Specter Introduces Foreign Eavesdropping Bill

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Tue Nov 14, 2006 at 08:53:56 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sen. Arlen Specter today introduced the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Oversight and Resource Enhancement Act of 2006." The ACLU responds:

Now is not the time for Congress to focus on controversial issues. The majority of the appropriations bills have yet to be adopted. If there is to be a new spirit of bipartisan cooperation in Congress, lawmakers must not legislate in haste and without a full understanding of the facts. If the new Specter bill were adopted, it would be reconciled with the horrible Wilson bill, putting the privacy of innocent Americans at great risk. Senators must remember: Americans are not the enemy. This is one issue on which the lame-duck Congress should ‘Just Say No!’"

The LA Times today agreed in an editorial, saying the bill was co-sponsored by Diane Feinstein and would make it easier for the NSA to bypass FISA's requirement of a court order in case of an emergency.

< The New Senate Judiciary Committee Lineup | O.J.'s Back >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Specter Introduces Foreign Eavesdropping Bill | 4 comments (4 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Congressional terms (none / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:50:32 AM EST

If the Demos want to oppose this, fine. But the Congressional terms are not 1 year and 9 months or 5 years and 9 months.

So (none / 0) (#2)
by aw on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 08:41:06 AM EST

Was there not also a lame-duck congress six years ago in November of 2000?


cc (none / 0) (#3)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 04:14:13 PM EST

Actually there is a lame duck congress every election cycle.

Now does that mean it should do NO work??

If that was the founders intent, the newly elected congress would have been sworn in much less time, say two weeks.


: Well, (none / 0) (#4)
by aw on Wed Nov 15, 2006 at 06:32:46 PM EST

You mentioned two cycles, I only addressed one of them. My bad. Your guys already had a chance to do their dirty work starting in November 2004 and in November 2000. That's two years and six years, not one year and nine months and not 5 years and nine months. There I got both your cycles in this time.
You lost. Get over it.