Warrants
Sections 5 and 6 of the Chairman's bill would authorize (but not require) the Administration to apply for, and the FISA court to grant, "general warrants," which are prohibited by two key provisions of the Fourth Amendment: particularity and probable cause.
With a general warrant, the Chairman's bill would authorize a program of domestic surveillance far broader than President Bush's program. The Attorney General has said that the President's program targets only communications with particular suspected members or affiliates of al Qaeda, only on the basis of probable cause, and only if one leg of the call is with a party overseas. The latest version of the Chairman's bill would authorize seizing the contents of purely domestic calls of American citizens without probable cause, without specific suspicion, and where the call has nothing to do with al Qaeda and not even anything to do with terrorism.
The substitute is especially broad because it allows interception intended to collect the communications not only of suspected terrorists but also a person who "is reasonably believed to have communication with or be associated with" a terror group or suspected terrorist. This means that a journalist who interviews a suspected terrorist, and doesn't even know that the person is considered a terrorist, could be subject to surveillance under this bill. Also, there is no limit on "associated with." Is one "associated with" a suspected terrorist because one goes to the same mosque? Is one "associated with" a suspected terrorist because one has roots in the same village or neighborhood? These connections may be worth checking out, but they are not adequate basis for content interception, which has always been considered one of the most intrusive forms of government invasion of privacy.
Also, the substitute does not use the Constitutional concept of probable cause. It actually does not specify the standard the court must use in determining whether the government has made the requisite showings. Instead, the substitute states that the court must find that the program is "reasonably designed" to intercept the communications of suspected terrorists or persons "reasonably believed [by whom it doesn't say] to have communication with or be associated with" suspected terrorists.
Invoking the FISA court's approval is purely optional under the substitute. Unlike the original version of the Chairman's bill, the substitute does not require the Administration to submit the President's warrantless surveillance program or any future program for judicial review.
The Chairman's bill, unlike FISA, requires either that a "significant purpose" of the program be the collection of foreign intelligence or that its purpose be to "protect against international terrorism," which means that the program can be used when its sole purpose is the collection of criminal evidence
While initial court approval of a program would be for up to 90 days, the court could renew the program for any length of time it deems reasonable.
Section 8 -- The Repeal of FISA's Exclusivity Provision Is Significant
Section 9 of the Chairman's bill would repeal the exclusivity provisions of FISA and allow the President to choose, at his discretion, between using FISA and pursuing some other undefined and constitutionally questionable method to carry out secret surveillance of Americans. This provision would turn back the clock 30 years ago, inviting a return to the era of COINTELPRO and the intelligence-related abuses that created confusion and drove down morale inside the intelligence agencies.
Repeal of exclusivity is not meaningless, for the whole purpose of the exclusivity clause is to constrain any "inherent power" the President has to carry out electronic surveillance in the absence of Congressional action. Indeed, in 1978, this very Committee stated in its Report on FISA that, "even if the President has 'inherent' constitutional power to authorize warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the exercise of this authority by legislating a reasonable warrant procedure governing foreign intelligence surveillance."
In its recent opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court majority noted, "Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers." Justice Kennedy, in his concurrence, explained why it is both constitutional and desirable for the Congress and the President to work together to devise a consensus set of rules for the exercise of national security powers and why the President is bound by those rules enacted by Congress:
This is not a case, then, where the Executive can assert some unilateral authority to fill a void left by congressional inaction. It is a case where Congress, in the proper exercise of its powers as an independent branch of government, and as part of a long tradition of legislative involvement in matters of military justice, has considered the subject of military tribunals and set limits on the President's authority. Where a statute provides the conditions for the exercise of governmental power, its requirements are the result of a deliberative and reflective process engaging both of the political branches. Respect for laws derived from the customary operation of the Executive and Legislative Branches gives some assurance of stability in time of crisis. The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment. . . .
There is no doubt about it: repeal of exclusivity would restore to their full, albeit undefined scope, the President's inherent powers to conduct surveillance, turning back the clock to the era of uncertainty and abuse.
Section 9 -- Total Information Awareness on Steroids?
To cinch the deal with the White House, the Chairman has added to his bill a new Section 9, which would vastly expand the scope of warrantless surveillance that never has to be submitted to a court and create a vast database of phone calls and other information reminiscent of the Total Information Awareness program, which the Administration could data mine at will, outside any judicial or congressional oversight.
Probably 30% of the meaning of FISA is buried in its definitions, especially its definition of "electronic surveillance" and "minimization procedures." Sugar-coated as "conforming amendments," the changes made by Section 9 to these two definitions, and the changes to Section 102 of FISA, would authorize large-scale warrantless surveillance of American citizens and the indefinite retention of citizens' communications for future datamining.
The "cut and bite" amendments of Section 9 are very hard to parse, but so far, we have identified the following remarkable provisions:
# The bill makes major changes to FISA's definition of electronic surveillance. Under FISA, if the collection of information fits within the definition of "electronic surveillance," it requires a court order or must fall under one of FISA's exceptions. If the collection of information is outside the definition of electronic surveillance, then it is not covered by the Act, and can be carried on without a warrant. Therefore, narrowing the definition of electronic surveillance places more activity outside the oversight of the Act. Section 9 makes major changes to the definition of electronic surveillance, permitting the NSA's vacuum cleaners to be turned on any international calls involving US citizens.
# In what may be the most far-reaching provision, Section 9 amends section 102 of FISA (50 USC 1802) to allow the "Attorney General" to authorize warrantless surveillance if it is "solely directed at the acquisition of the communications of a foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Under this amendment, so long as the surveillance is "directed at" a foreign power or non-US person suspected of being an agent of a foreign power, the government can intercept the purely domestic calls of US citizens without court order.
# Under the bill, if he chooses, the Attorney General can designate anyone -- his secretary, the janitor, an official of the department of Defense, a local police officer, as "Attorney General", thereby authorized to approve warrantless surveillance under section 102, to issue certifications to communications companies and others, and to carry out all the other duties assigned to the Attorney General under the Act.
# The bill amends the definition of a non-US person agent of a foreign power to include someone who "possesses or is expected to transmit or receiving foreign intelligence while in the" US."
You are both disgustingly complacent and either incredibly naive or stooges for totalitarian government as the status-quo in the United States.
Have a great evening. Pete | |
Thug21
join:2005-08-21
edit:
August 4th, @08:04PM
| Since we are told that anyone could be a terrorist (I bet even a Swedish granny from MN!  ) what is it to stop all of us from being watched?
It's odd, this country has such open borders yet we have these kinds of bills in the name of "safety"
Something is terribly wrong and both parties are to blame. | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
edit:
August 4th, @09:04PM
| reply to spy1
The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).
The administration got the Senate to quickly pass a law overriding that decision. The House has to pass it too before they go on vacation until Sept. If they don't, the NSA can't spy on foreign conversations traversing the US.
Even the Dems(except that idiot Pelosi) understand that the law must be passed.
»news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070804/pl_···Ej0E1vAI
The House is expected to take up the bill after Midnight.
P.S.>The bill only lasts 6 months until a permanent bill can be extensively debated.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| said by TK Junk Mail :The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners). False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place.
The administration got the Senate to quickly pass a law overriding that decision. They passed a bill, which can become a law if it is passed by the House and signed by the President.
The House has to pass it too before they go on vacation until Sept. If they don't, the NSA can't spy on foreign conversations traversing the US. Yes they can. They just need to send notice to the FISA Court and get the appropriate warrants in the permitted time after the surveillance takes place. The FISA Court is notoriously loose in granting these warrants.
Furthermore, the administration is asking the Congress to put their faith in Alberto Gonzales and the Director of National Intelligence at a time when Congress is very suspicious of Alberto Gonzales for his apparently deceptive and seemingly false testimony on the attorney scandal.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| said by AmeritecTech :said by TK Junk Mail :The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners). False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place. WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers. How do you expect them to get FISA approval(even after the fact) for all those calls. THINK!!!
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
fatness
subtle
Janitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
Host:
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help?
Rants, Raves, & Pr..
| said by TK Junk Mail :WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers. How comforting.
--
Sure, that'll work.. | |
AmeritecTech
Change we can believe in, 1922
Premium
join:2002-09-06
00000
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :said by AmeritecTech :said by TK Junk Mail :The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners). False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place. WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers. How do you expect them to get FISA approval(even after the fact) for all those calls. THINK!!! You're sitting here lying about the circumstances. They can monitor as much as they need to, as long as they notify the FISA court. The fact that you acknowledge that this is a widespread program monitoring all sorts of calls acknowledges that Americans will get caught up in this spying. Revealing that you're not as stupid as you were acting really makes this particular comment of yours pretty insidious.
If they don't, the NSA can't spy on foreign conversations traversing the US.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari | |
|
