Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

With FISA Law, Democrats Give Bush a Blank Check for Domestic Spying

By Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet. Posted August 11, 2007.


Responding to fear-mongering by the Bush administration, the Democrat-led Congress put its stamp of approval on the unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans.
Advertisement

Responding to fear-mongering by the Bush administration, the Democrat-led Congress put its stamp of approval on the unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans. George W. Bush has perfected the art of ramming ill-considered legislation through Congress by hyping emergencies that don't exist. He did it with the USA Patriot Act, the authorization for the Iraq war, the Military Commissions Act, and now the "Protect America Act of 2007" which amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

FISA was enacted in 1978 in reaction to excesses of Richard Nixon and the FBI, who covertly spied on critics of administration policies. FISA set up a conservative system with judges who meet in secret and issue nearly every wiretapping order the administration requests.

But that wasn't good enough for Bush. In 2001, he secretly established his "Terrorist Surveillance Program," with which the National Security Agency has illegally spied on Americans. Instead of holding hearings and holding the executive accountable for his law-breaking, Congress capitulated once again to the White House's strong-arm tactics. As Congress was about to adjourn for its summer recess, Bush officials threatened to label anyone who opposed their new legislation as soft on terror. True to form, Congress -- including 16 Senate and 41 House Democrats -- caved.

The new law takes the power to authorize electronic surveillance out of the hands of a judge and places it in the hands of the attorney general (AG) and the director of national intelligence (DNI). FISA had required the government to convince a judge there was probable cause to believe the target of the surveillance was a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power. The law didn't apply to wiretaps of foreign nationals abroad. Its restrictions were triggered only when the surveillance targeted a U.S. citizen or permanent resident or when the surveillance was obtained from a wiretap physically located in the United States. The attorney general was required to certify that the communications to be monitored would be exclusively between foreign powers and there was no substantial likelihood a U.S. person would be overheard.

Under the new law, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence can authorize "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States." The surveillance could take place inside the U.S., and there is no requirement of any connection with al-Qaeda, terrorism or criminal behavior. The requirement that the AG certify there is no substantial likelihood a U.S. person will be overheard has been eliminated.

By its terms, the new law will sunset in 180 days. But this is a specious limitation. The AG and DNI can authorize surveillance for up to one year. So just before the statute is set to expire around February 1, 2008, they could approve surveillance that will last until after Bush leaves office.

There is provision for judicial review of the procedures the AG and DNI establish to make sure they are reasonably designed to ensure communications of U.S. persons are not overheard. But that requirement is also specious. They must submit their procedures to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court 120 days after the effective date of the act. The court doesn't have to respond to their submission until 180 days after the effective date of the act, and the standard of review is appallingly low. It's limited to whether the government's determination is "clearly erroneous." Even if the court were to find the proffer clearly erroneous, the AG and DNI have another 30 days to fix it. That takes the entire review process beyond the 6 month sunset period. Meanwhile, the surveillance can continue.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: civil liberties, fisa

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and President of the National Lawyers Guild. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law, has just been published by PoliPointPress. Read more of her work at marjoriecohn.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bush League
Posted by: baad on Aug 11, 2007 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush League Executive Branch.

Push League Democratic Majority Congress.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So the treason by the Democrats is Bush's fault?
Posted by: american on Aug 11, 2007 9:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With FISA Law, Democrats Give Bush a Blank Check for Domestic Spying.

Responding to fear-mongering by the Bush administration, the Democrat-led Congress put its stamp of approval on the unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans.


So is the treason by the Democrats is Bush's fault?

Or is it just plain unpatriotic, spineless treason by the Democrats, regardless of whose rhetoric they are up against?

What could be more pressing for a representative sworn to uphold the constitution than defending it?

Fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ahem Posted by: american
» RE: Ahem Posted by: Habaro
Just Shows to Go Ya
Posted by: alicelillie on Aug 11, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This just goes to show you that you *cannot* rely on the Democrats!

And now I read on another page (hope to goodness it isn't true) that both Clinton and Obama are talking about restoring the draft!!!

If you want a major party candidate who opposes the spying, opposes the war (I mean *really* opposed it from day one and wants to pull out *now*), and has opposed a draft and draft registration from day one, then consider supporting Ron Paul. He's a Republican but he sure doesn't act like one! You can read about him on his own page, on lewrockwell.com and on freedomsphoenix.com.

Check out my own blog at http://www.alicelillieandher.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just Shows to Go Ya Posted by: peacefullaim
The Listeners
Posted by: eddie torres on Aug 11, 2007 11:48 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a scenario where the non-US-citizen CEO or CFO of a large oil company with US operations is visiting a large overseas subsidiary operation in an oil-rich country. The non-US executive begins communicating through secure but tapable channels to US colleagues to discuss urgent operational needs and local political or commercial information that may have a strategic impact on the oil company's competitors or on traders in various global oil markets.

While that individual's communications have not been specifically "targeted" for "surveillance" by a US spy agency, the new PAA FISA bill does not prohibit "listening" to that individual's communication as long as it's caught in part of a larger national security dragnet.

Because "listening" to the general flow of data coursing around the global communications networks has not been adequately addressed by the Protect America Act or by Congress at large.

This "listening" may actually be "datamining", and many suspect that the Gonzales reference to "other intelligence gathering activities" in fact refers to broad datamining operations coordinated through the NSC.

The communications of the hypothetical oil company executive are now sitting in the hands of a team operating undercover and out in the 'real world'. The "listening" team is composed of former Pentagon and intelligence community employees who spent years playing civil service paygrade politics and watching colleagues depart for gold-plated private sector jobs.

The "listening" team is augmented by a few technical and financial experts from the private sector who can actually interpret the data they're reviewing - what are they really talking about, is the information sensitive to national security or... would it have a financial impact on the oil industry?

The "listening" team may report directly to the NSC, or possibly to subordinates of the Vice President - and to nobody else.

That's a whole lot of opportunity for the sensitive commercial data mined by people reporting to Uncle Dick to get into the hands of competitors. And for the "listeners" to comfortably retire to a Dubai golf club.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DEMO. Congress @ 12%
Posted by: Glennk1949 on Aug 11, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This why nobody trusts the Demos. anymore either. They've shown themselves to be cowards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cowards, weasels, nincompoops, oh my
Posted by: Jeanne on Aug 11, 2007 3:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What congress has done is knock one of the legs out of the cases for impeachment. They have made “legal” some of the most heinous crimes that Bush/Cheney ought to be impeached for. Way to go, bastards.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is it asking too much to hope that...
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 11, 2007 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...maybe the Demos are not fools? Maybe the Shrub decided to take a chance and tell the Demos what's going on? Maybe instead of "trust me; I know what's good for you," W told or allowed told what we know about on-going threats? And maybe somebody said, There's a good reason for replacing an unworkable wiretapping routine with one that works?

I suppose not. The Congress is indeed a sick puppy. Maybe not a crazy puppy, however? Clap if you believe in Tinker Bell?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Selfish self centered rich people...
Posted by: macdon1 on Aug 11, 2007 9:35 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the flock else did you think greedy self interested rich people would do when they got a lot of power? Only people who are rich or nearly rich get elected these days and their interests are very different from yours and mine. The power brokers in DC and state capitals are beholden to their corporate handlers and their own business interests. They can't even imagine the life of Joe Shmoo who maybe owns a little house and a car and works for wages, let alone represent his interests. Democrats, Repugs, they are all the same in the end, their style just differs a little. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Blowin' in the wind"
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Aug 12, 2007 12:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In 1963, Bob Dylan's great hit included these lyrics: "How many times can a man turn his head, pretending he just doesn't see? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind. The answer is blowin' in the wind." Its no longer a wind, my friends, its a gale with the force of a tornado that is sweeping more than trailer parks and now engages our most rigid structures. Its the result of abdication of purpose and the ascent of corruption, crime and indifference. To hell with Congress and the political parties.....where is the outrage from responsible religious leaders, educators, community leaders, statesmen, college campuses.....anyone???? How many more Nixons, Reagans, Bushs must we experience without recourse before Amurikur's descent to 3rd world stature resorts to type and the White House becomes Green Zone, USA? The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Blowin' in the wind" Posted by: Dianka
We are taking the wrong tack...
Posted by: 18Cents on Aug 12, 2007 12:06 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I don't think anything will happen to change this until those with the money realize how bad it is.

Why the New FISA Law is Bad for American Business

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FISA Vote
Posted by: clocksmith on Aug 12, 2007 6:29 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, the senator from my home state of California, was one of the sixteen spineless Democratic senators who "cut and ran" by voting with the Republicans for this abomination of a bill.

I have already contacted her and let her know in no uncertain terms that I am a little displeased (cue the heavy sarcasm) with her vote and with her in general. She had better be planning on retirement before the next election; I have a long memory and I hold grudges. I am going to do everything in my (limited and dwindling by the day) power to see that she is not re-elected.

Everyone who is feeling angry and betrayed needs to check on how your senator and representative voted on this bill. If they voted for it, remember it the next time your little darling congressman asks for your vote. Give them the same support they gave us and our civil rights; that is to say, none. Betray them in the same way: vote for someone who really represents you and your views.

This, I'm afraid, is the only avenue left for us to get some attention from these smug, spineless jellyfish who are supposed to be doing the job we thought we were electing them to do. Vote them out!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FISA Vote Posted by: azbirds
It's not "treason" and it's not fear of being labeled soft on terrorism
Posted by: votingvet on Aug 13, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The misbegotten 41 Representives and 18 Senators who voted to take away your right to privacy, to a life free of arbitrary Government prying, need to be held to account in any and every public appearance. They should not be able to get off of any podium -- ever -- without answering to this despicable and slimey act.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One-Party Government
Posted by: Dianka on Aug 16, 2007 5:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On point after point, the Democratic Party has consistently worked in concert with the extreme right-wing Bush administration, offering tepid opposition only for the sake of appearance, and ONLY when they know it can accomplish nothing. It is apparent that we have a single-party form of government.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]