FISA or bust: What's Bush's real angle
The House and Senate versions of the surveillance bill--called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act--need to be reconciled. But politics is in the air (I know, you're shocked, shocked.)
The controversy centers on whether to extend legal immunity to telecommunications firms that carried out Uncle Sam's bidding and wiretapped U.S. phone and computer lines without first getting court permission. The Senate says yes, while the House says no.
George Bush
(Credit: White House)In his stump appearances (as well as during his Thursday press conference), the president argues that the old FISA law is out of date and fails to allow government security arms to quickly track foreign terrorists on foreign soil "quickly and effectively."
As such, he contends the nation is in danger from terror attacks now that the temporary surveillance law has expired. If you didn't catch the president's morning press conference, here's a link to the text play-by-play.
Here are the relevant excerpts:
"The law expired; the threat to America has not expired. Congress understood last year that FISA did not give our intelligence professionals the tools they needed to keep us safe. The Senate understands that the FISA--old FISA didn't give us the tools needed to protect America. The bipartisan bill it passed provides those tools our intelligence professionals need. Yet the House's failure to pass this law raises the risk of reopening a gap in our intelligence gathering, and that is dangerous."
Asked later if Americans are essentially being told that when it comes to their privacy, the answer was "to suck it up," Bush responded:
"I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you've been long been long enough to--anyway, yes, I-- look, there's--people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't--you know, are treated with respect. And that's what I want, and that's what most--all Americans want..."
"I guess you could be relaxed about all this if you didn't think there was a true threat to the country. I know there's a threat to the country. And the American people expect our Congress to give the professionals the tools they need to listen to foreigners who may be calling into the United States with information that could cause us great harm."
The president didn't bother getting into the nitty-gritty. I can understand that. FISA created a secret court, which since 1978 has been able to grant wiretapping orders upon request. What's more, during emergencies, FISA--the "old FISA, I should add--lets the attorney general to conduct wiretaps without court approval.
Bush made it seem that FISA requests routinely get held up by recalcitrant, fuddy-duddy judges. But if the Justice Department fails to get its way, it can always appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. (They needed to go that far just once in the history of the law.) Bottom line: The Feds nearly always get what they want. So why is Bush making a big megilla out of this? Hmm, rumor has it there's a big election in the offing.
Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for more than 25 years. Before joining CNET News, he worked at the Associated Press, Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, and ZDNet. E-mail Charlie. 
Thanks for trying, though.
People complain about the lack of democracy and humans rights violations in Cuba, yet they are trying to pus the same conditions here. They want to spy on everyone and enforce a perpetual one party rule. At least Cuba is better at educating all their citizens, and Cuba provides free health care to all their citizens.
And Cooper doesn't even have the respect to get the issue right before opining. He claims that "the Senate says yes, while the House says no." In fact, the House says "yes" -- the votes are there to pass the measure, but the Democratic leadership refuses to let it come to a vote. The House is ready to "say yes," just like the Senate did by more than a 2-1 margin.
Spare us your politics, Charles. Or at least get your facts straight.
Many, MANY, American aren't as dismissive about the effects these laws have on our privacy. I don't care how many people get killed by terrorists: I do not want the government listening to my conversation without court oversight. That is a check and balance to keep America free. Its amazing how in such a short amount of time we have seen such horrible violation of civil liberties. In the end, Corporations can sue you for sharing music with your friends, but you cannot sue Telecoms for illegally allowing wiretaps. Before you argue: that is why this law is needed... To make this practice legal. Until it is passed, these companies broke the law, and there is no reason people cannot sue for it.
it's all about the immunity. Bush and Co doesnt want the facts to come out in court...apparently it wasnt just terrorists they were listening in on or they would welcome the discovery process. (unless you classify Democrats as Terrorists)
interesting that it started before 911 too, there is so much to learn about this secret administration.
"Asked later if Americans are essentially being told that when it comes to their privacy, the answer was "to suck it up," Bush responded:
"I wouldn't put it that way, if I were you, in public. Well, you've been long been long enough to--anyway, yes, I-- look, there's--people who analyze the program fully understand that America's civil liberties are well protected. There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't--you know, are treated with respect"
Do you see it? Let's filter out the confusing ramblings from an idiot who can't even complete a sentence and see what he's really saying here:
"Bush responded:
"I wouldn't put it that way <snip> in public. <snip> yes. <snip> There is a constant check to make sure that our civil liberties of our citizens aren't <snip> treated with respect"
I think this is the first time in 8 years I've heard the truth from fuhrer bushit. Most of the time you have to take the exact opposite of what he says to get the truth, but here it is in all it's glory!
Sieg heil, fuhrer bushit! Your luck of not being impeached for being a traitorous criminal has to only hold out for roughly 10 more months!
Ah yes- nothing like a carefully-reasoned argument...
- by vaporland February 29, 2008 5:13 PM PST
- If some folks here are frustrated, it is because of the nature of the coverup perpetrated by the Bush Administration.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(19 Comments)Fact #1 - Under existing FISA law, if the government presents a subpoena issued by a FISA judge to a communications company, the Telco MUST comply or they are in violation of federal law.
Fact #2 - Under existing FISA law, if the government is concerned that time is of the essence, they may instruct the telco to provide the ability to listen and then apply for the subpoena AFTER THE FACT. Nothing in current law impedes in ANY WAY the ability of the government to conduct legitimate surveillance.
Fact #3 - FISA was passed in the 70's in response to the Nixon Administration's abuse of government power, when they used the FBI, CIA and IRS to watch and harass their political enemies without review by any third party.
Fact #4 - Under existing FISA law, it is ILLEGAL to listen in on conversations between US citizens located in the United States without a warrant.
Fact #5 - BEFORE September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration was asking communications companies to provide access to the communications of US citizens WITHOUT A WARRANT from the FISA court. This continued up until 2004, when John Ashcroft REFUSED to sign off on letting it continue, even as he lay sick in the hospital.
Fact #6, The telcos and the Bush Administration broke the law, and this legislation is their attempt to cover their tracks after the fact. If they did not, why is there not even any provision for REVIEW and DISCLOSURE of the wiretapping and other electronic eavesdropping (email, etc) that AMNESTY is being given for? Do we, the citizens, ever get to know what the telcos did, just because the president said "I'm the president - if I say it's legal, it ok to do it"?