Specter & Feinstein Propose Ban On Funding All Eavesdropping Outside FISA

[kpete]

Thursday, May 25, 2006
Specter and Feinstein propose a ban on funding for all eavesdropping outside of FISA

(updated below - and again)

A generally reasonable -- and potentially quite significant -- bill was jointly introduced last night by Senators Arlen Specter and Dianne Feinstein. The essence of the bill is to mandate that any and all eavesdropping on U.S. persons on U.S. soil fully comply with FISA (which is really another way of saying that the Bush administration is required to comply with the existing law called FISA), and it also bars the use of any federal funds for any eavesdropping programs which do not fully comply with FISA.

A detailed summary of the bill from Sen. Feinstein's office is here. These are three of the principal provisions:

• Re-state that FISA is the exclusive means by which our government can conduct electronic surveillance of U.S. persons on U.S. soil for foreign intelligence purposes;

• Prohibit the use of federal funds for any future domestic electronic surveillance that does not fully comply with the law; and

• Expressly state that there is no such thing as an “implied” repeal of FISA laws. In other words, no future bill can be interpreted as authorizing an exemption from FISA unless it expressly makes an exception.

more at:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/specter-and-feinstein-propose-ban-on.html
http://ryansingel.tripod.com/documents/2006/feinsteinspecterbill.pdf

[fooj]

1. Yet she voted for Hayden.......

[Drum]

2. all for show. nt

[xultar]

3. I personally like this idea.

[bullimiami]

4. thats something. weak as it is.

[warrens]

5. That's the way to get those weasels

Sic GAO on their asses.

[underpants]

6. Why, is it illegal or something?

Let's ask the DoJ what they think.

[xxqqqzme]

7. gee Diane you might have a spot of

credibility if you hadn't just voted 2 CONFIRM hayden.

[rodeodance]

8. Good for them.

[longship]

9. Let me understand this.

We need a law to force the administration to obey a law that is already on the books? Why don't we just hold the administration accountable for their violations of the existing law?

Are we then going to make another law stating that the administration has to obey this new law? And then, yet another one to force them to obey the third? When does it end?

Methinks that the best strategy on this is to hold the the administration accountable for violating the first law. There are a variety of ways to do this, but the first step in that process might be to *not* give one's consent for the very person who orchestrated the violation as CIA chief.

It seems that the courts should get involved here. It is their responsibility to interpret these things.

We have a constitutional crisis here. We have a President who does not think he is beholden to the rule of law. He needs to be smacked down.

How wise is it to pile on another law which he will simply ignore as well?

[librechik]

10. isn't that stuff on the "black budget" anyway?

who told Specter and Feinstein they have oversight powers when National Security is involved? They need money, suddely NASA has to buy 10,000 $500 linchpins.

They almost sound like they are doing something, though. Nice try.