Democratic Congress Provide Cover for Terrorists - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

dude1394 · 02-17-2008, 12:14 AM

Pathetic excuse for statesmen. Don't do drugs and don't vote democrat.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../02/019808.php

Quote:

This is the text of President Bush's radio address today, on Nancy Pelosi's refusal to allow the House to vote on the FISA reform act:

Quote:

Good morning. At the stroke of midnight tonight, a vital intelligence law that is helping protect our nation will expire. Congress had the power to prevent this from happening, but chose not to. The Senate passed a good bill that would have given our intelligence professionals the tools they need to keep us safe. But leaders in the House of Representatives blocked a House vote on the Senate bill, and then left on a 10-day recess. Some congressional leaders claim that this will not affect our security. They are wrong. Because Congress failed to act, it will be harder for our government to keep you safe from terrorist attack. At midnight, the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad. This means that as terrorists change their tactics to avoid our surveillance, we may not have the tools we need to continue tracking them -- and we may lose a vital lead that could prevent an attack on America.

In addition, Congress has put intelligence activities at risk even when the terrorists don't change tactics. By failing to act, Congress has created a question about whether private sector companies who assist in our efforts to defend you from the terrorists could be sued for doing the right thing. Now, these companies will be increasingly reluctant to provide this vital cooperation, because of their uncertainty about the law and fear of being sued by class-action trial lawyers.

For six months, I urged Congress to take action to ensure this dangerous situation did not come to pass. I even signed a two-week extension of the existing law, because members of Congress said they would use that time to work out their differences. The Senate used this time productively -- and passed a good bill with a strong, bipartisan super-majority of 68 votes. Republicans and Democrats came together on legislation to ensure that we could effectively monitor those seeking to harm our people. And they voted to provide fair and just liability protection for companies that assisted in efforts to protect America after the attacks of 9/11.

The Senate sent this bill to the House for its approval. It was clear that if given a vote, the bill would have passed the House with a bipartisan majority. I made every effort to work with the House to secure passage of this law. I even offered to delay my trip to Africa if we could come together and enact a good bill. But House leaders refused to let the bill come to a vote. Instead, the House held partisan votes that do nothing to keep our country safer. House leaders chose politics over protecting the country -- and our country is at greater risk as a result.

House leaders have no excuse for this failure. They knew all along that this deadline was approaching, because they set it themselves. My administration will take every step within our power to minimize the damage caused by the House's irresponsible behavior. Yet it is still urgent that Congress act. The Senate has shown the way by approving a good, bipartisan bill. The House must pass that bill as soon as they return to Washington from their latest recess.

At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning a new attack on America. And Congress has no higher responsibility than ensuring we have the tools to stop them.

Thank you for listening.

In my view, the President's inherent constitutional powers allow him to direct intelligence agencies to intercept international terrorist communications, with or without FISA. The real problem, I suspect--and the sticking point between the House and the Senate--is that the Senate bill provided immunity for telecom companies that cooperate with intelligence agencies.

The agencies need this cooperation to intercept terrorist communications, and, while the Constitution empowers the President to direct the intelligence agencies, it doesn't give him the authority to commandeer the resources of telecom companies. Given that there are now approximately 40 lawsuits pending against telecom companies seeking damages for their cooperation with the intelligence agencies since September 11, the management of any such company that agrees, going forward, to cooperate with the government in tracking terrorists would likely be subject to shareholder litigation as well.

If this seems nuts, it is; but it is the world we live in, and the world that Nancy Pelosi is determined to preserve for her contributors in the plaintiffs' bar.

Usually Lurkin · 02-17-2008, 12:23 AM

it's funny how "Enemy of the State" is always on tv when congress deals with this kinda stuff

Arne · 02-17-2008, 08:22 AM

Sign the bill or we'll all die...

Mavdog · 02-17-2008, 09:38 AM

the president plays with the facts...

there is a fisa program without the passing of the bill he mentions. the statement "the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence will be stripped of their power to authorize new surveillance against terrorist threats abroad" is deceitful.

the attorney general and the director of national intelligence can get whatever the warrant the court grants allows them to do.

yes, that's all the above hysterical screaming by george bush is all about. he doesn't want to spend the time getting a warrant. george bush believes the government should not be burdened by being required to go through a court to get a warrant allowing the eavesdropping of private conversations.

no matter that they can get the warrant AFTER they do the wiretap (the warrant can be obtained retroactively). no matter that the eavesdropping of foreign parties doesn't even require the warrant.

so bottom line: our intelligence services can still, today, after the expiration of the protect america act of 2007, monitor those communications they feel are suspicious, and they can use their eavesdropping talents to their fullest.

gee, it's so surprising that george bush would speak in such extremes, and all the while be in error.....

dude1394 · 02-17-2008, 12:38 PM

I disagree mavie...The FISA law as I understand it is a law which requires a warrant in the case of monitoring of suspected terrorists, but not allowing monitoring in the search for new terrorists. That's the biggest delta here.

I think Posner here highlights my concerns. Especially with conversations that are foreign-to-foreign communication which goes through our system. In this case post evaluation of communication makes sense to me when you are trying to find terrorists activity, not monitor known activity.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1139...83-search.html

Quote:

A New Surveillance Act
By RICHARD A. POSNER
February 15, 2006

The best, and probably the only, way to end the debate over the propriety of the National Security Agency's conducting electronic surveillance outside the framework of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is for Congress to enact a new statute.

The administration is right to point out that FISA, enacted in 1978 -- long before the danger of global terrorism was recognized and electronic surveillance was transformed by the digital revolution -- is dangerously obsolete. It retains value as a framework for monitoring the communications of known terrorists, but it is hopeless as a framework for detecting terrorists. It requires that surveillance be conducted pursuant to warrants based on probable cause to believe that the target of surveillance is a terrorist, when the desperate need is to find out who is a terrorist.

Critics of the NSA's program point out that surveillance not cabined by a probable-cause requirement produces many false positives (intercepts that prove upon investigation to have no intelligence value). That is not a sound criticism.

National security intelligence is a search for the needle in a haystack. The intelligence services must cast a wide net with a fine mesh to catch the clues that may enable the next attack to be prevented. The initial trolling for clues is done by computer search programs, which do not invade privacy because search programs are not sentient beings. The programs pick out a tiny percentage of communications to be read by (human) intelligence officers, and a small subset of these will turn out to have intelligence value and spur an investigation. Some of these may be communications to which a U.S. citizen is a party.

The program is vital, given the terrorist menace, which is real and not abating. It may be thanks to such programs, as well as to other counterterrorist operations, that we have been spared a repetition of 9/11. We mustn't let our guard down, basking in the false assurance created by the lapse of time since the last attack. But the legality of the program has been called into question, and fears have been expressed about its impact on civil liberties.

These concerns can be addressed without gutting the program. But not by relaxing the standard for obtaining a warrant. Instead of requiring probable cause to believe the target a terrorist, FISA could be amended to require merely reasonable suspicion. But even that would be too restrictive. And the lower the standard for getting a warrant, the less of a filter a warrant requirement creates. If all that the government is required to state in its application is that it thinks an interception might yield intelligence information, judges will have no basis for refusing to grant the application.
* * *

It is a mistake to think that the only way to prevent abuses of a surveillance program is by requiring warrants. Congress could enact a statute that would subject warrantless electronic surveillance to tight oversight and specific legal controls, as follows:

1. Oversight: The new statute would --

(a) Create a steering committee for national security electronic surveillance composed of the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, the secretary of homeland security (chairman), and a senior or retired federal judge or justice appointed by the chief justice of the United States. The committee would monitor all such surveillance to assure compliance with the Constitution and laws.

(b) Require the NSA to submit to the FISA court, every six months, a list of the names and other identifying information of all persons whose communications had been intercepted without a warrant in the previous six months, with a brief statement of why these individuals had been targeted. If the court concluded that an interception had been inappropriate, it would so report to the steering committee and the congressional intelligence committees.

2. Specific controls: The statute would --

(a) Authorize "national security electronic surveillance" outside FISA's existing framework, provided that Congress declared a national emergency and the president certified that such surveillance was necessary in the national interest. Warrants would continue to be required for all physical searches and for all electronic surveillance for which FISA's existing probable-cause requirement could be satisfied.

(b) Define "national security" narrowly, excluding "ecoterrorism," animal-rights terrorism, and other forms of political violence that, though criminal and deplorable, do not endanger the nation.

(c) Sunset after five years, or sooner if the declaration of national emergency was rescinded.

(d) Forbid any use of intercepted information for any purpose other than "national security" as defined in the statute (point b above). Thus the information could not be used as evidence or leads in a prosecution for ordinary crime. There would be heavy criminal penalties for violating this provision, to allay concern that "wild talk" picked up by electronic surveillance would lead to criminal investigations unrelated to national security.

(e) Require responsible officials to certify to the FISA court annually that there had been no violations of the statute during the preceding year. False certification would be punishable as perjury.

(f) Bar lawsuits challenging the legality of the NSA's current warrantless surveillance program. Such lawsuits would distract officials from their important duties, to no purpose given the new statute.

Mr. Posner is a judge on the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and a senior lecturer in law at the University of Chicago Law School.

Mavdog · 02-17-2008, 02:08 PM

this justice dept atty who is responsible for fisa disagrees: "In my opinion FISA works. It worked in the 20th century; it works today"

dude1394 · 02-17-2008, 02:18 PM

Dueling security dudes...

From today's wapo

Quote:

A Key Gap In Fighting Terrorism
Private Firms Need Liability Protection

By Mike McConnell
Friday, February 15, 2008; Page A21

One of the most critical weapons in the fight against terrorists and other foreign intelligence threats -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- has not kept up with the technology revolution we have experienced over the past 30 years. We are on the brink of bringing this 20th-century tool in line with 21st-century technology and threats. The Senate has passed a strong bill, by an overwhelmingly bipartisan margin, that would modernize FISA and do the right thing for those companies that responded to their country's call for assistance in its hour of need. It would also protect the civil liberties we Americans cherish. The bill is now before the House of Representatives.

And more bi-partisanly..

Quote:

These circumstances can be avoided. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, after an in-depth review of our operations, recognized on a bipartisan basis the importance of providing liability protection to those who assisted our nation in a time of great need. The committee's report stated that "without retroactive immunity, the private sector might be unwilling to cooperate with lawful government requests in the future without unnecessary court involvement and protracted litigation. The possible reduction in intelligence that might result from this delay is simply unacceptable for the safety of our Nation." We in the intelligence community agree. We urge Congress to act to ensure that we do not again have gaps or lapses in gathering intelligence necessary to protect the nation because of an outdated law or a failure to shield private parties from liability for helping to protect the nation.

Senate Select Committe on Intelligence seems to come down on dubya's side here, that this needs a revamping.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press....cfm?id=285708

Quote:

Washington, DC – Senator Jay Rockefeller and Senator Kit Bond, Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today announced that the Senate Intelligence Committee passed legislation to modernize FISA. The bill, which passed by a strong bipartisan vote, will improve the recently enacted Protect America Act that aimed to fix collection problems related to foreign intelligence surveillance.