President Bush Calls for Expansion of Spy Law.

[shocker1]

President Bush Calls for Expansion of Spy Law

Wednesday, September 19, 2007


FORT MEADE, Md. — President Bush said Wednesday he wants Congress to expand and make permanent a law that temporarily gives the government more power to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists.

Without such action, Bush said, "our national security professionals will lose critical tools they need to protect our country."

"It will be harder to figure out what our enemies are doing to train, recruit and infiltrate operatives into America," the president said during a visit to the super-secret National Security Agency's headquarters. "Without these tools, our country will be much more vulnerable to attack."

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act governs when the government must obtain warrants for eavesdropping from a secret intelligence court. This year's update — approved just before Congress' August break — allows more efficient interceptions of foreign communications.

Under the new law, the government can eavesdrop without a court order on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., even if an American is on one end of the conversation — so long as that American is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.
Related

In requesting the change, the Bush administration said technological advances in communications had created a dire gap in the ability to collect intelligence on terrorists.

Such surveillance generally was prohibited under the original law if the wiretap was conducted inside the U.S., unless a court approved it. Because of changes in technology, many more foreign communications now flow through the U.S. The new law, known as the Protect America Act, allows those to be tapped without a court order.

Civil liberties groups and many Democrats say the new changes go too far. Democratic leaders in Congress set the law to expire in six months so that it could be fine-tuned; that process now is beginning on Capitol Hill.

Democrats hope for changes that would provide additional oversight when the government eavesdrops on U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said lawmakers understand the need to update the law, but also the need to protect the rights and liberties of Americans.

"For over five years, the president carried out a warrantless surveillance program that ignored the law and the role of court oversight," Rockefeller said. "Today, the president continues to seek unchecked surveillance powers that many of us in Congress cannot support. The fact is, the Protect America Act did provide authority for collection, but it did not include sufficient protections for Americans. There's no reason we can't do both," Rockefeller said.

"The president needs to step up to the plate and show that he is willing to work with Congress to get this important legislation passed."

Bush timed his visit to Fort Meade to press his case.

"The threat from Al Qaeda is not going to expire in 135 days," he said, "so I call on Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent."

He also urged lawmakers to expand the law, not restrict it. One provision particularly important to the administration, but opposed by many Democrats, would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies which may have helped the government conduct surveillance before January 2007 without a court order.

Bush was joined at the podium in an NSA hallway by Vice President **** Cheney, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and others.

The president received private briefings from intelligence officials and mingled with employees in the National Threat Operations Center. While cameras and reporters were in the room, the large video screens that lined the walls displayed unclassified information on computer crime and signal intelligence.

Along one wall at NSA is a sign that says, "We won't back down. We never have. We never will."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297391,00.html

[gaijinsamurai]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Shocker.
Of course, nobody should be surprised about this.

[JJC]

The pre-911 FISA did a great job at defending us from the government, but that didn't help the 3,000 vitctims. I understand that we should be concerned with such laws, but at the same time we shouldn't overreact like the ACLU does.

[Hollis]

Key element; "to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists"

[Sniffit]

Key element; "to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists"

But the real question here is: What is a suspected foreign terrorist?

[Flagg]

Key element; "to eavesdrop without warrants on suspected foreign terrorists"

What's the definition of "suspected foreign terrorist"?

I'd be keen to see some anal retentive civil libertarians with effective oversight authority.....as well as with Int collected by partner nations potentially spying on our behalf on our citizenry.

Give the good guys the latitude to perform their jobs and protect us....as well as sufficient rope, a noose, and a 24/7 oncall hangman if our civil liberties are abused.

Spy on dodgy foreigners....residents until they are citizens if necessary, but presume our own citizenry are good until well proven otherwise....

just my .02 pesos

[shocker1]

`Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.What is reasonable? That's a legal fog word for sure. Do they have an automatic mute function for an American/legal resident that may be on one end of the target? As has been asked, what is a suspected foreign terrorist? What really gets me upset is Bush's drive to make this permanent. I would rather debate this every six months so that light is keep upon this. I have read the law and there are no specific procedures for protecting Americans until the FISA court steps in 72 hours later.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1927

I am also getting tired of the moronic bait and switch titles of these bills. Like "Patriot ACT", "Protect America Act" oh and the shot down "Defend America Act or Patriot Act II". Most people do not even bother to read the legislation and this is the reason for the feel good titles. All these acts have good things and very bad things that can be abused. Believe it or not individuals in our Government have and will abuse it's powers.

Also let's not forget that President Bush wants to grant immunity to companies that participate in the target data collection. That my friends is very dangerous and I will oppose that no matter how it is sold or labeled all nice.

[dangerclose]

But the real question here is: What is a suspected foreign terrorist?


A foreigner who is a terrorist.


Next.

[gaijinsamurai]

My problem with this is that we're expected to trust the same administration which sold us the original Patriot Act, the War in Iraq, and let people like Alberto Gonzalez perpetuate all his BS.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Remember all the weeping over our abused civil rights? Remember how we were all going to be living in a gulag? Well, it's been nearly 6 years now since this surveillance has been in place - where are the disappeared citizens? Where are the abuses? Where's the 3AM knock on the door of Joe 6 pack? My delicate private areas are not red and swollen from governmental abuse. In fact, my abuseometer is not even off it's bump stop. Quit grandstanding and pass the damn law that our entire intel community says we need, and we all know is gonna pass anyway once the cameras are off.

[shocker1]

So lets expand and make permanent this law for Madam Clinton to enjoy. We know she would love it. Or Rudy and his mobster mentality. Does the intelligence community need some help provided by these laws? Yes. Do they need to be a permanent and expanded part of our law? NO!!!!!

[clean]

If he's a suspected terrorist, just get a damn warrant. It's not that hard.

[Zoomie]

So lets expand and make permanent this law for Madam Clinton to enjoy. We know she would love it. Or Rudy and his mobster mentality. Does the intelligence community need some help provided by these laws? Yes. Do they need to be a permanent and expanded part of our law? NO!!!!!

Thus why we want, nay, need Ron Paul to save the day, right? :roll:

[shocker1]

Thus why we want, nay, need Ron Paul to save the day, right? :roll:
No we need people with some sense to read the law and post opnions. Not asshole smartass comments with little eye rolls. Ass

Ron Paul is wrong on some issues. However he is honest and that is more than the rest of the twats running.

[clean]

If he's a suspected terrorist, then we get a warrant and wire tap him. Anything we get we can use in court.
If the warrant is denied, we wire tap him anyway, and use other means to get him to trial.
Regardless, we stop the plot. And we don't make people feel their liberties are being trumped.
We are fighting this war with one arm tied behind our backs. And that's the way we're going to win.

[gaijinsamurai]

2Sheds,
Most of us know that "Joe Six-Pack", or you or I for that matter, have virtually nothing to worry about with this law. it's the person who is doing everything legal, but might be PERCEIVED to be a terrorist. The person this may effect is the Arab-American grocer in Jacksonville, Florida who has a younger brother in the Gaza Strip, or the African-American activist who has controversial, or even downright distasteful political views, or the guy like Randy Weaver who is a right wing nut, but just wants to be left alone in his Idaho cabin. Because these types of people are on the fringe, they're easy targets. But, if we let the government erode their Constitutional rights (I know, they SAY it just targets foreigners, but I don't believe them), they can ultimately have the power to do it to the rest of us.
Not to compare Bush to Hitler, but the Nazis started with the Communists, Jews, and other easy targets, then eventually to people who disagreed with them, and the German people let it happen.

[pistol]

Remember all the weeping over our abused civil rights? Remember how we were all going to be living in a gulag? Well, it's been nearly 6 years now since this surveillance has been in place - where are the disappeared citizens? Where are the abuses? Where's the 3AM knock on the door of Joe 6 pack? My delicate private areas are not red and swollen from governmental abuse. In fact, my abuseometer is not even off it's bump stop. Quit grandstanding and pass the damn law that our entire intel community says we need, and we all know is gonna pass anyway once the cameras are off.

Of course if Joe Six Pack is a victim of a "Patriot Act" "sneak and peek" search, or a "National Security Letter", we would never hear about it. For all we know you've gotten a "National Security Letter" or two.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

So lets expand and make permanent this law for Madam Clinton to enjoy. We know she would love it. Or Rudy and his mobster mentality. Does the intelligence community need some help provided by these laws? Yes. Do they need to be a permanent and expanded part of our law? NO!!!!!

Well the intel community says they need the abilities, and the Supreme Court (IIRC) says that they must be in a permanent law, not a patchwork of temporary measures. So...no law, no abilities, right? (well, unless you're FDR, in which case you just ignore the Supreme Court and do as you please anyway :) ) And of course nothing is permanent - laws get amended and eliminated every day. I obviously trust some leaders more than others - but in reality there are thousands of non-partisan career government workers who are doing this stuff day to day - and who can blow the whistle if the law is violated.


Not to compare Bush to Hitler, but the Nazis started with the Communists, Jews, and other easy targets, then eventually to people who disagreed with them, and the German people let it happen.

Yeah yeah, but you can use that argument for every government restriction starting with laws preventing spitting on the sidewalk. This law is only what it is - and I'm satisfied that it's nothing I consider outrageous. I'm sure sufficient safeguards can be built in to allow us to avoid sewing stars onto our clothes. p-)


Of course if Joe Six Pack is a victim of a "Patriot Act" "sneak and peek" search, or a "National Security Letter", we would never hear about it. For all we know you've gotten a "National Security Letter" or two.

Well, maybe so. But they wouldn't contain nearly the amount of information that I've voluntarily given them. The feds have known everything there is to know about me since 1983. The idea of federal employees listening in to my conversations to overseas locations doesn't bother me any either. Under no circumstances would I ever have anything to say which they'd have the slightest interest in. The sheer volume of intercepted traffic, and the limited resources of the folks doing the intercepting make sure that nobody is chasing down miscreants talking about animal ***. Not that I'd be talking about animal ***.

[maw]

just a couple of points, mainly directed at 2sheds.

i have two friends who are on federal watch lists. for example, whenever they try to board a plane they get pulled aside, thoroughly searched and have several questions asked of them. their most notable accomplishments that could be used as the basis for this treatment is that one is an environmental activist (organized a rally) and the other is an academic who criticized the administration on a televised debate. these cases are becoming increasingly common. one of the tenets of transitioning a democracy into something else is to get a hold of dissidents.

the second point is that through my cynical glasses i see all these bills as instruments that make control of the populace easier for the government.

i'm not a conspiracy nut. but i'm not comfortable with the patterns i'm seeing.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

just a couple of points, mainly directed at 2sheds.

i have two friends who are on federal watch lists. for example, whenever they try to board a plane they get pulled aside, thoroughly searched and have several questions asked of them. their most notable accomplishments that could be used as the basis for this treatment is that one is an environmental activist (organized a rally) and the other is an academic who criticized the administration on a televised debate. these cases are becoming increasingly common. one of the tenets of transitioning a democracy into something else is to get a hold of dissidents.

the second point is that through my cynical glasses i see all these bills as instruments that make control of the populace easier for the government.

i'm not a conspiracy nut. but i'm not comfortable with the patterns i'm seeing.

You'll pardon my abruptness here, but I kinda doubt what I'm hearing. I know people who've organized environmental (and political) rallies, and they are not on watch lists. And how many thousands of people on TV criticize the administration - hell, 80% of the people on this board do. Are you going to tell me they're equally as harassed? If your friends are being watched by the feds, I'd suspect they're doing a bit more than they're telling you. Or they're pulling your chain in an effort to make themselves seem more important. The feds are not going to waste their time with tree huggers unless they're also burning down Hummer dealerships. :)

All laws are instruments that the government uses to control the population. I have no illusions about that, nor do I have any illusions about the necessity to do exactly that. It sucks, but we have to have some measure of control....and that measure would have to change with the circumstances, and the time/technology, right?

We do need to be careful, we do need oversight, we do need good laws - I'm simply not willing to make the leap required to see this particular law as some kind of giant step for the fascist police state.

[Durandal]

The pre-911 FISA did a great job at defending us from the government, but that didn't help the 3,000 vitctims.

You know what else does not help those 3000 victims...ditching the Constitution.

Suck it up. We lose over twice that on an average day, less than half to natural causes and you want me to justify giving up my RIGHTS given to me by god and men much smarter than those RULING us today?

We sacrifice for liberty we do not sacrifice liberty.

[Van Gogh]

Sometimes political red tape can slow things down. Surely you see where Bush is coming from. If our spy teams wait too long they may miss their opportunity. Is it that hard to understand?

[maw]

You'll pardon my abruptness here, but I kinda doubt what I'm hearing. I know people who've organized environmental (and political) rallies, and they are not on watch lists. And how many thousands of people on TV criticize the administration - hell, 80% of the people on this board do. Are you going to tell me they're equally as harassed? If your friends are being watched by the feds, I'd suspect they're doing a bit more than they're telling you. Or they're pulling your chain in an effort to make themselves seem more important. The feds are not going to waste their time with tree huggers unless they're also burning down Hummer dealerships. :)

enjoy:
from the john hopkins news-letter (http://media.www.jhunewsletter.com/media/storage/paper932/news/2007/04/26/NewsFeatures/Princeton.Professor.Says.AntiBush.Speech.Landed.Him.On.NoFly.List-2884034.shtml)

here's another article (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26399) that mentions "murph". you might not like the source but such is life.

if you want more try google or read up on naomi klein, she's written quite a fair bit about the no fly lists and the aviation watch lists.

[SBL]

^Naomi Klein is not exactly unbiased.

[maw]

^Naomi Klein is not exactly unbiased.

what about naomi wolf?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html

[SOG]

i dont mind installing measures temporarily during wartime but i do not want to see it permanent.

it probably did some good, but it probably did some bad as they go hand in hand.

if the courts that hand out these secret warrants work then what is the problem?

what was that number? didnt the number of wire taps or whatever jump from 9000 to 45000? isnt that a bit extreme or were we that far behind?

also is there oversight in each and every case?

i somewhat see it as similar plans to put micro chips in cars that inhibit speed or disable the car, or video cameras taping the public everywhere. im sure in some cases it would help. but im also sure there is a negative. i dont feel comfortable taking that plunge. lets remain great as a nation and not a bunch of nation surveillance states. governments got their hand in enough things already. they need to back the hell off.

[maw]

"i dont mind installing measures temporarily during wartime but i do not want to see it permanent."

sounds reasonable. however, i know it's a cliche but once liberty is taken away it is very rarely if ever returned. in my cynical opinion a government is almost like an ever growing cancer. always hungry for more power. i feel this is almost inevitable because there's always another interest to serve and always another program that someone needs. the ways in which a government controls us is through laws and taxes. how many of us have heard of the story of the short term tax bill used to pay for some initiative that becoming permanent once the initiative has passed. another classic example is the toll fee used to pay for the construction of a bridge or road somewhere, however, once the bridge or road has been paid for the municipality opts to continue charging the toll to pay for some other initiative somewhere. another example is how many of us have heard of some governmental department that scrambles at the end of the year to use up all of its budget to protect its fiscal allocation for the following year?

it's a sad truth that governments loath to return taxes and liberties.

a second question regarding your comment is what happens if you find yourself in a state of permanent war with someone or other?

[ElHombre]

Sometimes political red tape can slow things down. Surely you see where Bush is coming from. If our spy teams wait too long they may miss their opportunity. Is it that hard to understand?

Which is why the original FISA law took that into account. The gov't could ask for a warrant up to three days after performing the tap. Why the Bush admin has so many problems with that is a question that's never been answered.

There's another angle that's being overlooked here. The Bush admin marched into office with a very singular goal in mind, the notion of the 'unitary executive'. In short, Cheney's desire to a return to the good 'ol days of the Nixon admin. This was already in motion long before 9/11. Why in the hell does anyone still think this is a good idea? Are we that afraid of terrorists here in the US? Grow some cojones, folks.

[SOG]

"i dont mind installing measures temporarily during wartime but i do not want to see it permanent."

sounds reasonable. however, i know it's a cliche but once liberty is taken away it is very rarely if ever returned. in my cynical opinion a government is almost like an ever growing cancer. always hungry for more power. i feel this is almost inevitable because there's always another interest to serve and always another program that someone needs. the ways in which a government controls us is through laws and taxes. how many of us have heard of the story of the short term tax bill used to pay for some initiative that becoming permanent once the initiative has passed. another classic example is the toll fee used to pay for the construction of a bridge or road somewhere, however, once the bridge or road has been paid for the municipality opts to continue charging the toll to pay for some other initiative somewhere. another example is how many of us have heard of some governmental department that scrambles at the end of the year to use up all of its budget to protect its fiscal allocation for the following year?

it's a sad truth that governments loath to return taxes and liberties.

a second question regarding your comment is what happens if you find yourself in a state of permanent war with someone or other?

well yeah, its somewhat cliche but i understand what you are saying. however i think it should be installed like martial law, ie when needed. an option to elevate our defense in time of need then turned off. i like the idea of something that can be installed during wartime that gives us a heavier edge.

i dont really see us in a state of permanent war so im not sure how that applies. i guess you could say what if the politicians claimed we were in a never ending war with terrorism, but there should be clear cut parameters for when and how that option should be played.

but yeah, your right, it will probably be abused or tampered with and go further and further which wouldnt be good.