Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
I asked you about this earlier (none / 0)
And got no response.  

Why is it important to the security of this great nation to have no accountability and no oversight in the process of wiretapping?

Why is warrantless wiretapping important to the security of this great nation when FISA enables those who are performing surveillance to obtain warrants EVEN AFTER the surveillance has occurred?

by jarett on 02/17/2008 03:37:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Spining Wheel Goes Around. (none / 0)

McCullagh's Law of Politics:

As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.

House Democrats actually had voted to extend the  wiretapping law for three weeks--Bush and the Republicans rejected that compromiseThe only thing at issue is immunity for telcoms. Period.

In any case warrantless spying is occurring as we speak, any representation to the contrary is a lie. This was done in a program the Bush administration authorized following the Sept. 11 attacks and expanded in the "Protect America Act".

"What makes this situation rather bizarre is that retroactive immunitynfor alleged illegal activities by AT&T and other telecommunications companies years ago is unrelated to extending the Protect America Act (which deals with future surveillance authorization). That makes this situation a little like Bush threatening to veto, say, a defense spending bill if it doesn't include authorization for an invasion of Iran.(1)"

Monitoring programs authorized under the original "Protect America Act" will continue until Aug 8 2008 when the authorizations expire.

The president asserts that the expiration of the Protect America Act will pose a danger to our country. The former national security council advisor on terrorism says that's not true. Former assistant attorney general says that's not true. Numerous others, and the chairman, has asserted that's not true. Why is that not true? Because FISA will remain in effect. The authority given under the Protect America Act remains in effect. And if there are new targets, the FISA court has full authority to give every authority to the administration to act. Steny Hoyer

by MRFred on 02/17/2008 05:16:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, Tex. That's just not good enough. (none / 0)
Why listen to al Qaeda without a warrant? Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee have access to information on the process that is not available to you and me. They know what kind of signals intelligence is being acquired, and how it is being utilized. They know how cumbersome it is to seek a warrant through the FISA court. They know that FISA laws were written in the 1970s, before the advent of computers and satellites and global terrorists.

It is not at all cumbersome.  The paperwork can be submitted, the surveillance conducted, and the warrant obtained -- in that order.  It is not necessary to wait.

If you can show me a changelog of FISA in this bill that simply updates it to reflect the fast-paced, high technology nature of surveillance these days, I will be satisfied that both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have made the right decision.  I have not found any such summary.  What I have found is Mitch McConnell stating that the PAA did not assist in the collection of data that put criminals away, despite his trying to lie in favor of the PAA in the past.  I have found that the Bush administration appears not to be interested in legitimate, bipartisan updates to FISA that it did not come up with.    And I have found responsible, technology-aware changes to FISA to be rejected by the Bush administration.

FISA was originally founded to prevent abuses of our intelligence services such as the ones perpetrated by Nixon, Ken.  Why should it be necessary to perform an end-run around it now when technological updates have been proposed on a bipartisan basis and shot down every time?

by jarett on 02/18/2008 12:30:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Here is what both I and the aforementioned Dems (none / 0)
know:

http://unamericanrevolution .com/activism/keith-olberma nn-buries-the-president-wit h-truth/

I won't ask you to watch the whole thing.  Just skip forward to the 4:00 mark.

The Democrats in question know this is happening, and yet Claire McCaskill wants us to immunize the telecom companies for doing something they KNEW was against the law.  In the military, we court-martial soldiers for knowingly obeying unlawful orders.  There is no reason to treat these companies any differently.  And there is STILL no justification for removing oversight and accountability from the surveillance process.  

Of course our intelligence services need flexibility and speed to be able to keep up with the dynamic nature of modern communications.  The internet is littered with stateless switches that keep no records of the packets that pass through them, much less the actual contents thereof.  STILL, however, there is no conceivable engineering reality that could require the removal of warrants from the process at some point.  I am a computer scientist (currently taking a network management course, in fact) and I certainly can't think of one.  Can you?  Can twba?  Can MrFred?

Those of us who value transparency, accountability, and competence in our government want only for records to be kept on surveillance activities by some body that is outside the executive purview of the surveillance community.  This is not an unreasonable request.  It is not a technologically infeasible request.  It is, in fact, something that has been going on for years while the internet has sprung up around us and the mobile phone network has grown organically from cities out to the Great Plains.

by jarett on 02/18/2008 04:55:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Excellent point (none / 0)
on the court martials!

by Tom Hanc on 02/18/2008 12:01:51 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This part makes me scream... (none / 0)
"...but they can't share the details with you in the interest of national security."

Not attacking Ken, he is only repeating the official line.

The official line of SHIT, that is.

I am sick to death of these cocksuckers in D.C. - BOTH parties - naking everything "secret" and "national security" just to avoid oversight. We have seen literally millions of examples of documents eventually released which show that there was NO compelling reason vis a vis "national security" for them to have ever been "classified" in the first place.

What we don't know can't hurt them.

by MedfordTim on 02/18/2008 10:10:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)