Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Okay... I'm a Flip-Flopper (FISA)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:53 PM
Original message
Okay... I'm a Flip-Flopper (FISA)
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 04:59 PM by demdog78
Okay, I wrote a post today when I was very very pissed off about FISA. And I am still very angry that the telecoms got immunity... but after much reading and listening I have to admit I might have been wrong.

All of you ready to jump ship... hold the ledge for a minute as I explain.

Yes, the immunity sucks, but when you look at the bigger picture this bill was actually a good thing.

Why? Because now we can actually prosecute people. The bill stops the warrant-less wiretaps, and allows an investigation into whether Bush, Cheney, Rice and the whole lot are in fact "criminals"

Let me clarify this. The immunity is ONLY for CIVIL cases, NOT criminal! Big Big Big difference.

Nobody is going to jail over a civil case. But a criminal investigation... that is where justice will really be served.

Just think, if they get fined a billion dollars, they are just going to pass it on to the customers. They can't pass on a prison sentance.

That is a huge plus. None of that could happen without the passage of the FISA bill.

Understand this, if you understand nothing else.

Without the passage of FISA, there would be absolutely NO way to go after BuschCo for the illegal wiretapping, and they would be able to continue to do it until he left office.

With the passage, we can at least start that. So, yes the immunity sucks, but it is still the lesser of two evils.

So... feel free to call me a flip-flopper. I don't mind flopping, as long as I end up on the right side of the issue.

To Obama... I wish you would have fought harder to strip the immunity, but I do see the bigger picture now.

I hope the rest of you can do the same. And I hope I didn't piss off too many of you with my earlier post. Sometimes that's just what happens when you are very passionate and very angry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. a link to your *revelatory* information would be nice. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. Randi has been explaining it all day.
Yes, they granted immunity in CIVIL suits, but not criminal.

So no, you can't sue for money, but wouldn't you rather see them get prosecuted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. ROFL -- YOU think they ARE going to be prosecuted?
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Next year???????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. uh huh. right.
Hold your breath. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. not much faith in AG John Edwards???
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. John hasn't said anything about any office being offered.
You see, he and many of his followers deal with the here and now -- not *promises* floated around by low-level campaign aides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. was predicting that sometime in the future that there will be no prosecutions
Was that you living in the "here and now"???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:13 PM
Original message
rhetoric when you haven't an answer
try neener neener next time. It's that *change crowd* chant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
57. ok, do we need this fucking childish banter
Go back to your sky is falling act and I will try to read and understand this ok????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HCE SuiGeneris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. Agreed. It would be helpful to a lot of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. Randi is off, but I think you can find the transcript on her site.
Acutally, if you go to Obama's website he has a blog up about what the bill does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildflowergardener Donating Member (863 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:02 PM
Original message
blog
Can you give me any idea of where to find this on Obama's blog?

I will be honest - I don't understand what the bill does well enough to know if I'm for or against it. I would, however like to read Obama's explantion of why he voted for it - if it's up there, I'm just having trouble finding it.

I did try reading the bill - began, but I'm afraid I don't really understand it - need a cliffs note version or something.

Meg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. H.R.6304
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. I applaud you on your enlightenment,
but how do you reconcile these points with the opinions of the ACLU, Fiengold, Turley, etc? That's what I keep coming back to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
24. Well, Obama does have a background in Constitutional law as well
He seems to be ok with it. Also many agree the bill is written like spaghetti.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Ding Ding Ding... Constitutional Scholar
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. And Jonathan Turley isn't?
Obama understands what it REALLY means more than Turley, the ACLU, and Biden (who's been a constitutional scholar and professor a lot longer than Obama).

Why is ONE expert smarter than so many others?

I don't think I'll be able to come around to your acceptance of this, dog. Again, I applaud you. You're a bigger person than I.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. I just think it's better than the alternative.
At least now there can be "SOME" accountability.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #54
62. I can only say again -
I honestly am impressed by the way you worked through this and found peace.:)

This is going to be one of the things to me that keeps me upset for awhile.

I'm just going to stay out of the Obama/FISA threads. Only upsets me.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. Oh, I'm still upset about it.
But if I had to choose... this is the lesser of the two evils. That's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #54
71. Duh. Presidential Pardons
bush can pardon the telcoms for any criminal offenses before he leaves office, say like January. This bill was needed to keep the telecoms from civil litigatin which george can't stop. Screw the telecoms. The point to this bill and its immunity is that now there will never be a trial. No trial - do discovery or testimony under oath. Therefore, bush and company get away scot free. That was the part they wanted in the bill. Giving them carte blanche to wire tap anyone, anywhere. That was just a big old wet kiss from the Demublicans for their sweet george. Go back to being pissed off. You've been screwed. We've all been screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #71
83. Exactly
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 06:15 PM by Mojorabbit
we will never find out about this
ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution

Deja DU: Are ALL COMMUNICATIONS routed overseas to circumvent US law and the Constitution?
Nov-09-07 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I was told years ago that ALL fiber optic communication traffic was routed overseas so that "everything" was moved outside the protections of the law and Constitution and ANYTHING could be monitored. I thought the idea quite fantastic even though it came from a very reliable source that would know exactly such things. Then, the story of the fiber optic splitters hit my radar. I now see now how easily exactly that, routing ALL COMMUNICATIONS overseas, was accomplished.

Is that Bush's and the Telecom's HUGE crime hidden and covered-up behind this story?

If the telecoms get immunity, will it aid in covering up Bush's crime.
ABSOLUTELY! That is why it is so important to the Rs! Support = obstruction of justice.

Have we arrived at the point in the history of the Bushco junta where
laws passed and people nominated are part of crimes of obstructing justice?

===================
AT&T Whistleblower: Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up
By Spencer Ackerman - Nov 7, 2007
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004662.php


Earlier today we flagged that Mark Klein, who uncovered a secret surveillance room run by the NSA while employed as a San Francisco-based technician for AT&T, is in Washington to lobby against granting retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies. In an interview this afternoon, Klein explained why he traveled all the way from San Francisco to lobby Senators about the issue: if the immunity provision passes, Americans may never know how extensive the surveillance program was -- or how deeply their privacy may have been invaded.

"The president has not presented this truthfully," said Klein, a 62-year old retiree. "He said it was about a few people making calls to the Mideast. But I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything."

What Klein unearthed -- you can read it here -- points to a nearly unbounded surveillance program. Its very location in San Francisco suggests that the program was "massively domestic" in its focus, he said. "If they really meant what they say about only wanting international stuff, you wouldn't want it in San Francisco or Atlanta. You'd want to be closer to the border where the lines come in from the ocean so you pick up international calls. You only do it in San Francisco if you want domestic stuff. The location of this stuff contradicts their story .....

=======================
NSA Monitors All Web Traffic, Says Ex-AT&T Employee

NSA Monitors All Web Traffic, Says Ex-AT&T Employee
Tom Corelis (Blog) - Nov 10, 2007
http://www.dailytech.com/NSA+Monitors+All+Web+Traffic+S...


Felt "forced to the connect the Big Brother Machine" if he wanted to keep his job

Mark Klein, the former AT&T technician and whistleblower who helped kick off the AT&T/NSA eavesdropping scandal, clarified further details regarding what he witnessed while connecting a secret NSA eavesdropping facility: secure room 641A in AT&T’s San Francisco switching center, presumably commissioned by the NSA, received copies of all the traffic its splitters were connected to, including both international and domestic e-mails, web traffic, and phone calls, both from AT&T’s customers as well as other providers.

Previous statements by the government, AT&T and President Bush indicated that the only affected communications are communications relevant to national security, like those of suspected terrorists and suspicious foreign nationals. According to Klein, however, the technology used to connect the secure room was far more democratic, consisting of simple, dumb splitters incapable of any kind of contextual filtering: essentially, room 641A received “a duplicate of every fiber-optic signal routed through facilities.”

Klein, appearing on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann show, told viewers about his personal association with secure room 641A. “When I was a technician, I had the engineering/wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room … I had to know in order to do my job,” he said, “so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied; the entire datastream was copied into the secret room.”

Referring to the equipment itself, Klein states, “the splitter device has no selective capability, it just copies everything. .............

=======================
Interview: AT&T Whistleblower Mark Klein on Bush's Illegal Surveillance and Retroactive Immunity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dJJhLueEg

=======================
NSA Pressured LA Times To Kill Domestic Spying Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOI1VGKcgGY

=======================
November 5th, 2007
AT&T Whistleblower to Urge Senate to Reject Blanket Immunity for Telecoms
Press Conference on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, November 7
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/05

Washington, D.C. - On Wednesday, November 7, at 10:30am, telecommunications technician and AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein will speak out at a press conference on Capitol Hill, explaining why he is asking lawmakers to reject immunity for telecoms who assisted the Bush administration's spying on millions of Americans.

Klein witnessed first-hand the technology AT&T built to assist the government's domestic warrantless wiretapping program at AT&T's main switching facility in San Francisco. As part of his job at AT&T, Klein connected high-speed fiber optic cables to sophisticated equipment that intercepted communications from AT&T customers and then copied and routed every single one to a room controlled by the National Security Agency (NSA). Klein has provided evidence for the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class-action lawsuit against AT&T for its role in the illegal spying.

"My job required me to enable the physical connections between AT&T customers' Internet communications and the NSA's illegal, wholesale copying machine for domestic emails, Internet phone conversations, web surfing and all other Internet traffic. I have first-hand knowledge of the clandestine collaboration between one giant telecommunications company, AT&T, and the National Security Agency to facilitate the most comprehensive illegal domestic spying program in history," said Klein.

Also speaking at the event Wednesday ...........

=======================
Judge Orders Telecommunications Companies to Preserve Evidence in Government Surveillance Cases
Ruling Advances EFF's Class-action Lawsuit Against AT&T
http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2007/11/06


San Francisco - A federal judge today ruled on a preservation motion filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ordering that telecommunications companies must preserve any evidence of collaborating with the government in illegal spying on ordinary Americans.

In his ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ordered the telecommunications companies to halt any routine destruction of documents or to arrange for the preservation of accurate copies. On December 14, each party must provide the court with confirmation that the court's order has been carried out. The court order did not require the government or the carriers to reveal whether or not they had any relevant evidence.

The government and the carriers had opposed the preservation motion, claiming that the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege made it impossible to proceed with a preservation order. In litigation, parties are typically required to preserve all relevant evidence.

For the judge's order:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/393%20order.pdf

For more on the class-action lawsuit against AT&T:
http://www.eff.org/cases/att

===== MORE ======
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3580083#3580144

and
the ACLU sums it up like this
"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."

"The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them.

"The telecom companies simply have to produce a piece of paper we already know exists, resulting in immediate dismissal. That’s not accountability. Loopholes and judicial theater don’t do our Fourth Amendment rights justice. In the end, this is politics. This bill does nothing to keep Americans safe and is a constitutional farce.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35726prs20080619.html

and I will not hold my breath till a criminal case is filed
After all, if there is no way of getting information on who was spied on or how it was done, how is a criminal case going to be filed?

But if it makes the
OP feel better, go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #38
59. and where is John Dean on your list?
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:24 PM by LSK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
44. The AClU is pretty fluent in constitutional law as well, as is Turley,
as is Biden (and I'm sure others.)

Is Obama smarter than these people? (Not snarking at you, just making a snarky statement.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
98. exactly. It has been more than explained that civil suits were the only way to get the telecomms.
And the telecomms are the only way to get Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mediaman007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. Perhaps Bush*/Cheney will veto the bill just for that reason!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:55 PM
Response to Original message
4. What is the point of criminal prosecutions when Bush is going to issue preemptive pardons?
Remember Caspar Weinberger?

It's not like this hasn't happened before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It's only CIVIL immunity, NOT criminal.
HUGE difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. so basically citizens can be spied on but THEY have no recourse
in court.

This is a GOOD thing? Are you f*cking kidding me? The only recourse people HAD was in civil court. Now our reps have basically wiped that out. Oh f*ck the little guy -- he DOESN'T matter.

And do tell me -- which one of our SAINTED reps are going to go after Bush et al in a criminal procedure? NONE -- and that INCLUDES 'Mr. Messiah'.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. no, this bill actually stops the spying
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Well, it doesn't stop the spying... just the "illegal" spying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. By making the "illegal" spying legal. How nice for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. Huh... Mmmm... Rrrrr.... Good Point. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. read the bill
SEC. 103. SUBMITTAL TO CONGRESS OF CERTAIN COURT ORDERS UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.

(a) Inclusion of Certain Orders in Semiannual Reports of Attorney General- Subsection (a)(5) of section 601 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1871) is amended by striking `(not including orders)' and inserting `, orders,'.

(b) Reports by Attorney General on Certain Other Orders- Such section 601 is further amended by adding at the end the following:

`(c) Submissions to Congress- The Attorney General shall submit to the committees of Congress referred to in subsection (a)--

`(1) a copy of any decision, order, or opinion issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that includes significant construction or interpretation of any provision of this Act, and any pleadings, applications, or memoranda of law associated with such decision, order, or opinion, not later than 45 days after such decision, order, or opinion is issued; and

`(2) a copy of each such decision, order, or opinion, and any pleadings, applications, or memoranda of law associated with such decision, order, or opinion, that was issued during the 5-year period ending on the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and not previously submitted in a report under subsection (a).

`(d) Protection of National Security- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, may authorize redactions of materials described in subsection (c) that are provided to the committees of Congress referred to in subsection (a), if such redactions are necessary to protect the national security of the United States and are limited to sensitive sources and methods information or the identities of targets.'.

(c) Definitions- Such section 601, as amended by subsections (a) and (b), is further amended by adding at the end the following:

`(e) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT- The term `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court' means the court established under section 103(a).

`(2) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW- The term `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review' means the court established under section 103(b).'.

SEC. 104. APPLICATIONS FOR COURT ORDERS.

Section 104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking paragraphs (2) and (11);

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (10) as paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively;

(C) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by striking `detailed';

(D) in paragraph (6), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

(i) by striking `Affairs or' and inserting `Affairs,'; and

(ii) by striking `Senate--' and inserting `Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official--';

(E) in paragraph (7), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by striking `statement of' and inserting `summary statement of';

(F) in paragraph (8), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by adding `and' at the end; and

(G) in paragraph (9), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by striking `; and' and inserting a period;

(2) by striking subsection (b);

(3) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as subsections (b) through (d), respectively; and

(4) in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (d), as redesignated by paragraph (3) of this subsection, by striking `or the Director of National Intelligence' and inserting `the Director of National Intelligence, or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency'.

SEC. 105. ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER.

(a) In General- Section 105 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking paragraph (1); and

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively;

(2) in subsection (b), by striking `(a)(3)' and inserting `(a)(2)';

(3) in subsection (c)(1)--

(A) in subparagraph (D), by adding `and' at the end;

(B) in subparagraph (E), by striking `; and' and inserting a period; and

(C) by striking subparagraph (F);

(4) by striking subsection (d);

(5) by redesignating subsections (e) through (i) as subsections (d) through (h), respectively;

(6) by amending subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (5) of this section, to read as follows:

`(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if the Attorney General--

`(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;

`(B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this title to approve such electronic surveillance exists;

`(C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge having jurisdiction under section 103 at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance; and

`(D) makes an application in accordance with this title to a judge having jurisdiction under section 103 as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.

`(2) If the Attorney General authorizes the emergency employment of electronic surveillance under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures required by this title for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.

`(3) In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

`(4) A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 103.

`(5) In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance 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 surveillance 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.

`(6) The Attorney General shall assess compliance with the requirements of paragraph (5).'; and

(7) by adding at the end the following:

`(i) In any case in which the Government makes an application to a judge under this title to conduct electronic surveillance involving communications and the judge grants such application, upon the request of the applicant, the judge shall also authorize the installation and use of pen registers and trap and trace devices, and direct the disclosure of the information set forth in section 402(d)(2).'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 108(a)(2)(C) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1808(a)(2)(C)) is amended by striking `105(f)' and inserting `105(e)';

SEC. 106. USE OF INFORMATION.

Subsection (i) of section 106 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (8 U.S.C. 1806) is amended by striking `radio communication' and inserting `communication'.

SEC. 107. AMENDMENTS FOR PHYSICAL SEARCHES.

(a) Applications- Section 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1823) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking paragraph (2);

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through (9) as paragraphs (2) through (8), respectively;

(C) in paragraph (2), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by striking `detailed';

(D) in paragraph (3)(C), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by inserting `or is about to be' before `owned'; and

(E) in paragraph (6), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

(i) by striking `Affairs or' and inserting `Affairs,'; and

(ii) by striking `Senate--' and inserting `Senate, or the Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if designated by the President as a certifying official--'; and

(2) in subsection (d)(1)(A), by striking `or the Director of National Intelligence' and inserting `the Director of National Intelligence, or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency'.

(b) Orders- Section 304 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1824) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)--

(A) by striking paragraph (1);

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (5) as paragraphs (1) through (4), respectively; and

(C) in paragraph (2)(B), as redesignated by subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, by inserting `or is about to be' before `owned'; and

(2) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:

`(e)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of a physical search if the Attorney General--

`(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of a physical search to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such physical search can with due diligence be obtained;

`(B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for issuance of an order under this title to approve such physical search exists;

`(C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ an emergency physical search; and

`(D) makes an application in accordance with this title to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such physical search.

`(2) If the Attorney General authorizes the emergency employment of a physical search under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures required by this title for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.

`(3) In the absence of a judicial order approving such physical search, the physical search shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.

`(4) A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 103.

`(5) In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the physical search is terminated and no order is issued approving the physical search, no information obtained or evidence derived from such physical search 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 physical search 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.

`(6) The Attorney General shall assess compliance with the requirements of paragraph (5).'.

(c) Conforming Amendments- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended--

(1) in section 304(a)(4), as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, by striking `303(a)(7)(E)' and inserting `303(a)(6)(E)'; and

(2) in section 305(k)(2), by striking `303(a)(7)' and inserting `303(a)(6)'.

SEC. 108. AMENDMENTS FOR EMERGENCY PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES.

Section 403 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1843) is amended--

(1) in subsection (a)(2), by striking `48 hours' and inserting `7 days'; and

(2) in subsection (c)(1)(C), by striking `48 hours' and inserting `7 days'.

SEC. 109. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT.

(a) Designation of Judges- Subsection (a) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is amended by inserting `at least' before `seven of the United States judicial circuits'.

(b) En Banc Authority-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (a) of section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as amended by subsection (a) of this section, is further amended--

(A) by inserting `(1)' after `(a)'; and

(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2)(A) The court established under this subsection may, on its own initiative, or upon the request of the Government in any proceeding or a party under section 501(f) or paragraph (4) or (5) of section 702(h), hold a hearing or rehearing, en banc, when ordered by a majority of the judges that constitute such court upon a determination that--

`(i) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court's decisions; or

`(ii) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

`(B) Any authority granted by this Act to a judge of the court established under this subsection may be exercised by the court en banc. When exercising such authority, the court en banc shall comply with any requirements of this Act on the exercise of such authority.

`(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the court en banc shall consist of all judges who constitute the court established under this subsection.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is further amended--

(A) in subsection (a) of section 103, as amended by this subsection, by inserting `(except when sitting en banc under paragraph (2))' after `no judge designated under this subsection'; and

(B) in section 302(c) (50 U.S.C. 1822(c)), by inserting `(except when sitting en banc)' after `except that no judge'.

(c) Stay or Modification During an Appeal- Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (f) as subsection (g); and

(2) by inserting after subsection (e) the following new subsection:

`(f)(1) A judge of the court established under subsection (a), the court established under subsection (b) or a judge of that court, or the Supreme Court of the United States or a justice of that court, may, in accordance with the rules of their respective courts, enter a stay of an order or an order modifying an order of the court established under subsection (a) or the court established under subsection (b) entered under any title of this Act, while the court established under subsection (a) conducts a rehearing, while an appeal is pending to the court established under subsection (b), or while a petition of certiorari is pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, or during the pendency of any review by that court.

`(2) The authority described in paragraph (1) shall apply to an order entered under any provision of this Act.'.

(d) Authority of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court- Section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803), as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(i) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to reduce or contravene the inherent authority of the court established under subsection (a) to determine or enforce compliance with an order or a rule of such court or with a procedure approved by such court.'.

SEC. 110. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

(a) Definitions-

(1) FOREIGN POWER- Subsection (a) of section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(a)) is amended--

(A) in paragraph (5), by striking `persons; or' and inserting `persons;';

(B) in paragraph (6) by striking the period and inserting `; or'; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(7) an entity not substantially composed of United States persons that is engaged in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.'.

(2) AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER- Subsection (b)(1) of such section 101 is amended--

(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking `or' at the end;

(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking `or' at the end; and

(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:

`(D) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor; or

`(E) engages in the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or activities in preparation therefor for or on behalf of a foreign power; or'.

(3) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION- Subsection (e)(1)(B) of such section 101 is amended by striking `sabotage or international terrorism' and inserting `sabotage, international terrorism, or the international proliferation of weapons of mass destruction'.

(4) WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION- Such section 101 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

`(p) `Weapon of mass destruction' means--

`(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas device that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause a mass casualty incident;

`(2) any weapon that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;

`(3) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as such terms are defined in section 178 of title 18, United States Code) that is designed, intended, or has the capability to cause death, illness, or serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons; or

`(4) any weapon that is designed, intended, or has the capability to release radiation or radioactivity causing death, illness, or serious bodily injury to a significant number of persons.'.

(b) Use of Information-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 106(k)(1)(B) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #42
50. Comprehend the bill.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the Attorney General may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if the Attorney General--

`(A) reasonably determines that an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained;

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
53. Which basically reinstates the law as it was before Bush.
As it has been since 1978.

At least there will be some accountability. Better than nothing.

I don't like it, but it's still better than the alternative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. there are 3 other conditions, dont post it selectively
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:20 PM by LSK
(B) reasonably determines that the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this title to approve such electronic surveillance exists;

`(C) informs, either personally or through a designee, a judge having jurisdiction under section 103 at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance; and

`(D) makes an application in accordance with this title to a judge having jurisdiction under section 103 as soon as practicable, but not later than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #42
81. Somebody help me uncross my eyes.
My brain hurts. No wonder no one seems to know what it says. How do you wrap your brain around this long enough to wade through the excerpt, let alone the whole bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
85. It expands the spying. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. What point of "preemptive pardons" do you not understand?
Series..

The presidential pardon power is only for *criminal* prosecutions, not for civil suits.

So now both of the bases are covered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. no DUH.
But we have a bunch right here on DU thinking they can STILL *prosecute* them in court ROFLMAOO!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. Can't pardon himself, now can he?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. and what other RULES has Bush run roughshod over so far.
Don't you think he may just be looking for a way to do that before next January? And with his HELPFUL Congress ready to bend over at every whim and *take one for America* -- ????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Pardon himself? I think that one might actually be beyond his control.
Unless he steps down On Jan 19th and appoints Cheney president for a day.

God... I can't believe I just said that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #34
41. as I stated previously -- Bush does what HE wants
And he has a Congress that turns a blind eye.

If you don't think his people aren't working on mega-pardon material RIGHT NOW you're mistaken. He has NO Qualms about running roughshod over ANYTHING.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
46. Yes, I am painfully aware of that...
But I still have to believe that "that" won't happen. Otherwise what is the point of any of this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #52
58. Wow, you are amazing.
So... were you a Hillary supporter or a troll who didn't get tombstoned?

"messiah"??? WTF!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #23
64. Is there some rule that says he cannot pardon himself?
I really have no idea so this is a genuine question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #64
76. Yes... the president cannot pardon himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #76
93. Source? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 09:05 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. ...Common Knowledge I always thought...
Not to mention the 20-30 so times I heard it on MSNBC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #94
96. OK, you heard it on MSNBC
I can't argue with that unimpeachable source.

We all know how high their standards of accuracy and truthfulness are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
25. Issuing pardons would be admitting that something was illegal
Not sure he would do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. Not unless he wants it repealed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fumesucker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
69. Bush doesn't care what anyone else thinks..
That should be abundantly clear to even the most limited intellect by now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidneyCarton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
6. Kick for the bigger man.
And Rec.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Kick and Rec. That is a fantastic viewpoint. Happy to agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
9. Can you do a one and a half gainer?
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. And the investigation will be PUBLIC
Previously, any investigation was going to be secret for "security" reasons. People have no idea where the negotiations started and how much better this bill is than one Republicans would have passed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. We'll have a democratic president.
And we're going after republicans. It'll be public... At least that's what "I" think.

Ask Obama.

Shit... we should ALL ask Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. A democratic President who voted FOR this wretched bill.
Actions speak louder than campaign promises. :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #36
43. Yes, I am well aware.
But as it was pointed out to me earlier, if you are all doom and gloom, then why bother post here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #43
47. wow -- koolaid much?
Have a problem with others voicing concern? That's so republican of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Wow, I can't believe you said that.
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:17 PM by demdog78
I have no problem with others voicing their opinions, and never said anything of the sort. How dare you!

If anyone is acting like a republican, it's you twisting my words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. QUOTE "if you are all doom and gloom, then why bother post here?
From your post.

Show me the twist?


:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. Did I say "Don't Post Here" NO!
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:22 PM by demdog78
I asked why post here if you have no hope or belief that things can be fixed.

That is your twist.

Asking "why post" is NOT the same thing as saying "Do Not Post."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 04:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. were you just listening to Randi?? she just said basically the same thing
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:01 PM by LSK
PS Obama did vote to strip the immunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. Yup. And yeah, I know he voted to strip immunity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
22. That is what KO said in his last special comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
39. Immunity is just the rancid mayonnaise on this shit sandwich
The real crime is the gutting of the 4th amendment and the rule of law. Now you and I and anyone else can be spied on *legally* with a stroke of the AG's pen. No judicial review, no "describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", nothing. And we don't even have to be told it's going on.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #39
48. At least now there will be some oversight.
And inspector general will be able to back and look at what happened and prosecute the guilty partys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #48
65. This is weak-kneed Democratic spin
There was oversight before! It was called the Fourth Amendemnt. Also, FISA already had plenty of provisions for oversight of it's already unconstitutional procedures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #65
78. yes I know, and this bill restores the oversight provisions.
And yes it is already unconstitutional, but it has been in effect since 1978, and it's not going anywhere.

At least now the oversight, what it is, is back in place.

Make no mistake jgrz, I'm pissed about this. I'm just trying to find that slim silver lining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #78
88. That is not what the ACLU says
and I quote
"This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. Yes, this completely guts the specificity clause of the 4th amendment
e.g. : "... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #39
67. That's not true
Do you even know what the communications portions say? Do you know what the additional oversights are that have been put into this bill? Do you think the American public was informed of every spy during WWII?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. Have you read the original FISA legislation.
Go read it and tell me how we have more oversight now than we had before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #70
87. No answer, typical n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. There was an answer, you just missed it. I'll type more slowly this time.
There is no oversight in this bill that did not already exist in other legislation (specifically, FISA) and/or established constitutional authority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellst0nev0ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #67
74. Additional Oversights?
Get real:

In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance 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 surveillance 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.


So any wiretap gained illegally cannot be used in court, unless the AG (i.e. the President) says otherwise.

Some oversight :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #74
86. It still goes through the FISA Court
and the Congressional oversight has been expanded as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #86
90. How was congressional oversight restricted before?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ToeBot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
45. That's not flip-flopping, it's Doublethink. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
51. The amount of willfully ignorant people on this site
amazes me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:23 PM
Response to Reply #51
61. I'm going to assume you are talking about people other than me.
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:24 PM by demdog78
As my point is that at least there will be some sort of accountability; the way it was before Bush.

Should the law exist at all? No. They should not spy on us, but at least now they actually have to follow the law as written.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LSK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #61
66. who knows, people are ripe with kneejerk reactions and smart ass commments
I hate when GD is like this.

Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #61
92. You assumed wrongly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #92
95. Willfully Ignorant? I think that is a little rude... not to mention flat out wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #95
99. I think it's rude to be willfully ignorant too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
68. I'm Sure Randi is doing her best
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wellst0nev0ter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:38 PM
Response to Original message
72. How Is Criminal Prosecution Going To Work If The Law Prevents Most Public Entities
from pursuing criminal cases?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:43 PM
Response to Original message
73. And you don't think Bush is going to pardon a bunch of folks before he leaves office?
Civil liability was all we had left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodhue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
75. What criminal cases do you have in mind?
Civil cases are the whole ball of wax IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #75
80. Civil cases don't provide prison terms.
And we won't know what criminal cases until an inspector general starts an investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
77. A rebuttal
Edited on Wed Jul-09-08 05:54 PM by tkmorris
First of all, I am not screaming that the sky is falling. I'm not leaving the Democratic Party, nor leaving DU, or running away to join the circus over this. I am however quite disappointed. Now let's deal with your post.

"Yes, the immunity sucks, but when you look at the bigger picture this bill was actually a good thing.

Why? Because now we can actually prosecute people. The bill stops the warrant-less wiretaps, and allows an investigation into whether Bush, Cheney, Rice and the whole lot are in fact "criminals"


Sorry, but no. We already could criminally prosecute them, this bill does nothing to further that. Anything they did illegally in 2006 was just as illegal last week as it is this. You cannot retroactively criminalize behavior, it just doesn't work that way. Furthermore this bill does not stop warrantless wiretaps, in fact it makes them easier to do. There was a FISA law in place yesterday, and it made warrantless wiretaps illegal. This bill actually grants LESS oversight on the behalf of the FISA courts over what the justice department does.

"Nobody is going to jail over a civil case. But a criminal investigation... that is where justice will really be served."

There will be no real criminal investigation. I'd be delighted to be wrong, but I really don't think I am. If anyone was really worried about criminal liability they'd be bitching up a storm right now, but they aren't. They know that a criminal prosecution requires the cooperation of the justice department, which they won't get right now, and even assuming Obama wins they likely still won't get. Even if they did virtually all evidence of illegality will be classified up the wazoo and will never be revealed in court.

"Just think, if they get fined a billion dollars, they are just going to pass it on to the customers. They can't pass on a prison sentance."

Except they can't really pass that on, because if they raised prices enough to compensate they'd get destroyed in the market by other companies that didn't get sued and thus have no need to raise rates.

"That is a huge plus. None of that could happen without the passage of the FISA bill. With the passage, we can at least start that. So, yes the immunity sucks, but it is still the lesser of two evils."

Once again, this FISA bill does not allow any sort of prosecutions to go forward that weren't already able to.

"So... feel free to call me a flip-flopper. I don't mind flopping, as long as I end up on the right side of the issue.

To Obama... I wish you would have fought harder to strip the immunity, but I do see the bigger picture now."


I won't call you anything. There's far too much of that going around today already. As far as I can see Obama's position is nothing more than political expediency. That doesn't surprise me in the slightest, he's doing nothing more than any other political candidate would do. I hate it, but his hands were tied. Someone else in the party needed to get out front and put a stop to this, while providing cover for Obama. They didn't.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yes We Did Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #77
79. I respect your opinions... Although I disgree with most of it.
The truth is that we are just guessing what will happen. We won't know until it plays out.

I hope I'm right and you are wrong... not for personal reasons, just because I would hate to see your end result.

What the hell happened to this country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #79
84. I think the only thing to guess about
is the likelihood of criminal prosecution. As I said, I'd be delighted to be wrong on that score. I sure do wish I shared your optimism about it.

Good luck to you, friend. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
82. The courts have been ruling against the Bush administration.
Here's some other perspectives:

The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.

The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.

“With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”

In advance of the president’s signature, the ACLU announced its plan to challenge the new law in court.

“This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.”

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35928prs20080709.html

It would allow the government to bypass the FISA court and collect large amounts of Americans’ communications without a warrant simply by declaring that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It cuts the vital “foreign power” provision from FISA, never mentions counterterrorism and defines national security so broadly that experts think the term could mean almost anything a president wants it to mean.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/opinion/08tue1.html

The excuses offered by our political establishment for this rampant lawbreaking have been systematically rejected by the institution the Founders intended to adjudicate these legal issues -- our courts -- and it's for exactly that reason that our establishment is now conspiring to take away from the courts the responsibility they were assigned to hold lawbreakers accountable.

(3) The central excuse from leading Democratic advocates of telecom immunity -- that the poor telecoms are unfairly hamstrung in these lawsuits by the President's assertion of the "State Secrets" privilege from using the evidence that shows they're innocent -- was gutted by yesterday's ruling. That excuse was false all along, since FISA explicitly provides that any party can submit even classified evidence to the court. As I noted back in January in response to Jay Rockefeller's misleading claim that immunity was necessary to save the telecoms from the unfair predicament of being barred by the President from submitting exculpatory evidence in these lawsuits:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/03/al_haramain/index.html#postid-updateE3



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robinlynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-09-08 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
97. One little problem. There are NO criminal prosecutions of companies.
Only civil. The civil suits were needed in order to possibly have criminal prosecutions, which can only be against people.
HENCE THE NEED for the civil suits. Got it now?
Aint gonna be no criminal suits. No way to get the info, which would have been brought to light by the CIVIL SUITS.

quashed.
gone.
we lost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC