SubscribeThe law states that officials may enter a private residence only in cases prescribed by federal law or on the basis of a judicial decision; however, authorities did not always observe these provisions.
The law permits the government to monitor correspondence, telephone conversations, and other means of communication only with judicial permission and prohibits the collection, storage, utilization, and dissemination of information about a person's private life without his consent. While these provisions were generally followed, problems remained. There were accounts of electronic surveillance by government officials and others without judicial permission, and of entry into residences and other premises by Moscow law enforcement without warrants. There were no reports of government action against officials who violated these safeguards.
"Congress is poised to once again pass disastrous surveillance legislation, now upping the ante with a thinly-veiled giveaway to some major campaign donors.
This bill allows for mass and untargeted surveillance of Americans’ communications. The court review is mere window-dressing – all the court would look at is the procedures for the year-long dragnet and not at the who, what and why of the spying. Even this superficial court review has a gaping loophole – ‘exigent’ circumstances can short cut even this perfunctory oversight since any delay in the onset of spying meets the test and by definition going to the court would cause at least a minimal pause. Worse yet, if the court denies an order for any reason, the government is allowed to continue surveillance throughout the appeals process, thereby rendering the role of the judiciary meaningless. In the end, there is no one to answer to; a court review without power is no court review at all.
The Hoyer/Bush surveillance deal was clearly written with the telephone companies and internet providers at the table and for their benefit. They wanted immunity, and this bill gives it to them."
No word from Obama as of yet.
"In so doing, Obama sought to walk the fine political line between GOP accusations that he is weak on foreign policy -- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called passing the legislation a 'vital national security matter' -- and alienating his base."*Too bad he couldn't stand with Specter.
"Sen. Arlen Specter (R - Pa.), the most prominent Republican opponent of the compromise bill, issued a statement today calling th[e] exclusivity provision 'meaningless because that specific provision is now in [the] 1978 act.' Specter said Bush just ignored existing law in starting the warrantless surveillance program."Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he would attempt to remove the amnesty provision in the bill:
"Reid said the Senate may try to remove a provision from the bill that shields telephone companies from privacy lawsuits. Holding a separate vote on that issue next week may provide political cover for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. Even though the attempt may fail, Reid said the vote would allow those opposed to the liability protection to 'express their views.'"That effort should be helped by Obama's opposition to the provision. His support of the remainder of the bill is disappointing, but that would be in large part offset if he can help kill immunity."*
'I'm going to try real hard to have a separate vote on immunity,' Reid said in an interview to be aired this weekend on Bloomberg Television's 'Political Capital with Al Hunt.'
'Probably we can't take that out of the bill, but I'm going to try.'"*
Actually, according to John Dean, the language re immunity (which is apparently somewhat ambiguous in the FISA cave-in) may simply be in regard to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions. And Obama, in the past, has talked about looking into criminal prosecutions against the telecoms if he's elected.It's possible that the result will be immunity from civil suits by customers; and you can sort of see a thin pretext for this given that it was "the people" -- to use an essentially false doublespeak term for the government -- who asked them to do it. If criminal prosecutions remain on the table you might have something. Still, it's a little backwards to me; it seems that if you're going to go after corporations for complying with an illegal government program, a civil action is less schizophrenic than a government action.
“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.
That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.
After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year's Protect America Act.
Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.
It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.’”
« Older If geeks talked about cookbooks the way they talk ... | Zoomii.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by mullingitover at 1:29 PM on June 19, 2008 [40 favorites has favorites]