AP gets FISA, wiretapping authority wrong again
SUMMARY: An AP article falsely suggested that the U.S. government does not currently have the authority to "eavesdrop[] on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists." The article also claimed, "The Senate has already passed its version of the measure to renew the law, which expired Feb. 16." In fact, what expired on February 16 was the Protect America Act's revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; the federal government still has the authority under FISA to listen in on the communications of suspected terrorists. The AP made similar false suggestions in a January report.
In a February 27 report, the Associated Press falsely suggested that the U.S. government does not currently have the authority to "eavesdrop[] on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists." The report stated: "President Bush lobbied the House again on Wednesday to pass an intelligence law allowing government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists. Failure to renew the expired law is 'inexcusable' and 'indefensible,' Bush said." The AP article also claimed, "The Senate has already passed its version of the measure to renew the law, which expired Feb. 16." In fact, what expired on February 16 was the Protect America Act's (PAA) revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which, as Media Matters for America has noted, did not simply "allow[] government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists," but rather, expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' domestic-to-foreign communications without a warrant, among other things. Before Congress passed the PAA in August 2007, the government had the authority under FISA to listen in on the communications of suspected terrorists, and the government's authority under that law continues despite the expiration of the PAA.
Similarly, as Media Matters documented at the time, a January 24 AP report falsely asserted that the U.S. government would lose its "eavesdropping powers" if Congress did not reauthorize them by February 1 (the date the PAA was set to expire before Congress extended the expiration date until February 15). The January 24 report stated: "President Bush tried on Thursday to pressure congressional Democrats to extend and expand the government's eavesdropping powers, which expire in eight days. ... The law authorizes the administration to eavesdrop on phone calls and see the e-mail to and from suspected terrorists. Congress is bickering over terms of its extension."
From the February 27 Associated Press report:
President Bush lobbied the House again on Wednesday to pass an intelligence law allowing government eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists. Failure to renew the expired law is ''inexcusable'' and ''indefensible,'' Bush said.
''There is still an extremist threat,'' Bush said. ''People still want to attack our country. And we'd better understand what they're thinking, what they're planning and who they're talking to.''
The Senate has already passed its version of the measure to renew the law, which expired Feb. 16.
The Senate legislation would provide retroactive legal protection for telecommunications companies that wiretapped U.S. phone and computer lines at the government's request after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, without court permission. Bush backs giving the telecommunications companies immunity, but the House version does not include it.
''It's expired because people want to take class action lawsuits against private phone carriers and other companies that are believed to have helped us protect America,'' Bush said in the Oval Office while he met with the leader of the Czech Republic. ''It's not fair to say, ''It's important for you to help us and then you get sued for billions of dollars.''
The president's pitch was the latest installment in a long-running debate between Bush and congressional Democrats.
Bush, on his flight home from six days in Africa last week, told reporters that he sees no way to compromise with Democrats over giving retroactive lawsuit immunity to telecoms that helped the government eavesdrop. Instead, he said his strategy for breaking the legislative deadlock would involve hammering away about why Congress should pass the law on his terms.
Bush lobbied for the terrorist surveillance law in his radio address on Saturday, in welcoming the governors to the White House on Monday and in a political speech to Republican governors Monday night.
Typical obfuscation from MMfA:
Protect America Act grants immunity from lawsuits to telecommunications companies that are involved with Government eavesdropping and wiretapping of TERRORISTS. Without the PAA, class-action trial lawyers will be able to file lawsuits in the BILLIONS against the telecoms. Effectively shutting down the government's ability to investigate possible TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.
Those are the facts...
So basically, they broke the law, and according to Bush, will continue to break the law, but that's OK because the turrists are after us.
You do realize that we have no idea what information the government is pulling from the telecom companies. And seriously, is it that hard for them to get a retroactive warrant?
Also, what exactly constitutes a terrorist? An enemy of the state? you? me? We don't know, because the definition keeps changing.
Oh, and let's not forget, THEY BROKE THE LAW.
Though to be honest, I wouldn't really care so much about going after the telecom companies. I think the Bush administration coerced them into cooperating with them. They should be tried for unlawful search and seizure.
GF,
Why didn't Bush agree to the 21-day extension? Why do telecoms need immunity if they have done nothing wrong? What is wrong with the current policy that allows the administration to go before FISA with 72 hours of obtaining a warrant? Warrants can be granted after the fact.
What is wrong with the current process?
What is wrong with the current process? Nothing. At least not before BushCo got in. Up until then, the FISA court only rejected a handfull of warrent requests, since then, the court had turned down numerous requests.
I wonder what BushCo considers to be terrorists? PETA? NOW? the DNC?
'An AP article falsely suggested that the U.S. government does not currently have the authority to "eavesdrop[] on phone calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists." '
Goodfella,what do you think of this "fact" from the AP? Have you been sold this one, too? Do you know what a "fact" is?
"defense of democracies", the group that is running television ads, saying that the democrats let the government authority to spy on al qaeda, is composed of the usual neocon suspects.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/27/defense-of-democracies-fear-mongering-attack-ads-targeting-freshman-democrats/
I saw one of those ads, where video monitors turned from showing suspects to static, as if ongoing investigations screeched to a halt. I felt like throwing a shoe through the screen.
I hate to think of how many people are stupid enough to believe it.
As most of the relatively well informed people in the US know, FISA was a good law, and it provided a good service, and it still works well. You have the whole get a warrant up to 72 hours after the tapping has happened, and has started, which for most any reasonable person is easy enough to comprehend. Not to mention the fact that the FISA court has denied what? Maybe 4-5 requests for warrants out of thousands of such requests over the years that the FISA court has existed and all.
It's even a secret court, that can be called into session in just about any circumstance, meaning there is no waiting. You need a warrant according to FISA, court in session folks. Get it done.
The other thing is, if you're wiretapping someone in a foreign country, no need for anything. Just do it. If we have that many "terrorist" suspects in the US making calls, writing e-mails, and things like that, why don't we go and pick them up? I can't imagine that many American citizens, or people residing in the US are suspected of being terrorists, supporting terrorism, and things like that. This is why we have Saudi Arabia, they are the biggest supporters of terrorism in the world. But I digress...
FISA works. The President has been wiretapping people in the US since BEFORE 9/11 without warrants. It is a crime against the citizens of this country (every single one of us), it is a crime against the Constitution that Bush took an oath to protect, and we shouldn't allow it. When we cede our freedoms for the so called veil of security, we have already allowed the terrorists to win haven't we? Bush proclaims that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom (which is ridiculous, but again, I digress), well, if we take freedoms away from citizens, the terrorists have already won. They have altered our society, and made us ignore our own laws, all for the feeling of security. F-that. I'd rather die in a horrible terrorist attack than give away my freedoms, and the rights I'm afforded through being a citizen of the United States of America.
"American intelligence operations are being held hostage by House Democrats and a secret ruling issued by an unknown federal judge. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by a Democratic Congress in the wake of Watergate, is intended to give Americans at home due-process protection from national-security surveillance. But modern technology means that many communications — say, an e-mail from Kandahar to Fallujah — pass through U.S.-based infrastructure. The FISA court issued a classified ruling that all intercepts must be treated the same way as phone taps involving U.S. citizens. Last year Congress mitigated the impact of this eccentric decision by passing the Protect America Act, which made explicit that FISA restrictions did not protect foreign-to-foreign communications. But that law has now expired, and House Democrats have blocked its renewal. They object to a section of the bill that would exempt U.S. telecom companies that cooperated with intelligence operations in the wake of 9/11 from multibillion-dollar lawsuits. In the run-up to the 2002 elections, many Democrats thought they were going to make gains. But they ended up paying a price for putting the demands of public-sector unions ahead of national security. Putting trial lawyers first should not play any better."
William F Buckley (RIP) National Review / March 8, 2008 Issue
And George W. Bush should be ashamed of himself for putting corporations ahead of the country. We can play this game all dang day long, except for the fact that FISA works, FISA warrants can get the information that the administration wants to mine. FISA can be gained retroactively after tapping and intercepts have been done. It's really not that hard to follow along with the laws already in place.
By the way, the House democrats passed, or wanted to pass an extension of the so called PAA, without the exemption for immunity for the telecommunication companies, but alas, Bush wouldn't sign that one. So who is it again who is imepding the so called protection of America? Bush is, not the House democrats. It has nothing to do with the trial lawyers either. Why you might ask? Let me explain.
There was a ruling a week or so ago in a lower federal court that said you can't sue the telecommunications companies, or the government for illegal wiretapping, because we don't know, and will not know who was, and who wasn't wiretapped. The government will not say, and hence, no lawsuit.
Also, Buckley's assertion that this is only about foreign to foreign communications is absurd. The whole point was that American citizens were being wiretapped illegally. Do you really think that a terrorist from another country is going to file suit against the government of the United States because their phone calls were intercepted? Do you think they're going to file suit because their e-mails were intercepted? Do you even think that there would be a court within this country that would even hear anything about a case such as that? I think not.
If, as Bush and Buckley says, this is a case of foreign communications flowing through servers and phone switches residing in the US of A, then why the immunity for the telecoms? If they aren't bugging and wiretapping American citizens, or people in the US, why the immunity? As I said before, there isn't a court residing in the United States that would even hear a case of a foreigner who was wiretapped and or listened in on by the Bush administration.
And remember, the PAA provides for wiretapping without warrants of anyone that the Bush administration deems as being a suspect of being a terrorist or in aiding terrorism. Who is that exactly? Well, according to the current administration, it could be anyone. I seem to remember them tapping into conversations of anti war activists, and doing surveillance on them and justifying it with The Patriot Act, and also because they might be "terrorist" sympathizers.
This administration's excuses, and Buckley's, are ridiculous, and dont make logical sense at all.
I know I keep posting this question. Ask these right wingers how they would feel if say, oh, Hillary Clinton could wiretap you without a warrant. I'm pretty sure they would turn inside out, turn red with rage, and then impeach her ASAP. The good old double standard. I've even asked some hard core republicans I work with this same question. Their answer, "Well, that would be different." Bearing in mind, how would it be different.
And yes, for the record, I would be upset with ANY President doing this. Don't care if they're republican, a democrat, indie, Nader, or anyone else for that matter. Get a warrant (if you want to listen in on Americans). It's really pretty simple.
I've asked that question on here too, nobody seems to want to answer it. It's almost as if the thought of a Democrat being President hasn't occured to them at all.
If she or Obama win and Republicans object to one of their anti-terrorist measures, I look forward to chastising them for their "pre-9/11 mindset".