Why the ACLU says the current FISA Bill is a bad bill.

H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

(4) USE OF INFORMATION- If an application for approval submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) is denied, or in any other case where the acquisition is terminated and no order is issued approving the acquisition, no information obtained or evidence derived from such acquisition, except under circumstances in which the target of the acquisition is determined not to be a United States person, shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such acquisition shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6304

That contradicts

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

Shame on you, Freddda

.

If the Gonzo says it's okay, it's okay.

Do you always have to play w/the facts? It's so easy to catch, you know ...

In fact it's not a bar at all and I'm sure you know that.

has wide legal latitude - it's called discretion - and officials wield it every day. In my local community, for example, there's a community council that keeps an eye on the police ... by seeing each other every month, the streets stay calmer. That's what public safety is all about.

because without legal limits there's no distinction between discretion and abuse, as this administration has amply demonstrated. So I'd prefer to keep my rights.

torture hearings this week? C'mon ... your rights are the same as mine and I've been paying close attention. The ACLU is simply wrong - let's get past this simple fact and agree on principles.

that is surely coming down the pike? Because you don't seem very concerned about holding this administration accountable for their crimes.

read the bill. I've watched with delight as hearings compile material for the history books.

I've lived through Watergate and Iran Contra ... this is, at least, stemming from a legitimate national security crisis. As a NYer, I have some sympathy for those who lost their better judgment. As a Holocaust survivor's daughter, I have a higher tolerance for humanity's limitations. YMMV, but on the facts, you don't have a leg to stand on in this argument.

that much power? Right now all's right with the world but what if McCain wins, and what if he's succeeded by a virulently bigoted veep? Do you really want some ardent neo- winger from the swamps sifting through your mail and listening in on every conversation?

Lots of black, but he knew ... and died peacefully, of natural causes. Now, that's a life! My file? I've worked @ FDNY, so I must have some kind of police clearance ... never bothered to ask.

So, what about you ... someone who didn't voluntary surrender all privacy because there was work to do? Well, you could read the bill, which requires FISA court supervision, even when nothing appears to be going on. In fact, there are several improvements since the last status quo and if we can keep up the good will ... a better version next time.

But no, of course one person shouldn't have that power. That's why my father left the Soviets after working for their military intelligence agency. Stalin was a good history lesson, don't you think?

NT!

best Clinton could do and there isn't another politically viable compromise available. In any case, you're just wrong on the facts.

Wyden, Cantwell, a majority of the Democrats in the House of Representivies and the ACLU.

I guess that makes you, bush, McCain, and the rest of the Repos right, as usual, Fredda.

that the bill prevented civil suits filed for official misconduct. But if you need to worship heros, go ahead ... I'm sure you'll condemn him next week for some political impurity.

Check.

You see, all I had to do was provide references above. You refuse to read 'em ... I can't help that. Everyone else is welcome to judge for themselves. Have a great day!!!

This bill strips away all accountability except for a little bureaucratic rubberstamping.

you. Call it a figleaf if you must, but the FISA court is still the best institution we have. Congressional oversight is limited to a tiny handful w/clearance ... not enuf.

they can do what the 4th amendment requires and get a warrant. They don't need FISA to make it easier, "they" being the gigantic parasitic intel industry that's turning this country into an Orwellian surveillance nightmare.

in all the time ... but can't target us deliberately or use material gained illegally against us. That's your real constitutional protection and all you ever had.

Orwell's nightmare is here, but if you read his works, you know how to stay out of the trap. It begins with a clear eyed vision of modern civilization. Look around you ... electronic transmission has reduced reasonable expectation of privacy to a voluntary restraint. Accept the terms or don't participate in the system ... but don't expect me to share your paranoid delusion. Here I am, posting using my real name - as I have for 20 years.

NT!

I would appreciate it. I am not very bright, and it seems to be our party is giving in to be tough.

So which parts of the bill are good.

I don't need a lawyer, the ACLU or a bastardized Supreme Court to understand what fuck they are trying to do.
And at any rate, whoever cannot finally see and understand that the government is now exclusively working only at the behest of corporations is just plain out to lunch period
So wake the hell up already x(

they probably can use it (as per ACLU) but cannot submit it into evidence.

An example of use might be to follow known associates of the individual based on what they heard and then develop more warrants and information down stream.

But it illustrates how difficult it is to make it a grand polemical issue.

:scared:

Don't throw gasoline on the fire, please.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2276

""No matter how often the opposition calls this bill a ‘compromise,’ it is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

"More than two years after the president’s domestic spying was revealed in the pages of the New York Times, Congress’ fury and shock has dissipated to an obedient whimper. After scrambling for years to cover their tracks, the phone companies and the administration are almost there. This immunity provision will effectively destroy Americans’ chance to have their deserved day in court and will kill any possibility of learning the extent of the administration’s lawless actions. The House should be ashamed of itself. The fate of the Fourth Amendment is now in the Senate’s hands. We can only hope senators will show more courage than their colleagues in the House."

More:

H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime."

How can you say that the law "permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing" when the legislation specifically provides



Explain it to me like I am a 4 year old. The law specifically says that surveillance shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the 4th Amendment (no warrantless search - probable cause a requirement) so how can you say that this law allows the "government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States". If you do mass, untargeted surveillance how can you say you have not intentionally targeted persons located in the US? You cannot. Mass surveillance would in and of themselves allow for the intentional targeting of persons in the US or the targeting of US citizens.

That is just one of the concerns that is not legitimate as far as I am concerned and since it is their first bullet concern it makes me wonder about their other concerns.

All the FISA court can do under this bill is check whether the surveillance was properly "certified" by whoever happened to authorize it.

Please provide me the language about the authority granted to conduct the surveillance. I read it that the FISA court still has to approve it

I don't believe you are reading the legislation correctly (or understanding what you read).

Notice that it simply requires an annual report from the AG with a list of "certifications" -- rubberstamps, and not even individual ones -- and details of any denied applications, like that's ever going to happen:

SEC. 707. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

`(a) Semiannual Report- Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Attorney General shall fully inform, in a manner consistent with national security, the congressional intelligence committees and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution, concerning the implementation of this title.
`(b) Content- Each report under subsection (a) shall include--
`(1) with respect to section 702--
`(A) any certifications submitted in accordance with section 702(g) during the reporting period;
`(B) with respect to each determination under section 702(c)(2), the reasons for exercising the authority under such section;
`(C) any directives issued under section 702(h) during the reporting period;
`(D) a description of the judicial review during the reporting period of such certifications and targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) of section 702 and utilized with respect to an acquisition under such section, including a copy of an order or pleading in connection with such review that contains a significant legal interpretation of the provisions of section 702;
`(E) any actions taken to challenge or enforce a directive under paragraph (4) or (5) of section 702(h);
`(F) any compliance reviews conducted by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence of acquisitions authorized under section 702(a);
`(G) a description of any incidents of noncompliance--
`(i) with a directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under section 702(h), including incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to whom the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence issued a directive under section 702(h); and
`(ii) by an element of the intelligence community with procedures and guidelines adopted in accordance with subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 702; and
`(H) any procedures implementing section 702;
`(2) with respect to section 703--
`(A) the total number of applications made for orders under section 703(b);
`(B) the total number of such orders--
`(i) granted;
`(ii) modified; and
`(iii) denied; and
`(C) the total number of emergency acquisitions authorized by the Attorney General under section 703(d) and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying such acquisitions; and
`(3) with respect to section 704--
`(A) the total number of applications made for orders under section 704(b);
`(B) the total number of such orders--
`(i) granted;
`(ii) modified; and
`(iii) denied; and
`(C) the total number of emergency acquisitions authorized by the Attorney General under section 704(d) and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying such applications.

You do realize that this legislation is specific to FOREIGN SURVEILLANCE and does not allow surveillance of US citizens. The language is quite clear despite those who say otherwise.

And this legislation provides that the FISA court must authorize the surveillance, you allege not such judicial review but it is there in this bill.