I stand corrected. You posted after my response to Oscarguy, but about the post I made before his post. Even so, it makes little difference. The fact is that Congress, particularly Democrats, will have a tough time arguing against the program after their vote.Sonic Youth wrote:criddic3 wrote:Maybe, but I was responding to Oscarguy's underlining of the Temporary nature of the law.
Uh, no, what I quoted from you was written before OG's post, and yes, New York is a border state.
Surveillance-gate
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Maybe, but I was responding to Oscarguy's underlining of the Temporary nature of the law.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
criddic3 wrote:How many FISA laws has the administration broken? And isn't that an impeachible offence?
Nope. If there was any doubt about it, just witness the law passed by Congress. They cannot think it is impeachable, or indeed even unlawful, if they voted to expand the warrantless program.
Criddic, you seriously didn't realize that after I posted that article, writing what you just did was redundant and unecessary?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The law is to TEMPORARILY extend those powers to the President because they were going into recess and the president demanded something for while they were away. Why they handed him a blank check, i don't know. Spineless jellyfish.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
How many FISA laws has the administration broken? And isn't that an impeachible offence?
Nope. If there was any doubt about it, just witness the law passed by Congress. They cannot think it is impeachable, or indeed even unlawful, if they voted to expand the warrantless program.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
What, exactly, did we elect these pussies for?
Bush Gets a Spying Blank Check
By Robert Parry
August 5, 2007
Eager to leave for its August recess, Congress handed George W. Bush another blank check on executive power, letting him order up spying directives against a vast number of people, including Americans, if they are physically outside the United States.
The “Protect America Act of 2007” sets the standard for a surveillance order – which can last for up to one year – as simply that it be “directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.”
The bill’s advocates claim it is intended to intercept communications when at least one party is linked to a terrorist group or a terrorist affiliate and is outside the United States. But the bill’s language doesn’t limit the surveillance to “terrorists” or “enemy combatants” – indeed those words are not mentioned in the legislation.
Nor does the bill, which was drafted by the Bush administration’s national security team, specify what happens to a one-year surveillance order against a target if the person then enters – or returns – to the United States. The vaguely worded act gives broad discretion to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.
Its key language states: “Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.”
In the pre-recess rush to wrap up legislative business – and to avoid a messy confrontation with President Bush – Congress offered only cursory attention to what this provision means and what new abuses are now possible.
For instance, could a one-year surveillance order be issued against an American attorney who was representing a Guantanamo detainee and who traveled to Europe for a legal conference? Could the surveillance order follow that person back home? How about an outspoken peace activist who visited a friend in Canada?
The key limitation on the administration’s authority is the need to be seeking “foreign intelligence information.” Though the term does cover information about possible hostile acts by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, including sabotage, terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the phrase can be interpreted in a far looser way.
The term can be defined broadly as information about a foreign power that relates to U.S. national defense, national security or the conduct of foreign affairs. In today’s world, those categories could mean pretty much anything.
Not Reassuring
Other supposed safeguards in the bill might not be reassuring to its targets, either. While the targets obviously are kept in the dark about the surveillance, their communications providers – such as phone companies or e-mail services – can challenge the government’s order if they’re willing to absorb the expense and offend the Executive Branch, which often has giant contracts with the same providers.
Even then, the service providers, which aren't told the classified basis for the surveillance order, can only contest the surveillance on procedural grounds through the secret channels of the FISA court system, with appeals of adverse rulings allowed by either side up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But service providers are given a strong incentive not to challenge the government’s order. While a legal challenge on behalf of an unsuspecting client could be expensive – especially if the Bush administration were to retaliate by shifting government contracts to a competitor – the legislation grants immunity from liability to any service provider who complies.
“Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section,” the bill states.
In other words, if spying targets later discover that their service providers gave the government access to their phone calls and e-mails, they have no grounds to sue for damages, regardless of how unjustified the surveillance may have been.
Given the Bush administration’s proclivity for stretching the boundaries of its powers, the scope of the spying legislation alarmed civil libertarians and some Democrats who favored a more limited revision of FISA to address a supposed new obstacle related to spying on suspected al-Qaeda operatives.
Boehner’s Leak
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, divulged in a Fox News interview on July 31 that a FISA court had ruled in secret that warrantless intercepts of foreign communications routed through the United States were illegal.
“There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States," Boehner said.
President Bush then demanded that Democrats approve a revision to the FISA law before leaving for the August recess. Democrats thought they had reached a compromise that would address the kind of situation described by Boehner, but the White House and the Republicans demanded more sweeping changes.
The Senate caved in first, voting 60-28 to authorize Bush’s broader spying powers, with many centrist Democrats – such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb – joining a solid phalanx of Republicans. (Presidential contenders – Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden – voted no.)
On Aug. 4, Bush turned up the heat on the House. He called the spying powers contained in the bill crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism and declared that “protecting America is our most solemn obligation.”
Many Americans would disagree, arguing that the most solemn obligation is to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic congressional leaders acted as if their highest priorities were getting away for the August recess and avoiding ugly attacks on their patriotism from Fox News and the right-wing media.
Instead of canceling the recess – and using the month of August to fight over both Bush’s extraordinary expansion of presidential powers and the Iraq War – House Democratic leaders brought the Senate-approved “Protect America Act of 2007” to the floor. It carried, 227-183, with 41 Democratic defections.
Trying to put the best spin on their defeat, Democratic leaders pointed to their one concession: a sunset provision that requires President Bush to seek renewal of his powers in six months.
However, not only it is it hard to envision the Democrats finding more backbone to stand up to the “soft on terror” charge in an election year, but passage of the bill complicates the argument that Bush broke the law with his prior warrantless wiretapping.
Bush’s defenders can now cite this broad legislative authority as giving, in effect, a retroactive congressional blessing to Bush’s apparent violations of FISA, which requires a secret court warrant for eavesdropping and other spying inside the United States.
Some rank-and-file Democrats also may wonder how valuable their party’s electoral victory in November 2006 has proved to be. Despite gaining control of Congress, the Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq War or to reinstate habeas corpus and other constitutional rights that were breached by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed before the election.
Ducking a Fight
The Democratic leaders have failed to slow the growth of presidential power in large part because they keep avoiding a showdown with Bush.
Early on, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, took presidential impeachment “off the table.” Plus, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would always approve Bush’s requests for Iraq War funding even as Republicans use vetoes and filibusters to block Democratic war policy alternatives.
Democrats also remain fearful of right-wing media attacks on their patriotism. In a July meeting with former CIA officer Ray McGovern and some impeachment backers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, lamented that the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day if a Democratic impeachment effort flopped.
Now, in August, the Democrats have shied away from another confrontation with Bush, leaving little doubt that last November’s election has done little to change the underlying political dynamic of Washington.
Bush Gets a Spying Blank Check
By Robert Parry
August 5, 2007
Eager to leave for its August recess, Congress handed George W. Bush another blank check on executive power, letting him order up spying directives against a vast number of people, including Americans, if they are physically outside the United States.
The “Protect America Act of 2007” sets the standard for a surveillance order – which can last for up to one year – as simply that it be “directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.”
The bill’s advocates claim it is intended to intercept communications when at least one party is linked to a terrorist group or a terrorist affiliate and is outside the United States. But the bill’s language doesn’t limit the surveillance to “terrorists” or “enemy combatants” – indeed those words are not mentioned in the legislation.
Nor does the bill, which was drafted by the Bush administration’s national security team, specify what happens to a one-year surveillance order against a target if the person then enters – or returns – to the United States. The vaguely worded act gives broad discretion to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.
Its key language states: “Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.”
In the pre-recess rush to wrap up legislative business – and to avoid a messy confrontation with President Bush – Congress offered only cursory attention to what this provision means and what new abuses are now possible.
For instance, could a one-year surveillance order be issued against an American attorney who was representing a Guantanamo detainee and who traveled to Europe for a legal conference? Could the surveillance order follow that person back home? How about an outspoken peace activist who visited a friend in Canada?
The key limitation on the administration’s authority is the need to be seeking “foreign intelligence information.” Though the term does cover information about possible hostile acts by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, including sabotage, terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, the phrase can be interpreted in a far looser way.
The term can be defined broadly as information about a foreign power that relates to U.S. national defense, national security or the conduct of foreign affairs. In today’s world, those categories could mean pretty much anything.
Not Reassuring
Other supposed safeguards in the bill might not be reassuring to its targets, either. While the targets obviously are kept in the dark about the surveillance, their communications providers – such as phone companies or e-mail services – can challenge the government’s order if they’re willing to absorb the expense and offend the Executive Branch, which often has giant contracts with the same providers.
Even then, the service providers, which aren't told the classified basis for the surveillance order, can only contest the surveillance on procedural grounds through the secret channels of the FISA court system, with appeals of adverse rulings allowed by either side up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But service providers are given a strong incentive not to challenge the government’s order. While a legal challenge on behalf of an unsuspecting client could be expensive – especially if the Bush administration were to retaliate by shifting government contracts to a competitor – the legislation grants immunity from liability to any service provider who complies.
“Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section,” the bill states.
In other words, if spying targets later discover that their service providers gave the government access to their phone calls and e-mails, they have no grounds to sue for damages, regardless of how unjustified the surveillance may have been.
Given the Bush administration’s proclivity for stretching the boundaries of its powers, the scope of the spying legislation alarmed civil libertarians and some Democrats who favored a more limited revision of FISA to address a supposed new obstacle related to spying on suspected al-Qaeda operatives.
Boehner’s Leak
House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, divulged in a Fox News interview on July 31 that a FISA court had ruled in secret that warrantless intercepts of foreign communications routed through the United States were illegal.
“There's been a ruling, over the last four or five months, that prohibits the ability of our intelligence services and our counterintelligence people from listening in to two terrorists in other parts of the world where the communication could come through the United States," Boehner said.
President Bush then demanded that Democrats approve a revision to the FISA law before leaving for the August recess. Democrats thought they had reached a compromise that would address the kind of situation described by Boehner, but the White House and the Republicans demanded more sweeping changes.
The Senate caved in first, voting 60-28 to authorize Bush’s broader spying powers, with many centrist Democrats – such as California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb – joining a solid phalanx of Republicans. (Presidential contenders – Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden – voted no.)
On Aug. 4, Bush turned up the heat on the House. He called the spying powers contained in the bill crucial weapons in the fight against terrorism and declared that “protecting America is our most solemn obligation.”
Many Americans would disagree, arguing that the most solemn obligation is to protect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But the Democratic congressional leaders acted as if their highest priorities were getting away for the August recess and avoiding ugly attacks on their patriotism from Fox News and the right-wing media.
Instead of canceling the recess – and using the month of August to fight over both Bush’s extraordinary expansion of presidential powers and the Iraq War – House Democratic leaders brought the Senate-approved “Protect America Act of 2007” to the floor. It carried, 227-183, with 41 Democratic defections.
Trying to put the best spin on their defeat, Democratic leaders pointed to their one concession: a sunset provision that requires President Bush to seek renewal of his powers in six months.
However, not only it is it hard to envision the Democrats finding more backbone to stand up to the “soft on terror” charge in an election year, but passage of the bill complicates the argument that Bush broke the law with his prior warrantless wiretapping.
Bush’s defenders can now cite this broad legislative authority as giving, in effect, a retroactive congressional blessing to Bush’s apparent violations of FISA, which requires a secret court warrant for eavesdropping and other spying inside the United States.
Some rank-and-file Democrats also may wonder how valuable their party’s electoral victory in November 2006 has proved to be. Despite gaining control of Congress, the Democrats have failed to stop the Iraq War or to reinstate habeas corpus and other constitutional rights that were breached by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, passed before the election.
Ducking a Fight
The Democratic leaders have failed to slow the growth of presidential power in large part because they keep avoiding a showdown with Bush.
Early on, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, took presidential impeachment “off the table.” Plus, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he would always approve Bush’s requests for Iraq War funding even as Republicans use vetoes and filibusters to block Democratic war policy alternatives.
Democrats also remain fearful of right-wing media attacks on their patriotism. In a July meeting with former CIA officer Ray McGovern and some impeachment backers, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Michigan, lamented that the Republicans and Fox News would have a field day if a Democratic impeachment effort flopped.
Now, in August, the Democrats have shied away from another confrontation with Bush, leaving little doubt that last November’s election has done little to change the underlying political dynamic of Washington.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
The newer developments regarding AG Gonzales alleged perjury goes beyond the attorney firings. It's also in regard to bypassing James Comey's authority in order to reimplement Bush's surveillance program to spy on American citizens. Since Gonzales' indescretions have branched off into several different directions, it's appropriate to have a separate thread. I wonder how many will be necessary until he's finally pink-slipped.
The Justice Department released a statement, and if you can see your way past the double-talk, they give away a new revelation... which, if you've been paying close attention, isn't a very surprising one. But the genie is now officially out of the bottle.
Justice Dept. Statement on Gonzales
Jul 26, 6:42 PM (ET)
By The Associated Press
Confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum, where the greatest care must be used not to compromise sensitive intelligence operations. The administration first used the term "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in early 2006 to refer publicly to a particular intelligence activity that the president publicly acknowledged and described in December 2005 - that is, the NSA's targeting for interception international communications coming into or going out of the United States where the NSA has reasonable grounds to believe that a party to the communication is an agent or member of al-Qaida or an affiliated terrorist organization. That is the only intelligence activity that the attorney general meant when he used the phrase "Terrorist Surveillance Program."
When members of Congress and the public, after that activity was disclosed, questioned whether it was lawful, the attorney general noted that there had not been serious disagreements raised by the Justice Department about the lawfulness of that particular activity - i.e., the interception of international communications of al-Qaida. That statement was accurate. There was not a disagreement between the Justice Department and the White House in March 2004 or any other time about whether there was a legal basis for that particular intelligence activity.
Indeed, the white paper that the department sent to Congress on January 19, 2006, reflects and is consistent with the legal position taken by the Department in 2004, including under (former Deputy Attorney General) Mr. (Jim) Comey's tenure, concerning the legal basis for that activity. The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified.
The May 17, 2006, letter from Director of National Intelligence (John D.) Negroponte is consistent with the attorney general's testimony. The letter indicates that the March 10, 2004 meeting included a briefing on the activity we have called the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," without indicating whether other intelligence activities were discussed.
-----------------------------------------------
In other words....
The Justice Dept. has just confirmed there are "other" intel activities secretly implemented. And, as they themselves have just admitted, the legality of these programs is suspect.
How many FISA laws has the administration broken? And isn't that an impeachible offence?
The Justice Department released a statement, and if you can see your way past the double-talk, they give away a new revelation... which, if you've been paying close attention, isn't a very surprising one. But the genie is now officially out of the bottle.
Justice Dept. Statement on Gonzales
Jul 26, 6:42 PM (ET)
By The Associated Press
Confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum, where the greatest care must be used not to compromise sensitive intelligence operations. The administration first used the term "Terrorist Surveillance Program" in early 2006 to refer publicly to a particular intelligence activity that the president publicly acknowledged and described in December 2005 - that is, the NSA's targeting for interception international communications coming into or going out of the United States where the NSA has reasonable grounds to believe that a party to the communication is an agent or member of al-Qaida or an affiliated terrorist organization. That is the only intelligence activity that the attorney general meant when he used the phrase "Terrorist Surveillance Program."
When members of Congress and the public, after that activity was disclosed, questioned whether it was lawful, the attorney general noted that there had not been serious disagreements raised by the Justice Department about the lawfulness of that particular activity - i.e., the interception of international communications of al-Qaida. That statement was accurate. There was not a disagreement between the Justice Department and the White House in March 2004 or any other time about whether there was a legal basis for that particular intelligence activity.
Indeed, the white paper that the department sent to Congress on January 19, 2006, reflects and is consistent with the legal position taken by the Department in 2004, including under (former Deputy Attorney General) Mr. (Jim) Comey's tenure, concerning the legal basis for that activity. The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified.
The May 17, 2006, letter from Director of National Intelligence (John D.) Negroponte is consistent with the attorney general's testimony. The letter indicates that the March 10, 2004 meeting included a briefing on the activity we have called the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," without indicating whether other intelligence activities were discussed.
-----------------------------------------------
In other words....
The Justice Dept. has just confirmed there are "other" intel activities secretly implemented. And, as they themselves have just admitted, the legality of these programs is suspect.
How many FISA laws has the administration broken? And isn't that an impeachible offence?
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler