Dems Cancel Intelligence Hearing , Push for FISA Changes Before Recess

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 10:13:55 AM EST
Tags: FISA, NSA wiretapping (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: Myths and Facts About FISA.

****

Republicans have been pushing to amend FISA before the August recess. A hearing of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at which Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell was scheduled to testify today has been canceled.

Yesterday, for the first time, McConnell briefed Sen. Arlen Specter on the NSA program. While Specter hasn't discussed what he learned at the briefing, after it he labeled attempts to impeach or bring perjury charges against Alberto Gonzales "premature."

We need to slow down this train. FISA doesn't need to be gutted or amended. It needs to be followed.

"FISA was enacted to ensure that no president could unilaterally decide who to secretly and indefinitely wiretap under the guise of national security. These bills would allow terrorism to be used as a pretext for undermining our basic Fourth Amendment rights. Congress should not pass the bills which give the president a blank check to violate the rights of innocent Americans."

Congress should just say no to gutting FISA.

Update below: FISA action may not be off the table after all:

I'm getting word that canceling McConnell may have no impact on the introduction of FISA legislation this week. The legislation is still being drafted and his recommendations are out there.

Unfortunately, the Democrats appear to be scrambling to get something moving this week - possibly because they are afraid of appearing soft on terror or as a response to Chertoff's "gut feeling" about attacks in August. Whatever their reason, it's wrong and you should let them know.

< S.F. to Pot Dispenaries: Fatten Up Those Baggies | Packing for Yearly Kos, Open Thread >

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.

Dems Cancel Intelligence Hearing , Push for FISA Changes Before Recess | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

RE: (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by mack on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 04:34:50 PM EST

jondee,

I realize Jim is doing nothing more than regurgitating right-wing talking points; honestly, I don't care.

The only reason I answer him is to vent a little frustration; call it my way of blowing off a little steam.

I find most of his posts amusing.

He is one of those people who tries to drag others into meaningless and endless "conversations" with disingenuous questions; perhaps Fox News could use him as a writer.

He will get the last word on this subject since the question he asked is ridiculous in nature; I'm sure it will make him feel better about himself.

et al (1.00 / 1) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 01:24:31 PM EST

should not pass the bills which give the president a blank check to violate the rights of innocent Americans."

I think we can all agree that is true.

Can anyone give me a name of an innocent American, and by that I mean a citizen or person legally in this country, which is, I believe, the FISA definition, that has his/her rights violated?

Yes, I have two names right here (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Ellie on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 01:47:55 PM EST

John and Jane Doe are being spied upon, by admission of their own government, without warrant.


ellie (1.00 / 0) (#5)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 03:34:21 PM EST

You need to be a little more exact.


RE: Exactness (5.00 / 0) (#6)
by mack on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 03:43:07 PM EST

You need to be a lot more ingenuous with your questions; otherwise, you should expect vague answers even though ellie's answer is correct.


: If you listened (none / 0) (#11)
by jondee on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 04:14:02 PM EST

to A.M Talk Radio, you'd know they aren't his questions. Perusual.

Brandon Mayfield (none / 0) (#3)
by mack on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 01:59:37 PM EST

RE: (none / 0) (#4)
by mack on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 02:05:36 PM EST

Before you start spouting off one of your windbag responses, I would like to note that Brandon Mayfield's case probably doesn't fit your strict, narrow, and disingenuous request regarding someone's rights being violated via FISA; however, I have considered the ridiculous source of the request.


mack (5.00 / 0) (#8)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 04:02:50 PM EST

Windbag? Your kindness overcomes me. And yes, the subject was FISA...

At some point in March or April, the FBI began surveillance of Mayfield. Based on a number of extraordinary events at his home and certain redactions in the district court search warrant affidavits, it strongly appears that he was subjected to "sneak and peek" and electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The government has declined to confirm or deny the use of FISA warrantless surveillance procedures.

Given that the FBI felt they had a valid fingerprint, why would you assume they wouldn't get a warrant? Occam's Razor says they would.

And remember that warrantless tapping is allowed under FISA for calls that orignate outside the US to persons inside the US and vice versa where government has reason to believe terrorist activity is involved.

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:
"President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."
Schmidt quotes the same language from the 2002 decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that we have cited repeatedly:
"the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The fbi was wrong ... (5.00 / 0) (#14)
by Sailor on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 04:36:05 PM EST

... and didn't listen to the spanish authorities who rejected the match.

Also, according to the unconstitutional rantings of chimperor bush, the folks being investigated don't get notified and if they do know can't tell anyone.

It's also clear at this point that the spying was done on Americans communicating with other Americans in many cases.

ppj has never met an unconstitutional or immoral act he didn't support.

kidnapping
torture
spying
locking up people for freedom of speech
killing innocent civilians
supporting the Taliban
supporting Saddam

ppj has endorsed all those acts.


Be rational. (1.00 / 0) (#15)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 06:13:54 PM EST

If, that is, you can.

The fact that the FBI screwed up the fingerprint has nothing to do with FSIA, Bush or the phase of the Moon.

If it is clear, provide some evidence. If you can't, admit that you're blowing smoke.

The remainder of your attack would not be tolerated outside of the Internet. Your continous attacks, always initated by you, are nothing but smears that define how you operate, and what you are.


bush' illegal spying program ... (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by Sailor on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 12:55:42 PM EST

... was for domestic and international traffic.

Everyone knows this.

The remainder of your attack would not be tolerated outside of the Internet. Your continous attacks, always initated by you, are nothing but smears that define how you operate, and what you are.

typical wrongwing tactic, accuse others of what you are guilty of.


sailor loves opinions (none / 0) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 06:29:52 PM EST

What you link to is an opinion blog.

When you have some facts, let me know.

In the meantime, let us go again to an unbiased non-Repub source and see what he said.

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration,superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:
"President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.
Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."
Schmidt quotes the same language from the 2002 decision of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review that we have cited repeatedly:
"the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority".

all the links I sent were to facts ... (none / 0) (#19)
by Sailor on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:12:08 PM EST

... and you linked to an extreme wrongwing opinion blog.

Once again, you accuse others of exactly what you do ... and prove it with a link to the worst of the worst wrongwing opinion BLOGS.

BTW Given that the FBI felt they had a valid fingerprintThe fbi isn't supposed to 'feel', they are supposed to gather facts, and they flat out lied about that fact. Sheesh, even the judge castigated their sloppy work and their withholding of evidence.

But a taliban and saddam supporter like yourself wouldn't be capable of understanding minor things like facts.


: Another Liberal Link (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Wed Aug 01, 2007 at 07:25:50 PM EST

Not only is up down and opinions facts but powerline is a liberal source.
ppj has the rovian rhumba down pat. Too bad for him he has two left feet.

Why (none / 0) (#7)
by koshembos on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 03:59:39 PM EST

Haven't seen a single convincng argument to change FISA. All arguments raised have to do with unconrolled spying on everyone alive without justification except "they are coming to get us" hoopla.

koshembos (1.00 / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 04:04:44 PM EST

Read by 04:02pm reply to mack.


: Pointless (none / 0) (#25)
by brantl on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:08:32 PM EST

You have a pointless reply. How is anyone going to have evidence of being spyed on by a secret program? Nice loophole, there, bud. If you aren't being disengenuous, you are the most credulous person I've had the misfortune to have contact with.
They can get FISA warrants up to 72 hours after starting the spying. When this crap first hit the fan there had been 1,900 requests for FISA warrants; do you know how many had been denied? Four. Just four. Reealllly hard to get a FISA warrant, wasn't it? Stop blowing smoke.