Wash. Post falsely claimed government authority "to [s]py" will "expire" on Feb. 1
SUMMARY: An item in The Washington Post, titled "Aye to Spy?" falsely claimed that "[t]he current FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] authorization will expire on Friday [February 1]." In fact, FISA does not "expire" on February 1; rather, the August 2007 revisions to FISA made through the Protect America Act are set to expire, but FISA will remain in effect.
The January 28 Washington Post "[I]nsider's guide to the upcoming week," included an item titled "Aye to Spy?" that falsely claimed that the Senate would vote later that day on "whether to cut off debate about reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA]." The item later claimed that "[t]he current FISA authorization will expire on Friday [February 1]." In fact, FISA is not set to "expire" on February 1, as Media Matters for America has noted. Rather, the August 2007 revisions to FISA made through the Protect America Act (PAA) -- which, in effect, expanded the government's powers to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant -- are set to expire. According to the PAA's "transition procedures," after those revisions expire on February 1, all new authorizations for surveillance would be governed by the FISA statute as it existed prior to the PAA revisions, while all current authorizations would remain in effect until their scheduled expiration date. Before Congress amended FISA in August 2007, the government had the authority to listen in on the communications of suspected terrorists if, under most circumstances, it obtained a court order to eavesdrop on communications either intercepted in the United States or acquired by intentionally targeting the communications of a particular, known U.S. person who is in the United States.*
Media Matters has repeatedly noted that, contrary to claims by President Bush and administration supporters, critics of the administration's eavesdropping program have not said that the government should refrain from spying on terrorists; rather, those critics, including numerous members of Congress, have said that the president should be required to obtain warrants before eavesdropping on conversations involving people in the United States.
From the January 28 Washington Post "[I]nsider's guide to the upcoming week":
Aye to Spy? This afternoon, the Senate will vote on whether to cut off debate about reauthorizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is working against the motion, and it is expected that Republicans will not have the 60 votes needed to end the discussion. One sticking point for the Democrats continues to be Republicans' insistence on immunity for telecom companies facing lawsuits for their alleged role in the government's warrantless eavesdropping program.
The current FISA authorization will expire on Friday, and Bush warned Congress not to try sending him another temporary extension.
Is MMFA's description of FISA correct? I thought Bush's critics wanted him to act in accordance with the original act, which gives him up to 72 hours AFTER eavesdropping to obtain a warrant. In any case, this whole story has been very poorly coverd by the MSM.
Robert
The MSM has been obediently "covering" this issue as the White House wishes it portrayed, which is ...
IF YOU DON'T GIVE BUSH EVERYTHING HE WANTS, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!
So that's how they report it ... hysterically, without factual basis, and in total compliance with the Bush regime. Hysteria, hyperbole, and LIES rule the day.
Since when has the government observed the "law"? The government makes up the laws then chooses which parties to hold accountable and which can violate the laws at will.
Ever seen a cop not on an emergency call give himself a ticket for speeding or rolling through a stop sign? Me neither.
Laws apply to the little people, always, and to the occasional big wig who effs up really, really badly.
The fact that they brought the whole spying thing above ground as FISA is a small miracle. Its dissolution would not change their behavior one iota.
Randy
Well, it appears that we got Obama and Clinton back to Washington for the key vote against cloture. Maybe the flood of emails from prograssives and libertarians drew their attetion to the problem at hand, after all.
Randy is right, though: the spying began at least five months before the attacks on the WTC, and the Pentagon, so there is little doubt that the spying will continue at least so long as we have Corporatists or Repugnants in places of power, so even if this attempt to immunize the telcos is ultimately defeated, those creepuscles are simply awaiting a more opportune time.
This is not the only backdoor deal Bungle is currently working: due to British publication of Sibel Edmonds' disclosures of administration peddling of nuclear technology to Turkey, there is underway a Bungle directive to ex post facto declare all that to be legal, and immunize the participants - unless Congress acts (and overrides the pending veto) in disapproval.
Cannonfire
This proposes in fact, to legalise the much earlier exposure of clandestine CIA process for the purpose of protecting those very players from discovery by the CIA.
More and more evidence is coming out showing that Bush is disobeying even the Patriot Act; he is spying on anybody he wants to. Does anybody think that this will change after February 1?