Krauthammer mischaracterized new FISA law as limited to foreign-to-foreign communications
On the August 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer falsely suggested that the recently approved amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allow the administration to intercept without a warrant only foreign-to-foreign communications that happen to be routed through telecommunications switches in the United States. In fact, the recent changes to FISA also permit warrantless monitoring of Americans' international communications -- so long as the government surveillance is "directed at" someone the government "reasonably believe[s]" to be outside the United States. Indeed, in an August 6 article, The New York Times quoted White House spokesman Tony Fratto as acknowledging, in the Times' words, that "the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas."
Krauthammer made his statements during the Special Report "All-Star Panel" segment. Asked by guest host Bret Baier about the recently passed FISA amendments and the attached six-month sunset provision, Krauthammer stated that when the legislation comes up for renewal, "the Republicans will win again" on what he called "a slam-dunk issue for the president." Krauthammer then described the bill as follows: "It means that if a bad guy in Pakistan is speaking to a bad guy in London, and if the speech or the email happens to go through a router in the U.S. or computer in the U.S., under the old law you'd have to get a warrant, which is absurd." He added that the new law "fixed" this issue, and in six months, "it will be fixed again."
However, the warrantless surveillance allowed under the FISA revisions is not limited to foreign-to-foreign communications, as Krauthammer suggested. In fact, the new law categorically excludes from the warrant requirement any "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." The new law requires only that, within 120 days of the law's enactment, the administration submit to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court its "procedures" for how the government assesses that any specific eavesdropping it conducts without court approval under the new law falls into that exclusion. The court must approve those procedures unless they are "clearly erroneous."
As the August 6 New York Times article explained:
Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.
Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.
By changing the legal definition of what is considered "electronic surveillance," the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants -- latching on to those giant switches -- as long as the target of the government's surveillance is "reasonably believed" to be overseas.
For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.'s target is the person in London.
Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Sunday in an interview that the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas.
But he stressed that the objective of the new law is to give the government greater flexibility in focusing on foreign suspects overseas, not to go after Americans.
"It's foreign, that's the point," Mr. Fratto said. "What you want to make sure is that you are getting the foreign target."
From the August 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: The other thing they [Congress] did was pass a modernization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But it has, Charles, a six-month sunset on it, something that the White House really didn't want to see.
KRAUTHAMMER: Well, that means it will become an issue early next year, and the Republicans will win again. This is a slam-dunk issue for the president. It means if a bad guy in Pakistan is speaking to a bad guy in London, and if the speech or the email happens to go through a router in the U.S., through a computer in the U.S., under the old law you'd have to get a warrant, which is absurd.
It was never intended -- that kind of thing didn't exist in '78, when the original law was passed. And that's been fixed, and it'll be fixed again.
Frist.
Kosmo Kramer-hammer, keeping his 'wrong about everything" streak alive!
Clearly, for Charles, a minor issue....
The dizzying descent of "professional" news programs into outright propaganda is amazing. No questions, critical analysis, nothing.
Why not just pick someone off the street and ask their opinion? I suspect that regular people's knowledge is better than Charles.
They could call it "Random News" or something (better than what we have now).
I'm sure Krauthammer is the voice of reason and the fair-and-balanced, serious journalist to the audience that listens to am GOP radio all day.
That's where they're told that FISA is about listening in on terrorists who want to come here and kill us all !.
Hard to believe that the guy is a psychiatrist as well as a pathological lier.
But I'm willing to bet he knows how to spell liar.
krauthammer: "...the Republicans will win again. This is a slam-dunk issue for the president."
It's pitiful how desperate the president and his minions the Republican Congressional leadership are right now, for the least little political 'up-tick', that they spin this as "winning" and a "slam-dunk".
The sadder truth is, that like it or not, we must place some degree of trust and faith, in George W. Bush and his administration, when it comes to matters of intelligence-gathering.
Not because they deserve that trust (and I see krauthammer using the term "slam-dunk" above; isn't that how former DCI Tenet supposedly characterized the certainty of WMDs in Iraq, as a "slam-dunk"?)...
Not because they deserve that trust, but because we have little choice in this matter, due to the nature of intelligence-gathering for purposes of National Security; that nature being not at all what you'd call 'transparent', and quite the opposite, secret... not only are the methods and results of such intelligence-gathering kept from the Public, but even our agents in Congress have a limited access to those methods and results.
And so George W. Bush, the least trustworthy of any president ever the United States has had, is reluctantly trusted enough by the Congress, to monitor certain international communications, in the name of National Security...
...and krauthammer shouts about Republicans "winning", and "SLAM-DUNK!"
Sad.
Pitiful.
The president works overtime hunched-over at a podium, leering and grinning and cackling at the American People about "evil" and death and 'al qaida'... and his minions in the Republican leadership in Congress stand beside and behind him, like a choir singing a Requiem...
And for their efforts they earn a minimal amount of trust, to gather intelligence in the name National Security.
Pitiful... if that's called "winning", then I can only wonder what losing is.
"least trustworthy ever", EVER???? Well, his WIFE and GOD would disgree.
"reluctantly trusted enough by the Congress"??? Anyone ELSE you presume to SPEAK FOR???
"we must place some degree of trust and faith, in..."??? NO you DON'T; though civility is your OBLIGATION. I do not agree with numerous choices and decisions. But "some" of the PROBLEMS are REAL and MUST be addressed; don't like "this way", then SUGGEST SOMETHING ELSE!! I have absolutely NO trust OR faith in the others doing NOTHING but useless bitching, whining, complaining and fault-finding. It's NOT our fault that barbarians work to kill women and BABIES over IMAGINED "offenses". Not when done in NYC or Spain or England or Bally or Denmark, etc, etc, etc. It AIN'T US!!!!
SUGGEST SOMETHING, DAMN IT!!! Democrats want to allow anyone reporting "suspicious activity" to be sued; you DO realize that will SUPPRESS reporting don't you? Can't take the chance of "racial profiling"? Can't be listening to phone conversations? Fine, SUGGEST SOMETHING ELSE!
Stop blaming and "critiquing" and DO SOMETHING. And in the mean time, would you have the basic human decency to tell the selfish, screaming brats to grow up. Comparing their phone privacy to life under Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ceauşescu, etc. is outrageously vulgar to survivors who have to hear this CRAP. Every time I hear or see "Big Brother", "Dictator", "Nazi", and the like, I want desperately to let some 75 year old woman with no male relatives bitch-slap the arrogant inconsiderate jack-ass.
Your anger is misplaced. And speaking of presumptuous, you seem to imply that you speak for the Almighty.
If you look on the web sites of the various Democratic candidates as well as prominent senators and congresspersons, you will find ample evidence of thoughtful steps to take regarding terrorism. Shredding the Constitution weakens our democracy and will not make us safer.
I don't NEED to speak for GOD. It is DOCUMENTED fact that Clinton casually and FREQUENTLY betrayed his sworn oath to God and spouse. So, I merely have to have enough "faith" that God isn't a FOOL; as would be required to trust someone KNOWN to be untrustworthy.
As for ALL of these Dem. security proposals; how about rattling off a handful (just bullets will be fine).
You DO know that our CONSTITUTION states that the Supreme Court TELLS Biden and Kennedy what the Constitution means, not the other way around, don't you? Dem.s DISREGARD the Constitution whenEVER it is inconvenient; like "FREEDOM of Religion" (not separation of ANYTHING), Equality (reverse discrimination is just discrimination that YOU like), Dem/s prohibit FAR more "speech" and even legislate TOUGHT; Hate, rage, and bias crimes ALL address thought NOT action.
There is plenty of fault and blame. And I am sick how FILTHY they ALL are.
I have not heard anything but bitching about "them" from the Dem.s; I haven't SEARCHED, but they sure have had a LOT of mic time. And I sure have a CLEAR picture about what each one DOESN'T agree with.
Man, you're great. I can't tell if you're for real or not. If you're for real, then you truly are a top-flight psychopath. If you aren't, then I salute you as one of the great parody trolls of all time.
Either way, keep up the good work: if you're for real, you only serve to show us how truly sad & desperate you 25%ers are these days; if you're not, well then, you still only serve to show us how truly sad & desperate those 25%ers are these days.
"You DO know that our CONSTITUTION states that the Supreme Court TELLS Biden and Kennedy what the Constitution means, not the other way around"
The seperation of church and state WAS a Supreme Court descion:
In their ruling in 1947 of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Tp", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."
"decision"
Sorry, totally off topic.
"George W. Bush, the least trustworthy of any president the United States has ever had"
Yes, I think so... I admit it's an opinion, but it's an opinion based on the fact that his administration misled the U.S. into an invasion and occupation of Iraq; and by misled, I mean he provided the American People and their Congress intelligence that was at least false, and at worst falsified... there's no other president that I know of, who has ever done anything like that.
"[George W. Bush] is reluctantly trusted enough by the Congress, to monitor certain international communications, in the name of National Security"
Yes, that's how I'd characterize Congress' approval of the FISA this past week: as reluctant. The House could have easily denied the president those provisions in the FISA, that the Senate allowed for... but they didn't; enough House Democrats wanted to see this matter done with, temporarily at least... I'd describe Congressional Democrats on the whole, as reluctant in giving George W. Bush any more powers than he already had, to conduct surveillance in the jurisdiction of the FISA.
Why were they reluctant to do that?
Because as I said, George W. Bush is the least trustworthy president the United States has ever had.
The balance of what you posted, I'm unable to respond to, because it's too hard to decipher, and I don't like to simply guess what people are saying, when it seems language can be such, as to leave no doubt...
And I found doubtful whatever it was you meant, where the spew of words in one single paragraph, included 'all caps' of the words:
NO, DON'T, OBLIGATION, PROBLEM, REAL, MUST, SUGGEST SOMETHING ELSE!! (I am unsure what I may have suggested at all), NO, OR, NOTHING, NOT...
...BABIES, IMAGINED, and AIN'T US!!!!
All of that makes as little sense abstracted like that, with nothing but the 'all caps' words, as it does with the lower cap words filling it out.
The rest of it was just as senseless... but your concluding sentence was interesting:
"Every time I hear or see "Big Brother", "Dictator", "Nazi", and the like, I want desperately to let some 75 year old woman with no male relatives bitch-slap the arrogant inconsiderate jack-ass."
It made me wonder whether or not you were referring in way to me... but seeing as I used not even one of the terms you put in quotation marks, I decided it couldn't be me you were thinking of; it must be someone else, someone else who used those words, and made you "want desperately" for whatever...
And whatever that is you "want desperately" for, as strange as I find it, I can't for the life of me figure out why, the old lady shouldn't have any male relatives?
First, I know people who lost some or even most of their family to REAL "dictators". No, you did not invoke any of the references. But it is hard to find a single thread on any social topic without some Dem. screaming that mass executions are next. But again, you didn't say this.
Your ignorant hyperbole was, "Because as I said, George W. Bush is the least trustworthy president the United States has ever had." Give me a sentence on the consideration you gave Polk, Pierce and McKinley. This is simply one more liberal "proclaimation" of "truth". Liberals don't construct their "opinions", they choose them (then throw them around as if they are "truth", beyond question). And as Shakespeare would say, what you pull from your rectum by any other name is still crap. Absolute ignorance, no matter how much arrogance and superiority you add, is still IGNORANCE.
And until Dem.s stop being so dishonest, I have a tough time caring how "outraged" they are about someone else being dishonest.
Your reinforcement of this absurd, rediculous "simplification" clearly demonstrates that reasoning and substance are beyond you. The reason our news coverage is shallow and superficial is because people who must reduce their own "reality" to Bush bad, Kennedy good, Cheney bad, Gore good, Rep. bad, Dem. good can't understand anything more complex. You are too damn LAZY to think.
You can call me names and belittle me now. But this site has no significance. You are getting the news coverage you deserve.
Happy food fight.
''Your ignorant hyperbole was, "Because as I said, George W. Bush is the least trustworthy president the United States has ever had."
- Dem0 stated that this was his opinion. If you want to see some truly "ignorant hyperbole", try re-reading your posts.
"Liberals don't construct their "opinions", they choose them"
- Dem0 laid out his reasoning for his opinion. Thus, it was constructed.
"what you pull from your rectum by any other name is still crap."
- Yeah... I'll let that one go...
"Absolute ignorance, no matter how much arrogance and superiority you add, is still IGNORANCE."
-You really, REALLY need to re-read your posts...
"And until Dem.s stop being so dishonest, I have a tough time caring how "outraged" they are about someone else being dishonest."
- What are the Dems being dishonest about? According to you earlier posts, your not even sure what it is that they want to do.
"Your reinforcement of this absurd, rediculous "simplification" clearly demonstrates that reasoning and substance are beyond you. "
-I won't say it a third time...
"The reason our news coverage is shallow and superficial is because people who must reduce their own "reality" to Bush bad, Kennedy good, Cheney bad, Gore good, Rep. bad, Dem. good can't understand anything more complex."
- I actually agree with you on that. Although it cuts both ways.
"You are too damn LAZY to think."
- and apparently, you are too lazy to research, as was suggested to you by another poster, the plans and ideas many of the Democratic candidates have concerning terrorisim. Instead, you would just rather have someone tell you in the form of quick little "bullets".
"You can call me names and belittle me now. "
- Well, you've certainly earned it. You get what you give...
"But this site has no significance."
-Then why in God's grey earth are you here?
(my apologies to Dem02020. I know you can take care of yourself. )
No apologies necessary.
I saw that the guy took his turn, and right away at the top of his post I see REAL "dictators" and "social topic" and "screaming that mass executions are next"...
Sometimes you just walk on past, rather quickly, like you have an important appointment you're late for, when they come up to you on the street, to breathe their opinions in your face.
I figure I made my points, as sensible as I could; that's all a body can do in these matters.
But in scanning that post, I didn't see anything in response to the only question I asked the guy:
"Why was it necessary that the 75 year old woman have no male relations?"
[If the guy doesn't solve me that riddle, well I'll just figure it out on my own, I will... I'll crack that nut... I will.]
You do KNOW you are a moron right? Dumber than concrete swimfins. Your abject ignorance is sad and pathetic. Grow a brainpan and get back to us.
Grow up you cowardly whiner. Those who would give up essential liberty, like say the fourth amendment, for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. YOU deserve neither safety nor liberty. I dont have to suggest anything new. I suggest we do what the law said before. GET A DARN WARRANT. The law allowed the warrant up to 72 hrs after the fact. Meanwhile feel free to hide under your bed and snivel about those of us protecting the freedoms we associate with our country, while you beg the government to take your freedoms and protect you from the scary wolves. YOU are pathetic. Grow UP and grow a spine.
So, does anyone know why the Congress signed this bill, crafted in this way?
According to Joe Biden, Russ Feingold and others, they were more than happy to sign a bill that would allow the surveillance of foreign to foreign that might pass through American channels. Why did they go overboard?
There was a compromise, worked out with McConnell, that did just that. But the White House threatened a veto and to keep Congress in D.C. during thr break. An apparently clueless Congress caved.
Here's the entire relevant section of the enacted bill.
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 does it mean? As long as one party is "believed" to be outside of the States, the government can monitor it. Browsing a foreign website? sending an e-mail overseas? placing an international call? The foreign party doesn't even have to be a suspect, just foreign.
Also, though the legislation sunsets in 6 months, any orders issued under it will continue to be valid for one year. So, the effects of this bill will be with us for up to 18 months.
Designed to sunset just before the next presidential election. Ridiculous and crazy legislation, an affront to the Constitution.
Krauthammer mischaracterizes everything that comes out of his mouth.
Krauthammer's lie is the standard Republican talking point this week.
David Rivkin used the same lie today debating the matter with Glenn Greenwald on C-SPAN's Washington Journal (which C-SPAN appears to have stopped archiving on its web site in late June!) and Bryan Cunningham told the same lie on Newshour With Jim Lehrer<a href="[link to www.pbs.org] on Monday, even going so far as to accuse Kate Martin of the Centr for National Security Studies of not having read the law.
This is obviously a coordinated campaign of bamboozlement, a campaign that needs to be exposed and investigated.
Glenn Greenwald posted a link to the archive of his C-SPAN debate with the lying David Rivkin -- it is here:
[link to www.c-span.org] the 8/6/2007 edition of Washington Journal, RealMedia only, more's the pity.
You can link to the file directly at
rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/wj080607.rm
The segment in question is the last segment in the program.
"Hey, it's ok if a President spies on people without asking permission from the Bill of Rights. It's a war, you know. A war on Islam. Anything to win the war". Fascism.
This is generally accurate, and Krauthammer was certainly wrong, but you are missing a key point. So has everyone else.
The new FISA amendment includes section 105B(a), which stipulates that the DNI and the AG may acquire information on foreign targets under various conditions, including this:
"(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h)."
Admit it. You never looked up what "minimization procedures" meant, did you?
You see, the same issue came up in the drafting of the original 1978 law: What happens when a foreign target talks to someone in the U.S.? Many people are acting as though this is a brand new addition to the FISA law, when in fact, we have been dealing with this exact question for 29 years.
The domestic-to-foreign problem was resolved in 1978 through minimizaton -- and the new amendment makes clear that the same minimization procedures are still in effect. I'll quote the relevant section of the law. Don't let your eyes glaze over; this is important stuff.
* * *
h) "Minimization procedures", with respect to electronic surveillance, means -
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person's consent, unless such person's identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802(a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
* * *
See? This law cannot be used to spy on American dissenters, at least not easily. There are other ways of doing that -- ginning up some excuse for a warrant, or simply asking the Brits or some other friendly intelligence service to trade info. (That sort of thing has been going on for many years.)
Will Gonzo spy on dissenters regardless of what the law says? Well, maybe. But the question of whether an AG will break or observe the law is very different from the question of how that law actually reads.
Do I think that this was poor legislation? Yes. It should be rewritten a month from now, as Nancy Pelosi has asked. We need the bill to include limits on who the overseas targets can be. We also need a more stringent definition of minimization, and most of all we need greater oversight. Any interaction between the AG or DNI and any telecom should result in a report to the congressional committees on intelligence.
But the fact that this is a badly written bill does not mean that we should buy into the myths spread by many progressives.OK that was a thourough and thoughtful examination. My concern it without warrants, exactly what IS the oversight you were talking about. I mean what records are kept of WHO was spied on and exactly HOW do we know these records are being kept. You SAY it cannot be used to spy on domestic dissenters but once the warrant is taken out of the process how exactly do we KNOW that? THAT is the check. Trusting this administration that they are doing what they SAY they are doing any administration actually but this one especially, is just flat not good enough. Someone OUTSIDE the administration that is someone in the court system needs to be in on who is being wiretapped if citizens are in the mix in ANY way or we are left with trust us and I am certainly not comfortable with that.
House votes to “Retro-actively” make bush FISA polices legal! This means our Government knowingly and with malice of forethought, Broke the Law! The republican leadership broke laws and lied to us! The democratic failure to prosecute, and in fact to make laws broken yesterday legal today shows at the worst, complicity, and at worst conspiracy! As I understand our legal system, if you do something today, and tomorrow it becomes illegal, you can not be prosecuted for it. If this is true, then so is the inverse. I hold Both sides in contempt of the oath’s they swore!
Right wing pundits like Krauthammer(silly name) just do the dirty work for the Bush regime. It was Nixon who passed the FISA law. And today we have to defend our freedom again. Then the <a href="[link to www.opednews.com] >Supreme Court of 1972 Protected the 4th Amendment</a> .Now the Bush regime has even the media on its side.