Quoting too many experts on the FISA bill ....

Suddenly has been something that is not a good thing.

Several times here lately I have been accused of quoting too many sources on the bill.

Let's summarize.

John Dean



Let's hear from Jonathan Turley, Russ Feingold, and Chris Dodd.

Three more views on FISA

First Turley:



Chris Dodd:



Russ Feingold:



Glenn Greenwald quoting a Georgetown law professor:



I also quoted the 28 groups that formed a coalition to oppose this bill.

Here is what they said.



Plus DFA which is not on the list.

Here is what they said about the bill.



Now it looks to me like there are some very good people and a whole lot of them....who opposed the FISA bill. It confuses my mind to be accused of quoting too many sources. I don't know what to think of it. I posted this in this forum because it is the one in which I was said to be quoting too many sources.

So you can decide the sources for yourself, decide which ones to discredit, decide which ones to keep.

It is coming down to two words in this forum now..."purist" or "loyalist". For those of us who actually see both sides, who post threads which are usually planned and thought out...there seems to be no middle ground now.

I quote sources on subjects in which I am no expert. I am stunned to see that is a bad thing now.

I guess the safest bet is to head to the other forums now, and make no waves until November.

:shrug:

telling people to focus on the text and forget the legal experts is just another form of silencing dissent from the cops on the beat

Until it became an exercise in sophistry...wouldn't even address the issues I raised. (sigh)

Really, if anyone expects you to read that convoluted, 114 page document full of internal as well as external cross-references, without a law degree...they are expecting way too much.

I trust all of the analysis quoted in the OP, plus a few more I have read that are not so partisan. There seems to be little disparity amongst them, even though they raise different points.

:shrug:

it includes all the previous stuff that's being extended. Here's a shorter version with just the amended portions:

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

The heart of it is Sec 702-4. Also, Sec 802, which deals with the statutory defense, which is being referred to as immunity.

The majority of congress, for instance, and me. FISA is no more a threat to civil liberties than having a police force or a military. It is necessary for domestic safety. It's obvious to many people who don't feel they need to say much more than that.

Glad to hear that.

All those folks are just plain damn wrong.

is necessary...its revision allows for no significant judicial oversight...the executive may spy/ gather information on whomever it wants whenever it wants...let's hope when Obama wins he addresses this abuse of power

.

Hence the revision. In the revision now the President and anyone in his adminstration are held accountable to the FISA committee which Feingold is a part of and also the Attorney General.

On what planet does that make sense?

The same is true for the police and the military. They need to be controlled responsibly.

In this age though I know there are a lot of technologically illiterate people, young and old, who think email=spy=bad. We need to be open and honest about the fact that yes, email and phone activity WILL be monitored for horrendous crimes. If people start being arrested for conversations alone, then they've gone too far. But this is all done programmatically. Nobody cares if I want to sell a dimebag. Computers that decipher what's going on and if someone is saying "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran" that probably would get flagged somehow. It's not like Joe Schmoe is personally listening to us. But I don't think courts are necessary to intervene in this simple form of surveillance, no different than police who watch what we are doing in real life in our cars and on sidewalks.

What a pantload.

These bastards ARE interested in ANYTHING that they can make a PROFIT from.

Only a completely comatose moron would refuse to acknowledge this simple FACT. Where have you been for the last eight years?

These are the same guys who had day-traders holed up in their own offices at the Capital in order to act quickly and ahead of the heard on any insider information about upcoming legislation. The folks running this country have no concern at all about anyone else. They are in it to get whatever they can get for themselves. They are Joe Schmoe criminals and they ARE listening to us.

You need to come out of your coma. Do you really believe these assholes would ingnore private information that could be worth $billions?

Do you honestly believe that they won't intentionally seek out any of this kind of insider information, especially when it is perfectly legal and there is absoulutly no one to stop them?

What planet are you from?

You sound just a little too gullible to be believable. I'm not saying that you are some kind of plant or sock-puppet or something, you may just be so unbelievably unimaginative that you cannot be trusted to offer up any kind of prudent opinion that has anything to do with the security of our country. Who knows, it's possible I guess...

But, I look at their overall views, and do not throw a fit when they have a position with which I disagree.

I can distinguish between overall perspective and a vote.

Either they or their constituency just do not understand modern technology. But I still support them.

I'm not sure how else to put it.

From my perspective, anyone with a functioning brain would realize that FISA is necessary in one form or another. It takes very little brainpower to realize that electronic communications would be used to plot horrendous crimes.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

Before technology as we know it, all we had was police and military. Oh, now we have technology. Just because Bush is an asshole all of a sudden we should allow people to electronically fuck us up even more? I want electronic communications to be monitored just like I want asshole speeders on the road to be detected and every other asshole to be caught.

My life has been destroyed by assholes. I want them to be caught. FISA is NOT going to affect innocent people, and for that matter, it won't even affect 99.9% of criminals, just the most horrendous ones. There are SUCH more important things to worry about.

I think what you are saying is that it hasn't effected you, so you don't care about other people.

And since we don't know much about the program, we don't know if really horrible things have been done to people under the FISA program. You seem to think that there aren't "asshole" working as spooks.

We don't know if people have been black mailed. And with the lack of oversite we probably won't know.

You can give up your rights if you want, but don't give up mine. Thanks.

WTF does Blackmailed mean? Is that when a rich person's wealth is threatened?

Seriously, I dunno.

I promise that if any FISA representative blackmails me I will let everyone know. I have nothing to lose. Most people have nothing to lose.

Most people are true Americans with enough grit to say something if they are blackmailed.

You will have to do better than that. Your idea of FISA blackmailing people is just utterly ridiculous.

In fact most likely. And important political figures. It is not far-fetched, it happened before.

We have no clue if they are being blackmailed or threatened.

Your concept of blackmail is uninformed. Blackmail is used when the person doesn't want something sensitive to appear publicly or if they have done something criminal. The use of government surveillance has been abused even before today's technology. Hoover did this all the time and he did dig up dirt on his political enemies, as well as, ones he just wanted to influence. That is blackmail.

The original FISA dealt with the legality of domestic intelligence activities and was in response to abuses by Nixon who used government resources to spy on political and activist groups. Since this set up a secret court that didn't have to report any information on the requests, only the number submitted and approved, which through 2006 was 22,990 submitted and 22985 approved, we really have no idea of the legitimacy of those warrants or if there were any violations of the 4th amendment. The original FISA was far from perfect and I feel confident that this isn't an improvement.

One problem with this unwarranted surveillance is the intrusion of your privacy. If your okay with this kind of security, why not take it to its logical conclusion and install video cams and microphones everywhere? Since people don't have anything to lose, and I assume by that you mean anything to hide, otherwise it doesn't make any sense, what would be the problem?

"Most people are true Americans with enough grit to say something if they are blackmailed." This comment stands out. Your labeling of Americans into two groups, those with grit and those without, and only those with grit, whatever that means, are true Americans is telling.

am really tired of having to fight for my rights or even just decent treatment by government AND businesses. Theoretically the Constitution gave them to me.

I'm really tired of hearing how necessary FISA is. When you're looking for terrorist needles in a haystack, making the haystack bigger doesn't help.

granting the telecoms immunity. If that were not the case, then why did Bush signal that he would veto ANY measure that did not include telecom immunity? It certainly wasn't because he was concerned with the safety of Americans, because if it were he would have signed it independent of telecom immunity. We were all duped once again, that's the long and the short of it.

I suppose if the local police could, and did, enter all of our homes anytime they wanted to without ever having to give a reason to anyone anywhere, well yeah I suppose that would be similar.

The 4th Amendment was intended to prevent that. And as anxious as I feel, I have no worries that anyone is going to enter my so called home or take anything.

I'll say it again, "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb" and oh look nobody is knocking down my door. I promise to tell you if somebody does it.

Yeah, what IS home is an issue. But that's purely tangential. Whether our domicile is self-owned or owned by someone else, you or I have no fears that someone is going to invade it.

That's what the 4th Amendment is for and it is working out extremely well.

It's a breath of fresh air after reading post after post lauding those who voted for passage of the bill because, paraphrased, if they voted against then the Republicans might say something nasty about them. I'm totally repelled by the way some have been holding up a craven and unprincipled politics of fear and subservience as something to be admired "because it's an election year". I much prefer those who're wrong out of simple ignorance.

If you think crimes cannot be plotted online, that's your opinion. My opinion is that millions of people can be destroyed by crimes that are plotted online and over the phone, and your view of civil liberties let them. In comparison, I guess there should be no police either, like we should be living in some Libertarian society where people just do what they want and rip people of regularly because that is what the law allows?

WTF is that post supposed to mean?

and so on.

But now you're trying to convince me of something - and I don't think you should begin by presuming that I hold a patently absurd opinion that I haven't offered. To quote a famous man, "That's the old politics."

Of course crimes can be and are plotted online - and everywhere else that people communicate. Myself, when I plot crimes in, say, a restaurant, I choose the restaurant at random, and I whisper. Because I'm the devious crime-plotting sort. Now, I'm not so sophisticated as to plan a crime online, but if I were I'm sure I'd be up on encryption and the use of proxies - and so on so forth. Jeez, I suppose Al Qaeda has thought of that much! Surely Al Qaeda is up there in modern tech with H.A.R.M. and the other nasty evil-doers? Surely bin Laden, if he lives, operates sophisticated equipment from behind those very secure bin Laden palace walls?

I'm sure solid companies like Microsoft already use encryption and other means to avoid even the enhanced kind of dragnet spying and so on that the US has just put into law. In fact, in a way I think it's a good thing that the world is now officially on notice that all communications passing thru' the US are subject to unrestricted scrutiny by those with the $$ and/or clout to pay the price. By being open about this the US makes it easier for the information to be included in any introductory economics text, so the issue can be studied in context.

The last resort of criminals is to whisper to each other in restaurants, just like they did before phones and the internet.

But this is regarding heavy weight criminals, not the garden variety dime bag sellers.

People can go on all excited about committing their petty crimes, but without FISA they would be able to organize huge initiatives to take down innocent people like (not you but) me. Since you just openly admitted to plotting crimes it's clear that you get off hurting innocent people, I hope you're happy, but that's just a tangential topic since your crimes probably are so petty as to go unnoticed. If it were up to me I would punish people down to those who cut in line at the grocery store, which is what petty criminals do. But FISA is there just to punish the big boys. Those selling dimebags and cutting in line can still plot away.


Edit: Sorry if I seemed reactionary and incognizant of whatever point you were making. Yes there is encryption. Obviously if suspected criminals use encryption they are gong to get extra attention. Encryption can be beat and it is not a problem.

What was constructive Criticism
is now destructive repetition,
and the constant critics
are no longer offering solutions
but are becoming a part of the problem.

I'm tired of hiding threads.
Really, really tired.
I realize some won't be satisfied
till blood is drawn,
But the outrage which has gone
from June 20th to July 11th unabaited
is becoming worn out like an old shoe.

Electing John McCain is not an option,
and continuing to feed the media stories
that the base has turned against Obama
is not going to restore our rights.

IF Restoring rights is the goal,
then helping elect McCain
by dissing Obama day after day
is not how to go about it.

So I have a right to show who the ones were that I sourced.

The forum is being silenced, so I will head out of here now.

Let the attacks begin as I am sure they will.

this is "an extravagant exaggeration", i.e. hyperbole...and as an issue i do not imagine that it will go away until the law expires in 2012 or until a President Obama sets it straight

since it appears in this forum
is supposed to be a forum
to provide positive support for Sen. Obama.

I understood the criticism up to
the day of the vote,
even though I knew the bill was going to pass
and so it did.

At this point it is the critics
who are putting our chance to
have our rights restored
in jeopardy, as if they keep it up
there may not be a President Obama.

I want my rights restored,
I've been without them for
almost 7 years now.

GD should be the place for FISA laments now.

same thing. There's a third one, but apparently he gave up to Merh in another thread.

It may bring satisfaction to the one holding the knife,
but it becomes overkill.

Nice and concise! :7 :hi:

Bush's legal experts can speculate on the bill the same way our "reliable law scholars" can.

So there is an impasse. The only thing is, because the repubs are pushing it they don't have to defend it as the Dems are spending their time bashing it. So we hear ONLY from one side their views.

I as a person who wants to be an informed individual can read the bill and when I read about this bill from EITHER camp I want EXACT language of this bill so I can come up with my own conclusions.

I don't see why this is so hard for people to understand.

Now, you can sit there and say all these "legal scholars" say this about the bill and provide me with link after link after link. However, Rush Limbaugh can also do the exact same thing. Neither one of you provides language from the bill so who am I to believe.

What you are promoting and those who agree with your thinking is the further degredation of the society of thinkers into being lazy and misinformed and misled individuals easily manipulated.

If you heard there was a Constitution and never read it and someone was telling you about, let's say Bush (keeping into consideration everything he's done to present as constant) what would you do? You would chooose not be believe him right? So then you would wait for another person in another place to feed you something you "want" to believe, because why? You're too lazy to pick up the constitution for yourself.

I cannot understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend madfloridian. I have read the bill and I disagree with what the "legal experts have said"---I'm not saying the bill is good, but it's not as bad as it's said to be.

Further more you should be encouraging people to try to read the bill themselves. It's for the public and open to the public. Instead you give links and links and links but none to the FISA bill. While, when I posted for people to understand the FISA the first or second link was one on how to get the FISA document online.

I know not to trust Rush Limbaugh.

However you're leading people down an uneducated road which is insulting to say the least since your a prolific poster. Why don't we sit and try to learn the language together or at least try.

All those "legal experts" didn't learn to read when they got to law school. They used dictionaries and verbosity which we can use as well in order to understand it.

If you have so much time to post in a thread link after link and info after info, I would expect you having the ability to TRY or ATTEMPT to read the FISA and if you have trouble with something ask.

**Note to self must ask Skinner to resurrect Legislative Thread.

I am not a legal scholar at all.

I need advice.

I am sure the courts will at once throw the lawsuits already filed.

I am sure you must be right, and I must be wrong.

Talk to Skinner.

the judicial system in the US and also mistrust. In that sense, nothing would appease you actually.

When FISA was there originally and as originally written, Bush still broke the laws it set forth. Yet your post above was in support of the original FISA. In any event, the second FISA was to remedy the injustices against the first one and close loopholes. The only thing it did not provide was basically non-immunity for the past charges against the Telecom crimes that were committed by Bush because, from my understanding, the statute of limitation is expiring.

I think you know that, too.

Did you know that when Hastert and Frist were majority leaders they tried to get a bill passed like this one? They failed.

I think I love you.

:hug:

Heres what they say

The bill would authorize massive warrantless surveillance. The bill allows the government to intentionally acquire millions of Americans’ international communications with no individualized warrant or determination of probable cause, so long as one party to a phone call or e-mail is believed to be located abroad and the purpose is to gather foreign intelligence.

and yet the text in the bill says specificaly

REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.

‘(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.


So now that they have lied outright about the bill how am i expected to believe them going forward?

Its great that you trust your sources. Expecting others to though is not a reasonable expectation and acting like you are being called a lair when people question those sources boarders on the nutty side.

.

with anything other than that then yes I do .

WTF do you gain by defending them without understanding what they are saying?

What is your investment in this that you refuse to hear any disparaging words against them.

because it is useless

Boy, do I feel foolish now.

There is a thin line between passion and obsession.

and joined us.

You seem to have some extremely strong opinions about where and what other people should be posting.

I think you would make a great cop.

How long do I need to "serve"
before I can be made sheriff like you?

others post.

This is your country and you're leaving it in the hands of others. Those people are supposed to work for us, but when we play elitist and allow them to BE the elite and you the ignorant follower who eats up their words like bread from the hands of Marie Antoinette...well there's nothing else to call that. ~sigh~

on what this bill says, I'd love to read your learned summary of it's major points where they rebut the points the other expert's are finding hard to swallow.
I read it and it is written in legalese and is very difficult to follow.

and you are not foolish. However, there are people who can't understand that supporting someone for president does not mean giving up Constitutional rights. Jack Balkin, another constitutional scholar has written extensively on his blog. Finally, Tourley is the go-to guy on the Fourth Amendment by all accounts he is the one to trust.

Balkinization is primarily peopled by lawyers. At the link you will find a flow chart of both the Old FISA and the New FISA. Above the flow chart you will see a series of articles by a guest blogger, David Kris. Kris was part of the bush justice dept. however, he knows the FISA bill. It took me days to plow through that mess.

I sincerely believe that nothing will be done about this bill to correct it. Thus madfloridian do not despair of those who refuse to understand what has just happened. There are those who have tried to shake our fellow citizens awake, and you can hold that in your heart. Someday, someone will ask the question: why didn't anyone stop this? You are on the right side of history.

I am not going to put myself in the position anymore, but I did try.

That site seems filled with knowledgeable people. I will spend some time there.

One of our sons lives out of the country now, and it is always on our mind that we need to wonder how closely our communications are monitored.

Whenever legal conflicts come up, it's my place to turn.

I think we must assume that within a month, all out of country communications will be monitored without warrent or probable cause. However, I also think we must assume that in-country information will also be scooped up. Another difficulty with the bill is that the system even now makes any defense difficult to mount. The new FISA will make that impossible.

Have you read the account by the lawyers at Salon Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale?



What was "not user-friendly" has just become off-limits for the innocent. The scoop will pick up anything at all: a mention of drugs, a simple expression of discontent, and political discussions. Anything. Everything. No watchers.

Nevertheless, there are those who are completely happy to throw verbal spit balls and bounce right along because after all...this will never happen to them. I dunno, I kinda like the 4th Amendment. FISA has been amended in the past but only to make it more restrictive to account for new technology. This is not going to be changed for the better.

The bill is 114 pages, lots of internal and external cross-references. A very difficult read. I went through a lot of it, and it made my eyes cross. I did get a lot of details from it that I did not know before.

Pulling out a single paragraph from the bill and declaring that it encompasses an entire issue about it isn't really a good analysis. Bills and legal documents do NOT have plain language to the layman...in truth, the language is often very specific. From what I understand, a great deal of the power in this process is put into the Attorney General's hands. There is a lot of allowance for any spying program in which the President wants to dig its heels...up to 4 months of delays possible, with the Supreme Court as the ultimate decider.

I have read a lot of analyses at this point, and I tend to agree with the experts when it comes to their criticism on looseness of language, lack of full judicial oversight, and numerous allowances.

But concepts such as "minimalization", "due diligence", "reasonably believed", etc. all have specific definitions, and specific inherent flaws. A lawyer is far more likely to navigate these waters, although about a week of good research would probably get you through this one bill. And that is why experts are invoked.

Asking someone to read 114 pages of legaleze to get into an argument of minutia is not dealing with the issue. I'd rather read something more entertaining.

However, before I joined the hysteria, I wanted to know what was going on. Balkinization is a good source because the discussion between the posters there offers both sides that boil down the issues. The scoops are the worst part with their blanet warrents because that requires minimalization, and without having anyone watching the watchers. Anyone caught up in a scoop, and that will be many, many people, will have no knowlege that they will suddenly have their very own file. This will occur outside of the FISA courts.

Thank you for that.

I couldn't add to the conversation over there, but I recommend that site for times of legal blow-ups. Jack Balkin is not pleased.

...I love ya, but here's what seems to be happening.

The FISA hobby horse has been ridden into the ground around here—pushed by some earnest, genuinely upset posters, and unfortunately by too many griefers with primary axes to grind.

You yourself have racked up a huge amount of posts on it—and the subject of so-called “purity” and “loyalists”—and people's eyes have begun to glaze over. It's “post-subject fatigue”, and unwittingly (I hope) you've contributed to it. People's eyes have glazed over to the point where they don't even wanna listen any more, and when they don't wanna listen, you can't convince 'em...

And because you CAN'T convince 'em, and they're coming across as tired of hearing from you, you're lashing out a bit—in this thread, with sarcasm, snark, some drama-queenery dudgeon and even a touch of “GBCW” fatalism. To the point where when people simply disagree (and lay out why in this thread), you seem overly combative on it. It feeds on itself to the point where folks see FISA and see your name as the OP and there's probably a sigh and an automatic “next”, and it's on to the next thread.

Now, you may NOT want to hear that—but that's the way it looks from here.

Take it for what you will.

I should just shut up when they tell me all those people I quoted are wrong.

Do you see all the people they are calling stupid just to get back at me?

There are no wins here.

You're making this all about you.

That's why folks are tuning out. As I will be after this post.

Generally I love your stuff...but this is just damned tedious now.

Catch ya' later.

.

You've done a lot of work in compiling references to back up your premise in this piece, and I appreciate it. You're keeping an important dialogue alive.

Don't let anyone shut you up with suggestions of superior knowledge, and posts (replete with with several grammatical bloopers, BTW) which suggest you must read this latest FISA legisltion, yourself, before you have a right to speak up.

Some say you should not put your faith in those sources you listed without doing the research, yourself -- minus a law degree. And then they turn and say we must put blind faith in Obama to lead us to the Promised Land, and shut up about his blatant failing (but not "mistake") on FISA, and not worry our pretty heads about that Fourth Amendment stuff.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, or words to that effect. Historically, citizens of other countries who shut up lost life and liberty.

Rave on, MacFloridian!

I've appreciated your posts on this topic.

and it is just too wearing on them to hit the ignore button,

http://www.progressive.org/mag/wx071008.html

"Leave it to George Bush to point out a little-noticed aspect of the FISA bill that he likes, but you should hate. In his chortle over the Democratic cave-in on FISA, Bush said, “It will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will, themselves, be protected from lawsuits for past—or future—cooperation with the government.”

The news lies between those dashes.

Opponents of the FISA bill, from the ACLU to Russ Feingold, have been focusing on retroactive immunity for AT&T and Verizon and the other telecom companies. But what may be even more alarming is the prospective immunity that telecom companies and Internet service providers and others are guaranteed by this

Here are some of the relevant passages:

“The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an electronic communication service provider to a) “immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary . . . b) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished. . . .”

And here’s the kicker: “No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider” for providing this information."

Sounds to me like they just made all the illegal stuff legal now and in the future.

from possible oversight. That was the point.

Information is power. This has nothing to do with a "terrorist threat".

what they say and be able to explain it largely on your own.

It is not necessary to read the whole FISA legislation on your own, just the pertinent parts in regards to immunity, or whatever point you are trying to make.

Another thing that is quite useful, is that if you are going to rely on sources instead of self-analysis, sources with the opposite point of view are extremely useful. And the stronger the spokesperson for the opposing view, the better, just as is the case for your view. You can then possibly show how the first source debunks the opposing point of view, or debunk the opposing point of view yourself.

Let's be specific

appeciation for what their learned opinions bring to the table. This FISA vote is going to haunt some DEMS (and the rest of us, unfortunately) for a long time to come. I only hope it can be reversed.

Can't you see what they are doing here?

They are making it okay by putting me down and discrediting good groups and good progressive voices.

No one will pay.

We will be hushed first.

Don't you see it here?

As a journalist Hedges had his own range of problems, including that the government can turn over your conversations to foreign governments.

He talked about how his middle eastern sources mow won't say shit, knowing a tape of the conversation can be passed off to Israel.

Also talked about a soldier with (supposedly) info and photos about an incident where our Navy took over an Iranian oil rig in Iranian waters, who broke off talking to Hedges because Hedges could not guarantee him that their conversation was secure. As Hedges noted, no journalist can tell any source their conversation is secure.

It was an interesting session.

because they fear their communications are monitored, which of course they are.

These few in this forum are discrediting, all of the ones I mentioned in the OP, and they are succeeding very well.

The GDP will be lacking any criticism.

... the new FISA legislation. This forum is for general discussion of all topics having to do with the presidential election.

Opposing this post in this forum is simply being used as a diversion. The same information posted elsewhere would receive the same criticisms. There are much greater issues than getting into the trivia of where this is posted. And as the OP has stated, the criticism of her original post took place here, so she should by all means answer it here.

I welcome a chance to read this information. Those who do not welcome that same chance may choose not to read it. It's a win/win for all!

to defend the indefensible.

That was my point.

You have all won. Have your quiet forum. I will only post Democratic warm and fuzzy love here in this forum.

Every person and every group I named was said to be wrong, to defend a bill that damaged the 4th amendment and made Bush chortle with glee.

Some wins are not worth it.

warm and fuzzy love, cause until their shoes get tight-they will never feel the pain of our lose.

But, you would be wrong.

I mean 8 days of bitching about losing a little bitty old piece of the Constitution. I mean, you would think they closed your favorite Starbucks or something really important.

Hey, if we go rid of the whole thing, maybe there wouldn't be any more wars. I mean, when my dad put on a uniform and got shot for defending the constitution, he didn't know how easy it would have been to just chill over the whole thing. Bet if we got rid of that crumbly old piece of paper, all the terrists would get caught too.

this Constitution talk's spoiling all the fun at every party this spring. I get so bored I could scream.

(And, in real life, Butterfly McQueen would be disgusted by what has transpired since her tragic 1995 death.)

I feel an attack of the vapors coming on (or at least I will threaten one if people persist in discussing topics without the hall monitors' permission).

Because they would have all been solved by now!!

In retrospect, the 8 days leading up to the vote isn't going to seem long compared to the next 115 days, which is when we get to vote!

develop.

The opinions of so many constitutional lawyers mean nothing as DU now has their own experts.

:evilgrin:

DU has built in expertise now.

All the people attacking the "purity trolls" on DU clearly must have graduated from law school and understand how laws are written. They must understand that quite often the worst parts of a bill are not the explicit parts, but the vague legal language that is very difficult to understand without thoroughly analyzing each word and checking all the cross references.

Thanks Mad Floridian, it is really amazing to see so many people dismissing the actual legal experts you cite in favor of their own reading of the bill. I would be shocked if any of these people who are attacking you could explain to me what half of the text of that bill actually means, legal language is very complex and even those with law degrees are likely to miss some very important details. I trust the ACLU to have lawyers that understand this thing far better than I ever could, and I will put my trust in the ACLU over any random person on an internet message board.

K&R

The bill has passed. It has nothing to do with the presidential race.

This is pathological on your part.

Why don't you contact the mods. I have a note from them saying I could post in here or GD.

But I will very soon not do it anymore.

I will leave you to excuse the inexcusable, defend the indefensible.

You will have peace.

that goddamn dead horse already.

It's a dead issue. It passed Congress. It's signed into law. There isn't a damn thing you can possibly accomplish by obsessing over it.

Just ignore what I say. It is not important anyway.

You're one of my favorites. :hi:

Sorry about that and thanks for the kind words.

All these legal experts DU is suddenly acquiring have boggled my poor mind.

You just keep pounding someone with the dead horse stuff, you try to embarrass them so they will hush.

It is so easy.

I will post in the other forum, so you guys can have peace and harmony.

I am sure we would be able to bring about real change if we just started shutting up every time Congress screwed us over.

Sorry, but this is a very relevant issue whether you want to hear about it or not.

FISA isn't an issue in the presidential race.

It is an issue that has gotten a lot of discussion in this Presidential race and you know it, don't tell me it is not an issue.

So let's just forget that we lost another huge chunk of the Constitution to the most vicious right-wing junta this country has ever known.

:shrug:

and I hope I'm not one of the ones who accused you of it.

However, if it a subject that is important to you, you owe it to yourself to read the legislation. The core parts of it (Sec 702-4 and 802) are not that long:

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

After having read it, I have been forced to conclude that the contents are being seriously misrepresented by a lot sources like the ACLU that I have tended to respect. Some of the things they claim the bill says are nowhere to be found. It appears to be a mixture of fears, projections, and extraneous issues which have little to do with the actual language.

This is a perfect example of why forming an opinion of a movie based on reading ten reviews is no substitute for seeing it yourself.

So I picked MANY people I trusted, and I posted about their views.

We do this on other topics, why is suddenly very bad to quote experts on the FISA bill?

What in the world in going on here?

The people attacking me over this are not lawyers. But they are discrediting those who are.

I guess they are so afraid of losing they are afraid to stand up for something.

That or perhaps the attacks are organized...That happens on topics like that.

I had to narrow it down to the core sections -- 702, 703, 704, plus the statutory defense section, 802. Sections 702 and 703 concern only non-US persons (when a citizen becomes involved, a warrant is required). Sec 704 restricts espionage on US persons overseas. Taken together, they do not resemble at all the way the bill is being characterized.

There's nothing wrong with quoting experts -- everyone has to do it. I don't blame anyone for getting thinking this bill is the most evil thing in the world. Most of them seem to agree. I do think that in the process, our Senators are being shortchanged as a source of legitimate opinions, but nobody in this process seems to be explaining themselves very well.

Not all criticism from the progressive side is in good faith, and I think this is an example. I remember the controversy over the Bork nomination. I think Bork may have been the most reactionary judge ever nominated to the Supreme Court and should have been voted down on the basis of ideology. Apparently that was not considered good enough and many of the arguments most publicized were simply not truthful.

Progressive groups can whip up the base all they want, but when it's used to slander Obama, I have to object. I don't know what the critics believe they are doing, but in my mind they're swiftboating their own nominee.

So are we supposed to read just the bill itself, or are we supposed to check all the cross references as well? If we read just the text of the bill and ignore the cross references then we are not getting a full picture of what this bill really does. You can say it is not that long, but that would only be if you did not do all the necessary research it takes to fully understand even a small section of the bill. That is why we need to have legal experts that we can trust, because simply reading the text of a bill will not give most people a clear understanding of exactly what the bill does.

Thanks.

But you don't show even one actual example. That's a serious omission.

You point vaguely at certain subsections. Rather than point vaguely, I'll show an exact "point of concern", and explain why it bothers me:

--begin quote--
(g) Certification-

‘(1) IN GENERAL-

‘(A) REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.

‘(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.
--end quote--

I'm concerned about the extreme generality of the exceptional clause. This clause is so general that there becomes no way to enforce the following five conditions:

--begin quote--
‘(2) REQUIREMENTS- A certification made under this subsection shall--
... ‘(A) ‘(B) ‘(C) ‘(D) ‘(E)
--end quote--

Because clearly after exception ‘(1)‘(B) these conditions can always be posited after the fact.

That's one thing that concerns me. Another thing is:

--begin quote--
‘(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

...

‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

‘(i) authorized by the President; and

‘(ii) determined to be lawful;
--end quote--

What bothers me about that clause are the phrases "‘(4)‘(B)‘(i) authorized by the President; and ‘(ii) determined to be lawful."
These phrases constitute an universal exception regardless of whether the activity is/was/will or isn't/was't/won't actually lawful, or lawful in fact, and furthermore these phrases force the hand of any telecom company which might question the legality of such a request. This clause is phrased so broadly it fairly eviscerates the original raison d'etre of the original FISA act.

I have been all over the boards this week with references and quotes trying to stimulate this kind of discussion. So thank you posting the language.

For your first quote from Sec 702 (g), keep in mind that the certification it is discussing is described above. It is limited to selecting surveillance targets from among non-US-citizens, and has nothing to do with spying on US citizens:


When targets initiate calls into the US, warrants are always required to eavesdrop.

-------------------------------------

You also express concern about the 7-day exception clause and its extreme generality. Yes, those are real concerns but they are nothing new to this amendment. Delays were built into the original 1978 legislation. The 2008 amendments merely extend the window from 3 to 7 days. And remember, this certification is still under 702(a), which affect targeting of non-US-persons only.

-------------------------------------
Your next set of text is from 802(a), the statutory defense or so-called immunity section. The language is mention is in fact very general and open to abuse. But keep reading to the next subsection:


The proceedings are under a court and need to be supported by 'substantial evidence. Sec 802 does not cover civil suits for criminal acts, acts before Sep 11, or criminal charges.

-------------------------------------

I am not arguing that this is a perfect bill, but it does put everything under the courts. It doesn't change the expiring version all that much, and in some cases improves it. There is definitely the potential for abuse, but I don't know how anyone wold craft a bill without that potential. The more I look at it, the more Obama's position looks reasonable.

-------------------------------------

On Edit: As far as the ACLU misrepresenting the bill, the lawyer filed the case challenging the bill's constitutionality was on the Rachel Maddow show the Thursday. Her opening statement described the bill as allowing virtually unlimited surveillance of communications without oversight. (Can't quote exactly because it was on the radio.) Since you've read the bill, do you see anything in there that remotely resembles this, at least concering US citizens? That's what I was referring to as outrageous misrepresentation. I seriously doubt Obama would have voted for a bill like that.

Which will be hard if you are one who thinks the ACLU's lawyers are wrong.

But I wonder what you think about these interpretations?

Superficial role for courts



I wonder about your opinions on these sections.

"The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States."

The heart of the Amendments are in the following sections:

SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.
SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
‘SEC. 704. OTHER ACQUISITIONS TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

702 and 703 concern non-US persons. Targeting can indeed be done by defining the situation, reason, and methods rather than listing names. However, any communications found to involve US persons require a warrant. 704 places restrictions on monitoring US persons overseas. To my knowledge, there were (shockingly) no such restrictions before. Specifically, Sec 704(c) says:

The whole purpose of the section is to limit surveillance to legitimate situations and place it under court oversight. The ACLU may not believe the restrictions are effective. But characterizing it as allowing "mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States" is, shall we say, hyperbole.

--------

The "exigent" passage you cited is from 702 (c) and concerns targeting subjects in 702(a). These subjects are by definition non-US persons, which have always been fair game.

--------

The clause allowing surveillance to continue if the application is denied is also in 702, subsection (g). This also refers only to surveillance of non-US persons overseas.

There's nothing in the language of the statute that suggests that mass surveillance of communications going into and out of the USA can't be conducted.

You've brought up Section 702 and I agree that's the key provision. It states:



In other words:

(1) the target must be a foreign person outside the US, and

(2) the purpose of interception must be to acquire foreign intelligence information.

You seem to be confusing "target" with the idea of "party to a communication." "Target" is not defined, but if you read the statute "target" means more than "any party to the communication." It is the focus of the surveillance.

For example, assume a London phone number is found in a cave in Afghanistan. The NSA wants to know who's using the phone, what they're saying, by tapping that phone. The London Al Quaeda phone number would be the "target." The NSA would tap that phone number and if that phone number called inside the US, a warrant would not be required as the NSA would not be intentionally targeting a US person. If anyone in the US is called using that phone number, that US person is not a "target" and thus no warrant is required; the Al Qaeda phone number is the target.

Now under the old FISA the targets were "foreign powers" or agents of foreign powers" (and recently terrorists). Under this new bill, targets are not just foreign powers, agents of foreign powers, or terrorists. Section 702(a). It applies to foreign persons.

Do certain foreign individuals or phone numbers need to be specifically targeted or can entire cities and nations? The answer is there's nothing in the language of the legislation I can see that limits the government with respect to particularity in targeting foreign persons.

You can start to see how this opens the door to mass warrantless surveillance. The only restriction is that, as mentioned above, the purpose of the interception must be to acquire foreign intelligence information. Now if you look at the definition of "foreign intelligence information" in FISA, it is extremely broad. "Foreign intelligence information" is defined as



FTR, I think this is a better bill than what it's replacing and I'm moderately in favor of these amendments

You are correct that "target" is not in the definitions sections. I searched for "target" or "targeting" and counted 57 occurrences. At least 45 of them either specified that a target was a human being or implied it (eg, a target that is moving, misidentified, or reasonably believed to be inside the US). The rest were general uses that referred to previous language. I have to think that a target means a human being.

What you said about targeting a phone number or location does appear to be allowed, however. The government is not required to provide a list of names, but it is required to provide to FISC the methodology used and minimization procedures followed. If FISC is doing their job, they would approve an application for all phone calls from a village in northern Pakistan known to have sheltered Al Qaida members. I cannot imagine they would approve an application for all calls from the city of Minsk. The city of Cleveland is not even part of the scope of the act.

Now the sticking point is that some of the calls may be placed to US persons either domestically or overseas. (That could always be done, of course, on an individual basis.) In order to target the American's communications a warrant is needed.

There is a difference between having communication from overseas monitored from by a individual warrant and by a more general court-approved strategy. But it is not what is being discussed today. I believe it is hyperbole.

I think you need to be careful reading things into the statute that aren't there.

1. FISA doesn't limit itself to targeting "individuals." It speaks of targeting "persons." If you look at the statutory definition of "person" in FISA, it is not limited to individuals. Section 101 defines "persons" under FISA as:



I suppose if you tap a phone number, the phone number is not the target per se. Rather you're targeting those individuals who use the phone number. So in that sense, you're correct.

My larger point remains though, which is that if someone (a foreigner) using that foreign phone number calls into the US, the person in the US is not a "target" and therefore no warrant is required to listen in to that call. The US person on the receiving end of the phone call is an unlucky bystander, but not the "target"; rather the person using the monitored phone number is the "target" of surveillance Thus this surveillance fall outside the scope of Section 703, but within the scope of Section 702.

There are a couple of things in the statute that I believe make clear that those who drafted it share my interpretation:

(1) The concern with "reverse targeting":

If you read further into Sec 702 it provides limitations on the AG and Intelligence Director in adopting targeting procedures in a particular case:



Now the concern here is the government targeting a foreigner outside the country as a pretext for conducting warrantless surveillance of someone you know to be inside the USA. Section 702(b)(2). For example, if I believe ribofunk is a terrorist and I know his best friend (and non-us citizen) woolldog lives overseas, I can't tap woolldog's phone (i.e., I can't "target" woolldog) with the intent of figuring out what ribofunk is up to. I need to follow the procedures laid out in Section 703 instead if I want to spy on ribofunk. Note that Section 702(b)(2) would be completely unnecessary if your interpretation of "targeting" under Section 702 were correct.

(2) The minimization procedures:

You argue that the FISC would never approve this kind of mass surveillance because it would fall afoul of the miminization procedures in FISA. I'm not so sure I agree. When I read the definition of minimization procedures in Section 101, it appears to me as if they are mainly procedural and allow a lot of wiggle room.



They limit the time that info obtained about US persons can be retained; limits the dissemination of information on US persons that has been acquired. Nothing here suggests that the kind of surveillance we're talking about here would run contrary to minimization procedures. In fact, the statute calls for the privacy of US citizens to be balanced against "the need of the US to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information." Section 101(h)(1). I'm sure the minimization procedures vary from order to order, but nothing here suggests to me that they are as "meaty" as you seem to think they are.

(3) Common Sense.

Finally, does it makes sense to you that those monitoring a phone number would have to get a warrant every time someone calling that phone number happens to call into the U.S.? or every time someone from the US happens to call that phone number? No. That doesn't seem reasonable b/c it is fundamentally unpredictable.

2. There's nothing in FISA that suggests any requirements as to the level of specificity with which individuals or groups or foreign powers need to be targeted. In other words, targeting a single phone number or a single individual is as valid as targeting "those individuals outside the USA who use the word "bomb" in their conversations."

3. Under the old FISA, mass surveillance of communications coming into and out of the US was already permitted provided that the interception took place outside the US. That kind of surveillance simply didn't fall under the scope of the old FISA.

I had not noticed that a person could be a group. That definitely broadens the scope.

Non-Targets: It is certainly true that a US citizen need not be a target (and in fact does not qualify to be a target) in order to have his or her calls surveilled if the communication is with a target. This is true AFAIK of all legal surveillance methods, including traditional domestic wiretaps -- a warrant is only obtained for one party. The 2008 bill does not change that. Therefore, I don't think that the implications of that should be depicted as lowering the standards.

Reverse targeting: I understand the, and the way the bill addressed it may not be effective. Because it goes to intent, I don't know what exactly would amount to an effective provision. To get the foreign party accepted as a target, however, requires convincing FISC that he or she is a legitimate target.

Minimization: This is another restriction that may not prove to be effective. It is better than not having an minimization clause. Ultimately, it comes down to what the court will allow, and the question of how effective foreign surveillance is if limited to a series of names or phone numbers that have to be preapproved. I suspect this is the biggest disconnect between supporters and critics.

Warrants: Finally, does it makes sense to you that those monitoring a phone number would have to get a warrant every time someone calling that phone number happens to call into the US.

Yes, I should have said that if the government proceeds to systematically spy on the US person there needs to be a warrant.

Comparison with Previous Bill: Under the old FISA, mass surveillance of communications coming into and out of the US was already permitted provided that the interception took place outside the US. That kind of surveillance simply didn't fall under the scope of the old FISA.

This is one thing that confuses me about the widespread outrage. The current law appears to me in many ways to tighten surveillance rather than loosen it. Some of the restrictions may not be the most effective, but replace in some areas a situation with no restrictions.

I'm just heading out the door for the weekend so will have to get back to you later. One thing for certain, this issue won't go away. It cuts too deep to the core values of a free democracy for that.

Re. Rachel - she has a doctorate in poli sci but admits she doesn't have a degree in law, or economics, etc., so like madfloridian she admits that she relies heavily on experts to guide her through reading and understanding these bits of legislation. Nevertheless, she's very smart.

My impression, after reading fragments here, there, and everywhere, is that this bill does in fact give not just legal immunity for past (possible) infractions, but for all and every possible *future* infraction, so long as US admin functionaries give the order.

The original purpose of the FISA bill after the shenanigans of the Nixon years was to reign in any flagrant abuse of gov't power by rogue administrations by making it legally incumbant on the telecom and communications industries to ensure they follow the law, whoever might give them orders to disobey. That's why FISA was brought into legislation in the first place, to ensure that the gov't and its agencies continue to have the tools to enforce the law, to bring bad actors to justice, while at the same time ensuring that the gov't and its agencies are themselves subordinate to the law, that the gov't and its agencies themselves can't go rogue and be taken over by bad actors.

So my understanding is that the bill just passed isn't so much an amendment, but effectively neuters the raison d'etre of the original bill, and furthermore it actually FORCES THE HAND of the telecom and communication companies, that they MUST follow ANY command from gov't or it's agencies, *regardless* of the possible legality or illegality of that command. So the point is twofold. One, legal immunity isn't just for past action but also for current and future action. No disclosure will be forthcoming on legal/illegal infrastructures emplaced for past mass harvesting of communications, and no disclosure will be forthcoming henceforth -- even tho' whistleblowers have detailed the nature of that machinery this info is worthless to us, to those who care about civil liberties. Two, although in the past a few telecom companies *refused* gov't commands to set up the machinery for mass communications harvesting thru' their operations, in future these and other telecom companies will have no recourse to not only abide by such commands, but to suck it down in faux display of trust that the gov't that issues these commands is following proper procedure in secret vis a vis it's relations with secret courts.

All very much in line with the procedures of the military tribunals which process victims of the Gitmo machine. A perfect black box, answerable to nothing outside it.

It's a whole complete package for Bush and the telecoms. We gave them all they wanted with a ribbon on top.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/10/AR2008071001471.html

"Last year, Congress passed temporary legislation that helped our intelligence community monitor these communications. The legislation I'm signing today will ensure that our intelligence community professionals have the tools they need to protect our country in the years to come.

The DNI and the attorney general both report that once enacted, this law will provide vital assistance to our intelligence officials in their work to thwart terrorist plots. This law will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will themselves be protected from lawsuits from past or future cooperation with the government."

And thanks for the nice comments about the fact that Rachel Maddow bows to those who are more informed as well.

is drawing the conclusion that because the bill contains statutory defenses, that will have the effect that telecoms will hereafter comply with any illegal requests, including those not covered in the bill.

Anyone who thinks this needs to state that logic rather than describe the bill as allowing "mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States" when it plainly does not. Otherwise, Senators like Obama who may expect different outcomes are being slandered as voting for something they never voted for.

The Bush administration committed many illegal acts of espionage. Outrage over the prospect that they may very well get away with it is justified. In the progressive community, that outrage is being directed at anything associated with the issue.

The critics of immunity, the interest in maintaining the existing civil suits are a outrage against corporate influence, a desire to punish breaches of privacy, a desire to uncover more evidence of illegal government activities, and a desire to deter further compliance with illegal requests.

The writers of the bill left criminal charges open, and civil charges open for illegal acts and for acts before Sep 11. For the covered actions, are looking at is the dollar amount of the suits. I have not been able to find the exact amount of the suits, but I believe the allowable amount is $1,000 per person affected. If the whole US population were included, that would be $300 billion. I believe damages could treble that to $900 billion. Let's assume it's a fraction of that -- it's a still an amount that could bankrupt some of the largest telecoms in the country. There should be a penalty, but I don't believe that is proportional.

There's a lot more to this, but I'd rather discuss a few things in detail than throw a sentence at each of the myriad issues flying around.

You say "Anyone who thinks this needs to state that logic rather than describe the bill as allowing "mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States" when it plainly does not."

At this point I throw up my hands and say flat out that your statement may not be "false" in a purely technical sense, it is antagonistic to the truth. It's antagonistic to the truth about the nature of the Bill being discussed, that has just been passed, and about the nature of the discussion that has been taking place in this forum for several weeks now, and which follows similar discussions in this forum every time variations of this malicious Bill, this malicious piece of legislation, have been brought forward since the '06 elections.

I'm brought to the exact point where I entered this sub-thread, and I reiterate to you that I entered this sub-thread by stating that "You *say* that the contents have been seriously misrepresented by the ACLU et al." After this I demonstrated to you, by quoting exact passages in the bill, how the substance of the objections to this bill lie not in its positive definitions of legal surveillance etc. consists of, according as the Bill, but in the extraordinarily general EXCEPTIONS, as I say again, given in the exceptional clauses that I quoted.

So yes, it's TRUE that the plainly the Bill does not give an explicit, positive definition of legal "mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications in to and out of the United States". But you know very well that I NEVER CLAIMED THAT, and you know very well that the issue I'm pointing out is the nature of the extremely vague EXCEPTIONAL CLAUSES, which in effect give the Bush admin, and any subsequent admin, carte blanche - because now there's no possible way to penetrate the multi-layered wall of secrecy.

This has now been explained to you twice.

It's not necessary for everyone to agree. But having this discussion has clarified a lot of things for me, and hopefully for other posters.

------------

You bring up one factor which is rarely mentioned but I am convinced is the key to a lot of difference in perception, namely the secrecy of the court proceedings. Activists and lawyers understandably have not the slightest trust in secret proceedings. Supporters like Webb and Obama seem to have a greater comfort level with the FISC. I don't know how we as private citizens are supposed to evaluate that. It can't be as public as other courts, but operating on a 'trust me' is not an ideal situation. I do not expect the FISC to allow open-ended systematic absue in the next six months, but it's an area that has to be worked on.

-------------

My impression...is that this bill does in fact give not just legal immunity for past (possible) infractions, but for all and every possible *future* infraction, so long as US admin functionaries give the order.

That is the impression that is given. However, the language is Sec 802 is very restrictive in my view. It does not provide for actual immunity, but allows a certain type of defense in court. It does not cover (1) criminal charges, (2) civil suits concerning programs initiated before Sept 11 2001 , which we know existed, (3) programs after a certain date, I believe in 2005, and (4) civil penalties for acts determined to be criminal. When you read where the attorney general can write a letter stating the acts were legal, keep reading to Section B on judicial review. It has to be ruled on by a judge.

A lot of critics seeme to expect the judges in these suits to roll over and accept anything the administration says, but that has not been the experience of late. Regardless of who's right or wrong, critics need to say that the restrictions will not work unless upheld by a judge rather than give the impression that Obama and others voted for unconditional immunity.

--------------

Any one of us can have communications monitored without a warrant on a perfectly legal basis today and as far back as the laws have existed. All that has to happen is that the party we are talking to is the subject of a warrant.

It is true that any telephone call is now open to unlimited government monitoring provided that:

-- The call is international
-- The international party is a noncitizen
-- The other party has been a foreign surveillance target for less than a year.
-- The call is part of a monitoring pattern that has been certified by a judge as designed to collect foreign intelligence, not designed to target US citizens, contains adequate minimization procedures, and is consistent with the fourth amendment.

That is an extremely small subsection of what people are believing is now legal. And according to Wooldog (who is a critic of the bill), all of this foreign monitoring used to be just fine as long as the collection was outside the US. That's what puzzles me, because as far as I can tell, most of the amendments serve to restrict rather than loosen.

------

There is no doubt some of the provisions in the bill are weak. The administration will probably attempt to abuse this bill for the next six months. Their success will depend on secret proceedings with a FISA judge that we will never know.

However, this bill is a far cry from the "mass, unlimited, warrantless" spying that the ACLU is charging. They are lawyers used to speaking to the public, and they know better. I wouldn't care as much if their mischaracterization wasn't causing massive political fallout to one of the best nominees in my lifetime.

The whole "foreign intelligence" angle has been exploited as an excuse for "total information awareness" and collecting whatever the hell they please, and this bill just legalized the whole scam. It gives the president permission to spy on anybody ANYWHERE for any reason as long as his AG says it's ok, and nobody gets to challenge his determinations, just the paperwork. It's a joke and a wholesale gutting of the Constitution.

In no sense does the bill permit what you said it permitted, but perhaps it is the enforcement that concerns people.

What is the change in this legislation from previous of FISA law that allows that to happen? Have enforcement provisions been removed from the 1978 law? Is there another version that was killed which would have allowed better enforcement?

I suspect a lot of the problem is with the 1978 FISA arrangement simply because it has been abused under this administration. There are legitimate constitutional concerns about issues like post-warrants, but that has been SOP for years, and everyone in DC in on board with it. The 1978 law is not what's being singled out for criticism.

Now, let's say that Bush wants to eavesdrop on calls between Obama and Howard Dean. That remains illegal -- in fact, the legislation does not modify in any way the law relating to purely domestic surveillance. Their physical ability to break the law is not changed. It remains under FISC and requires probable cause if a warrant to be issued. Probable cause is also required to monitor calls from a target overseas to the US and calls involving an American overseas (this is new).

Are there changes in the court's role that are not apparent from a reading of the bill?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6483380#6483509

Now if you want to pretend you still don't get it, fine, there are lots here who will gladly play that idiotic game with you. But I'm not one of them.

I read, understood, and shot down every misrepresentation that was made. You have to do better than that. Please.

I am happy to recommend a madfla post in defense of the 4th amendment.

It's the only Bill of Rights we've got. :kick:

Too much non-reading around here.

with spelling issues. :shrug:

I would just love to see what kind of law degrees all these people who are telling us that they read the bill and saw nothing bad in it have. Legal language is extremely technical, when the bill says "as referred to in subsection 3" does anyone go back and see what subsection 3 actually says? If not then they are not getting the full picture, and they have no place telling us that there is nothing bad in the bill. Quite often the worst parts of a bill are not explicit, they are extremely vague and even with a great deal of legal expertise it can be extremely difficult to catch the loopholes that exist.

I trust the ACLU much more than I trust an anonymous poster on the internet who claims to have read the bill and has found nothing wrong with it. The ACLU has many very good lawyers working for them, and they no doubt have studied this bill much more thoroughly than anyone on DU. I trust the ACLU's interpretation of it much more than I would trust my own interpretation of extremely complicated legal language.

in my office and found it to be every bit as heinous as described. I have to disagree with John Dean's early assessment of it as poorly written though, because it struck me as having been about as carefully written as an army of corporate lawyers and their highly-paid staffs could make it. Sloppy it isn't. There is a lot of deceptive language though describing totally unenforcible recommendations (like following the 4th amendment) that I'm guessing the armchair legislative analysts are seizing on to delude themselves.

And yeah it's sad, weird and sad.

I think that I'm in the "middle." Shall wait until mid 2009 for a final analysis.

Feingold appears to see some hope, ergo, ...

There is nothing wrong with middle...where I mostly am. What is wrong is that Hastert and Frist tried to get a bill like this passed, but they could not. Now the Democrats did it, and it is not middle...it is to the far right.

tribute to Hoyer for his assistance on this bill.

:(

:shrug:

He got everything he wanted and more.

'the Democrats spent months complaining about the program, but then they finally saw the light and agreed with President Bush on the need for wiretapping program'

The comments in the future will be interesting :(

to go with your whine.

But amazing in what it says about you.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... any suggestion of dissatisfaction with the presumptive candidate is a "whine," or a "temper tantrum"?

It's a bully's schoolyard taunt, a noise machine which wants to stop free expression of ideas.

Remember those Republicans pounding on the door in Florida, trying to stop the legally authorized vote count? Same mentality, possibly same goals.

I remember that pounding on the doors very clearly.

We can't live in fear of the right wing anymore. Let them pound the doors, we just don't have to let them in when they are being unreasonable.

But we will. :shrug:

We the People are going to have to find some new ways to make our voices heard. Whispering, pleading, shouting, *voting* ... nothing seems to work. Feeling a bit snarky today, I'm considering that maybe a swift kick to some valued private parts may be the only answer. But what am I saying? With few stellar exceptions (Kucinich comes to mind), they're all wearing a political/metaphorical cod piece!

Sometimes this whole mess does seem like a wild and wacky dream because if anyone had suggested this story line to me a few years ago -- around circa 1998, when they started picking on Clinton -- I'd have said, "That must be some powerful weed you're smoking there"!

We'll all look back from the future and say, "Yeah, we should have known it all along. They were literally shouting their intentions to us."

But we were all safe behind the Constitution and the Bill of Rights!

paired with this

It is very long and involved, a summary of the various forms of the FISA bill. Takes a while to read, but worth it.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/11/75618/7060

"Finally, does the House leadership's willingness to aid in the coverup reflect a desire to avoid embarrassing, or worse, revelations regarding its own complicity? Although it is not known how much information was shared, some Democrats were briefed at various times about the Bush administration's illegal eavesdropping program (apparently as well as the administration's torture programs). Speaker Nancy Pelosi was one of those briefed - either in her prior role as House Minority Leader or as Chair of the HPSCI - but she was not only Democrat included in the briefings (see gang of 8 and gang of 4).

The most likely explanation, based on what we now know, is that the House Democratic leadership has gone along with the Bush administration's policy of warrantless eavesdropping - out of fear and/or in genuine agreement - and does not want its supporting role revealed but does want the policies of warrantless wiretapping and telco immunity. Perhaps claims regarding national security and bipartisanship are meant to obscure this.

One further point that needs to be made is that none of this can be legitimately justified on national security grounds. The House Democratic leadership has already demonstrated their lack of concern for national security when they chose Silvestre "is Al Qaeda Sunni or Shia?" Reyes to be Chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, passing over other candidates such Rush Holt a former "arms control expert at the U.S. State Department where he monitored the nuclear programs of countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union" and a physicist with the training to understand the technical aspects of our intelligence systems."

The loyalty bus is running over so many on the side of the Constitution. I guess they're the 25 percenters from our side. Don't let them discourage you, there are still many of us here that feel the same as you.

I am going to look you up and give you a big hug and a personal THANK YOU. But, I don't travel much so you don't have to worry about that remote possibility.

For all the beefing about this post being in the wrong forum because it is not an issue in the Presidential race I beg to disagree. There are many of us on DU and I hope in the Democratic populace in general who REALLY WANT OBAMA TO CORRECT THIS GRIEVOUS ERROR WHEN HE IS ELECTED. MoveOn.org has a request online for its members to write to mybarackobama.com and ask the Senator to pledge to fully investigate this entire wiretapping/surveillance abomination as soon as he takes office. I urge all Democrats to do just that ASAP.

I'm a layman with no legal training so I rely upon the opinions of others whom I respect and trust for their interpretation of these types of things. My loyalties have lain with the ACLU for many years because they focus their beady legal-eagle eyes on the LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF AMERICAN LIFE and act accordingly to bring them into line. Sometimes I am not happy with them because they represent an individual or group who I find to be reprehensible, but it's not the ACLU's duty to pick and choose only causes you or I may support. It's their duty to honor and defend and file legal briefs ON BEHALF OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

One highly relevant part of this discussion that has not been mentioned for a few days is the fact that ALL DOMESTIC U.S. PHONE CALLS WERE BEING ROUTED OVERSEAS SO THEY COULD BE MONITORED (MEANING COLLECTED AND RECORDED FOR POSSIBLE ANALYSIS).

This was the classic "dodge" that allowed the telecoms to RECORD ALL OF OUR CALLS even though THAT WAS AN ILLEGAL ACT. It was done in secrecy. It was denied when it was first exposed. The "whistleblower" (PATRIOT) who exposed this Gestapo-style secret police tactic did not even receive the recognition of being allowed to explain to OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES WHAT WAS GOING ON.

This whole thing smells worse than a bloated skunk carcass that's been baking beside I-40 for 8 days in the August heat. Yet, the hope of the POWERS-THAT-BE is that it will be forgotten and that their perfidy and treachery will go unpunished.

If patriots like MadFloridian don't keep this stinkin mess in our consciousness it's going to be forgotten in the euphoria of electing Barack Obama President of the United States.

That would be a sad thing indeed.

In my opinion, the middle ground is to criticize what you sincerely believe is deserving of criticism, in the process quoting important sources that a reasonable person would expect to have a sound opinion on the subject. I feel that's what you've done here.

A "pureist" would be someone who felt that principle should never be sacrificed in the slightest degree to political calculation. I believe that there are very few of us who are pureists in that sense. I certainly believe that political calculation needs to be considered to some degree in the decisions that our politicians make, and from reading your posts, I'm sure that you do too.

But on the other hand, I've heard complaints of "nitpicking" with respect to our criticisms of the votes on the FISA bill. I just don't see how criticism of a vote to destroy our Fourth Amendment can be considered nitpicking.

Most of us recognize that an Obama presidency would be far superior to a McCain presidency, and therefore we are willing to work for an Obama presidency, and in that sense we are loyal. I do feel strongly though that criticizing Obama is not inconsistent with being loyal to his candidacy.

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that loyalty to our country should come before loyalty to ANY candidate, nominee or not. If we feel that we must refrain from criticism in order to retain our loyalty, no matter what the candidate does, then we tend to become like those on the other side whom we so aggressively criticize for sacrificing independent thought to "loyalty".

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2353

"Yesterday Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California issued an opinion in Al Haramain v. Bush, one of the cases challenging the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. EFF has the decision, which is a clear a repudiation of what the Democratic Congress of the United States is doing with the FISA Amendments Act as any post any left blogger has written.

...."Moreover, this ruling would allow the telecoms to present their defenses. A major talking point for telecom apologists is that the the telcos were unfairly prevented from mounting a defense by the state secret privilege. By holding that FISA's existing evidence security procedures preempt the state secrets privilege, the decision belies telecom immunity proponents' claims that the litigation was unfair because the privilege prevented the telecoms from defending themselves. It also refutes claims that the lawsuits against the telecoms weren't going to go anywhere anyway.

..."The argument put forth by Democrats--particularly Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi--who are supporting this bill that it is so important because of its exclusivity provisions are only blowing so much smoke. That part of the bill is meaningless, and any slim good it might do is completely superseded by the expansion of executive power it allows."

Versus the myth...

Personally, I think we should be hammering OUR leaders to represent us and not put up with their bs waffling.

was going to vote for Sen. Obama for President, but this student said that if the Democratic Candidate doesn't stand up for the constitution, and acts like a Republican that they might as well stick with their own party. Now I was suprised to hear this story, because I thought his shift to the center was to appeal to republicans.

It's all about the spying that took place in East Germany, before the wall came down.

How are we any different now? The technology has improved, but the basic impulse to remove the rights my father and his fellows fought *over there* to preserve *over here* is as old as the unevolved human tendency of the strong to lord it over the weak!

Don't think this belongs in General Discussion: Presidential? The film is a stellar reminder of the admonition from the Founders and the likes of Dwight D. Eisenhower to be ever watchful of those who would be our "king"!

I think what we're seeing is the difference between repudiating Bush's policies v repudiating Bush.

The 5,000,000 e-mails are lost - but they may well have all of yours!
Immunity has stopped all investigation of the FISA crimes, but consider:
The administration has claimed that their crimes were in response to 911; since they started 6 months BEFORE 911, could that implicate them in the new Pearl Harbor?
Well, this new immunity just gave them better cover on one of the few chinks in their armor.
To all the trusting souls who don't think routing maneuvers give them access to everything: Good Luck getting Dems elected when the repugs may have inside information on every move you make.
The lack of accountability has given the repugs a false aura of legitimacy, and the guys I work with believe it. We just lost another big chance at forcing the M$M to talk about repug wrong-doing.

Yes, very true. :hi:

:kick: