Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) on the House floor today, speaking about FISA, telecom immunity and lawbreaking...
NOTE: Several updates below the fold. Click through for the most up-to-date information.
From the debate thus far on the floor of the House on changes to RESTORE (H/T to cboldt for the link to the legislative changes), Rep. Lloyd Doggett had this to say (H/T to the Speaker's office for putting the video up so promptly):
"For a party that purports to hate big government, these Republicans sure do seem to love Big Brother. They demand unlimited executive power and unrestrained authority to intrude into our everyday lives. And today we dare to impose some limitations on one of so many examples of their callous disregard of our liberties. If even former Attorney General John Ashcroft, sitting there in the hospital bed, in intensive care, if even he could recognize the illegality of the surveillance which Dick Cheney demanded, why shouldn't we in Congress be able to do the same thing? And if one telecommunications company had the courage to say no to this administration's wrongdoing, why not the others?"
The House is currently debating the Mortgage Reform and Subprime Lending Act, and will go back to the RESTORE bill after that has concluded, I am told.
In the meantime, the SJC continues to debate mark-up on the Senate FISA bill. Here's the latest update that I have on the SJC:
Feingold just offered a good amendment and it passed, but I do not have it yet.
As soon as I get my hands on the text of Feingold's amendment, I'll put it up for everyone. In the meantime, here is the summary that I've been provided by folks at the ACLU on the House RESTORE changes:
The RESTORE ACT:
1. Clarifies That No Court Warrant is Required to Intercept Communications of Non-United States Persons When Both Ends of the Communications are Outside the United States.
2. Ensures that Nothing in the Bill Inhibits Lawful Surveillance for the Purpose of Protecting the Nation and the Troops from Threats Posed by Osama Bin Laden and Weapons of Mass Destruction.
3. Requires an Individualized Court Warrant from the FISA Court When Targeting Americans in the United States. (Same as current law.)
4. Creates a Program of Court Authorized Targeting of Non-U.S. Persons Outside the United States. Grants the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence authority to apply to the FISA Court for a single order to conduct surveillance of multiple foreign targets for up to one year - but RESTORES the following checks and balances that are absent under the PAA:
a. Court Review of Targeting Procedures. The FISA Court must review targeting procedures on a quarterly basis to ensure that they are reasonably designed to protect Americans and target only people outside the United States. In emergencies, the Government may conduct surveillance for up to 45 days without advanced court approval.
b. Court Review of Minimization Procedures. The FISA Court must review minimization procedures on a quarterly basis.
c. Court Review of Compliance with Guidelines on a quarterly basis to ensure that, among other things, when the government seeks to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans, the government obtains a traditional individualized warrant from the FISA Court.
5. Clarifies Ambiguous Language on Warrantless Domestic Searches. The bill clarifies ambiguous language in the PAA that appeared to authorize warrantless searches inside the United States, including physical searches of American homes, offices, computers, and medical records.
6. A RESTORE ACT Authorization May Not Be Used to Target Any Known U.S. Person. If the government learns or has reason to know that the target of surveillance is a U.S. Person (for example, an American traveling abroad), it cannot use this new authority.
7. Limits Authority to Terrorism, Espionage, Sabotage, and Threats to National Security. The Administration's bill allowed for surveillance for all foreign intelligence, including a broad category of information related to "foreign affairs." This bill allows the Intelligence Community to deal with the threats facing the United States from terrorism, espionage, sabotage, clandestine intelligence activities, and to collect information related to the national defense or security of the U.S., without authorizing the collection on the broad category of "foreign affairs."
8. Requires Regular Audits and Reports. Requires audits every 120 days by the Justice Department Inspector General on communications collected under this authority and the number of U.S. persons identified in intelligence reports disseminated pursuant to this collection. These audits would be provided to the FISA Court and to Congress (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees).
9. Requires an Audit of the President's Surveillance Program and Other Warrantless Surveillance Programs. This audit mandates a report and documents related to these programs be provided to Congress in unclassified form with a classified annex. A separate provision requires that the President brief the intelligence committees on such programs within seven days after the date of enactment.
10. Requires Recordkeeping of the Use of United States Persons' Information. Mandates that the Executive Branch record every instance in which the identity of a U.S. Person whose communication was acquired by the Intelligence Community is disseminated within the Executive Branch and that it submit an annual report to Congress on such dissemination.
11. Adds Resources for FISA. Adds funding for training, personnel and technology resources at DOJ, NSA and the FISA Court to speed the FISA process and to ensure that audits can be conducted expeditiously.
12. Reiterates the Exclusivity of FISA. Includes House-passed bipartisan Schiff-Flake language stating that FISA is the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection.
13. No Retroactive Immunity. The bill is silent on retroactive immunity because the Administration has not provided Congress with documents on the specifics of the President's warrantless surveillance program. However, the bill does provide prospective immunity for those complying with court orders issued pursuant to this authority.
14. Establishes En Banc Review. Allows the FISA Court to sit en banc. The FISA Court requested this, and the Administration does not oppose it.
15. Provides Sunset, Transition Procedures and Report on PAA. Sunsets this new authority on December 31, 2009, when certain PATRIOT Act provisions also sunset. However, the legislation will allow for a transition from the existing warrants to the new ones to ensure that the Intelligence Community does not go "dark" on any surveillance. The Administration will be required to submit a report on U.S.-person information collected and disseminated under the PAA authorities.
Summary of the RESTORE Act Manager's Amendment
· Clarifies that nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act shall be construed to prohibit lawful surveillance necessary to:
Ø prevent Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization from attacking the U.S., any U.S. person, or any ally of the U.S.;
Ø ensure the safety and security of our Armed Forces or other national security or intelligence personnel;
Ø protect the U.S., any U.S. person, or any U.S. ally from the threat of WMD or any other threats to national security.
· Clarifies that the RESTORE Act shall not be construed to prohibit surveillance of, or grant any rights to undocumented aliens.
· NSA and other agencies can only disseminate U.S. person identifying information (e.g., the name, address, phone number of a U.S. person) to other government agencies if a Senior Executive determines that such dissemination is necessary to understand the value of the intelligence and to protect national security.
· Establishes criteria for the FISA Court to determine whether the "reverse targeting" guidelines sufficiently protect U.S. person communications intercepted by the NSA.
I've bolded the things that I thought would be of particular interest to everyone. Curious to know what everyone thinks once you've had a chance to peruse all of this. Am still reading the bill itself and the amendment information. And, as I said, I'll update as I get more information.
Just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to everyone who has been phoning, FAXing, e-mailing and meeting personally on these issues -- you all have been wonderful, and it is very much appreciated by all of us at FDL, as well as by a whole host of folks who have been working on these issues on the Hill. You guys are the greatest!
UPDATE: Am hearing that the Feingold Amendment that has passed was on basket/umbrella warrants and not immunity. So it's a good thing, but they are still on Title I in the committee at this point from what I am hearing. The telecom immunity won't come up until if and when they hit Title II of the bill mark-up. More as I get it...
UPDATE #2: Pertinent portion of the Feingold amendment that passed in the FISA mark-up this morning: "the acquisition is limited to communications to which at least one party is a specific individual target who is reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States, and a significant purpose of the acquisition of the communications of any target is to obtain foreign intelligence information." I am told the purpose of the amendment is to require that there is an individualized reason for the surveillance and to prevent bulk surveillance as McConnell testified the Protect America Act would allow when his congressional testimony was required on this. The government is required to certify [to the Court, as I understand it, on application for the warrant] on this, as I understand it. Will link up when it is available online. More as I get it...
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
zed?
Richmond:
Yes. And congrats…
CHS!
OT..but perhaps important
With just two days to go until the Thanksgiving recess, Democratic leaders once again are considering holding the Senate in a series of pro forma sessions to stop President Bush from using the break to install any of his outstanding executive branch nominees.
The move comes as speculation mounts that Bush will use the period to push through some controversial appointments while Senators are out of town for the two-week period. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could all but block the president from doing so, however, if he opts to call the chamber into nonvoting sessions every three days — thus doing away with an extended recess.
link
Biodun *g* - Thanks!. Mostly lurking these days, if I have a rare chance to “peek.”
I’m sorely tempted to fwd FDL link here to congresscritters, if CHS wouldn’t mind them using her editing. Surely makes sense to me! ;->
So the Feingold amendment passed? And no retroactive telecom immunity except for those complying with court order? That’s good news, yes?
Steve-AR @ 4
Let’s hope they do. I’ve read that James Holsinger has resigned from some boards he was a member of in anticipation that he would be receiving a recess appointment as Surgeon General. In fact, he is supposed to have stated in his resignation letter that he WOULD be receiving such an appointment.
Biodun at 7 — A Feingold Amendment passed this morning. But as I do not yet have a copy of the text of the amendment, I cannot say for certain that it was or was not on retroactive immunity…not yet, anyway. But I’m working on it.
Not being a lawyer, the language does look good to me…except I still have concerns on the warrantless acquisition of intelligence/communications of terrorist groups, etc. My “issue” with it is this…how is terrorist to be defined? Is Greenpeace to be labeled terrorist, including their domestic membership? Other peace and environmental groups? Does the “no surveillance without individual warrants” for Americans apply superior to the freedom to collect communications of “terrorist” groups?
Basically, I want to ensure that no government can simply skate past the warrant issue by creatively labeling various political and social groups as potential terrorists.
I’ll be surprised in S.2248 emerges from the SJC with Title II (telecom amnesty) stripped out.
.
Not that I haven’t been surprised/wrong many times in the past. But stripping it here will be a flip flop on the part of some senator(s) who sit on both SJC and Intelligence Committees.
His appointment would be another FU by Bush but otherwise would be pretty meaningless. They really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 9
Christy,
You are ALWAYS working on it for us.
Thank You.
Biodun @ 7
No retroactive immunity was in the Restore Act, the House-generated bill.
No word yet on what changes been made to the bill in the SJC.
This one is a huge item, no more sneak and peek bullshit please.
Christy - I just sent you an email.
NO BLANKETS!!!!!!!!!!!
Looking at item 7 here. At first this seems like common sense, but hasn’t Bush given himself the power to define what “terrorism” is? If it’s defined as political opposition to Thug rule, then we’re right back where we started.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
-Lewis Carroll
Christy! Doggett! I’m proud he’s representing me! Thank you sooo much Christy.
billjpa @ 17
But what if the warrant gets cold!?!
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. I totally agree with you, blanket or basket warrants are not warrants at all. I just need a little humor sometimes to keep from getting depressed.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to debate the renewal of FISA revisions made in August, President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress are endorsing a unique double-standard when it comes to immunity for telecommunications firms. Within the United States, they argue, service providers such as AT&T and Verizon must cooperate with U.S. government demands for access to Americans’ electronic communications and should be immune from citizens’ lawsuits. But in China and elsewhere, as Republican reaction to this week’s Yahoo saga suggests, not so much.
For the details, see:
“FISA, Yahoo and the GOP Double-Standard on Telecom Immunity.”
greenwarrior @ 19
He was my rep until the 2002 re-districting. Now I am in a district shaped like a twistie tie.
Post updated above gang. Feingold’s passed amendment was on basket/umbrella warrants. So it was a good thing, but they are still on Title I of the bill mark-up, I am hearing. Immunity won’t come up until if and when they get to Title II.
Praedor Atrebates @ 10
Well one clue as to whom the Bush Administration considers “terrorist” comes from the WH response to the $50 billion (Bush requested almost $200 billion) supplement bill to Iraq that just passed today.
“These votes, like the dozens of previous failed votes, put the interests of radical interest groups ahead of the needs of our military and their mission,” an administration statement said.
[The bill would require an undefined number of troops to leave Iraq within 30 days. It sets a goal of ending all combat by Dec. 15, 2008, and requires that funding included in the bill be used to redeploy troops and “not to extend or prolong the war.”]
cboldt @ 11
Yeah, but how many of those times were you pleasantly surprised? Heh, I’ll bet that is a much much smaller subset…
TexBetsy @ 21
DeLay knew he had to keep you librul Austinites in your place.
Steve-AR @ 12
This is from a Kentucky blog on Holsinger resigning from the board of trustees of Asbury Theological Seminary.
OT..
A little noticed prohibition in the Democrats’ $50 billion Iraq funding bill that passed the House Wednesday would effectively end CIA renditions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
link
TexBetsy @ 21
I have no idea of the shape of my district but I have the execrable Lamar Smith as my “representative.”
Christy and mffarrow:
Thanks. I was conflating the House and SJC…
Steve-AR @ 27
No wonder Bush hates it so much. He doesn’t like reasonable limits on executive power.
That is THE BEST soundbite framing of the issue I’ve ever seen. We need to hammer this over and over again — Republicans hate Freedom and love Big Brother Government.
Where/how is datamining addressed? Does “conduct surveillance of multiple foreign targets ” include a broad swath for datamining foreign calls or is it only referring to actual targetted communications so multiple only in the sense of a list of particular persons who are targets?
It sounds as if the use of “other terrorist organization” below and “ally of the United States” and “any other threat to national security” are the kinds of mean nothing/mean everything references that beg for trouble later.
Lots of good stuff, some head scratching, but still no real way for anyone to have a direct cause of action to get at 4th amendment violations is there? And funding/staffing for FISC if its duties are being expanded - is that addressed elsewhere or in companion legislation? Also, the appointment of judges to FISC - now might be a good time to consider how to have more put on and a way to keep those appointments balanced. If they are going to do that kind of review/oversight - they need more. But what powers do the judges have after they find violations and how is discipline and accountability effected with secrecy? Mandatory disclosure provisions for citizens subject to illegal search and seizure?
etc.
no time left.
cinnamonape @ 23
And what do they mean about Dozens of failed votes ???
This vote PASSED! And there haven’t been dozens of failed votes, unless Bush is counting all the Amendments and passed legislation that he has vetoed, or the Republicans have blocked through filibuster and holds.
Great job on this post, Christy!
This kind of jumped out at me via Doggett:
“Attorney General John Ashcroft, sitting there in the hospital bed, in intensive care, if even he could recognize the illegality of the surveillance which Dick Cheney demanded,”
I didn’t know that had been established…at least not publicly.
That is precisely what I worry about. This includes the Sierra Club? Greenpeace? Code Pink? The Quakers? Progressive Patriots? Vets against the Iraq war? Democrats? Non-Republicans?
What’s up with this? 45 days? Is this to take into account the need to harness the horse and buggy before driving it over to the FISA court? I can conceive of no circumstances where it would take the government 45 days to seek approval under FISA, not even if the government were reeling from another 9/11 style attack. This seems a monstrously large loophole.
EvilDrPuma @ 30
Bush doesn’t like any limits on executive power.
Steve-AR @ 28
The story seems to show that the Bill ends CIA torture, but I can’t see how it would end renditions to third party states. Is that somewhere in the US Army Manual on Interrogations?
update from c-span - for folks who were trying to use the c-span audio feed for the sjc meeting.
i’m told that they don’t know what the problem is - it may be a problem in the sjc room or with the line… but, the techs have to wait until after today’s meeting to troubleshoot the problem.
so sorry folks… i was told last thursday and tuesday that the problem was fixed and the feed would be up for today. :(
Hugh @ 37
I don’t have a problem with this, so long as the information being gathered is revued that should eliminate abuse for personal gain
imho
dakine01 @ 29
I had the same execrable for a while but then the judges came in and patched up things a bit and I got Doggett back.
I was at all those redistricting hearings. Twas my introduction to the Texas legislature. Owwwwww! I was also at the county hearings when they were deciding to request standing. Letters to the editor. I could see what was coming. I was wondering (out loud) why no one consulted Vicente Fox as the redistricting plan put his country in Austin’s extra-territorial jurisdiction (the twistie-tie method of redistricting).
Mukasey will urge Bush veto of FISA Bill.
Gee, who woulda thunk it?
What does the last sentence of 13. refer to? Is this a quid pro quo of some kind, or are they saying, “Give the documents the courts require for discovery in the lawsuits and let them decide”?
public.takeover at 43 — It’s exact;y what the FISA laws have always said — if the information is given pursuant to lawful court order, then the company is indemnified from civil and criminal liability pursuant to the issuance of a lawfully issued warrant.
Kevin Hayden @ 42
i’d like someone to ask him if he’s been read in to all the programs since bush took office.
Re: renditions - I think those must be covered somewhere under “section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (division G of Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-822; 8 U.S.C. 1231 note) and regulations prescribed thereto, including regulations under part 208 of title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 95 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations”
.
That’s from text of H.R.4156, near the top.
public.takeover @ 44
IANAL but it says to me that if they have been ordered by the court to do the eavesdropping then it is different than if BushCo just said do it for us.
EvilDrPuma @ 31
Actually, he gets such a thrill from knowing that people are being rendered that he can’t stand limits.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 45
That is the case with all search warrants - not just FISA warrants.
Really, when you think about it, that is the only way the legal system could work.
old gold at 49 — Pretty much. *g*
Praedor Atrebates @ 10
It isn’t just how “terrorist” is defined but also what “targeting” means. This does not seem to preclude reverse targeting where you target A because you are really interested in on B who is an American.
The quarterly audits on minimization also seems pretty vague to me. How thorough will the FISC be, what happens to data that the court says should be “minimized”, what can the court do to make sure that mistakes or abuses are not repeated?
Bustednuckles @ 48
It also seems to reserve the right to the Legislative Authority to prosecute any entity that has acted outside of or without compliance with court orders.
Am working on getting a copy of the Feingold amendment, gang. Soon as I get it, I’ll let you all know…
selise @ 46
commentary from that page is priceless;
Thanks, Christy, for all you do.
perris @ 41
As it guts the 4th Amendment, I do have a problem with it. The idea here is that surveillance should not be or become the norm so it should not happen unless absolutely necessary and it should not be outside independent review except for the minimum (not the maximum) time necessary.
OT [Hope Christy won’t mind since no live-blogging yet]
T-Rex’s Amy has shambolic concert
Hugh @ 56
yes. also, if there is some big data mining program how is the fisc going to review that? how many hackers (in the good sense) will the fisc have to hire? how manay hackers also know their constitutional and fisa law?
cinnamonape — There isn’t likely to be any liveblogging, so feel free…the feed just isn’t coopoerating today, i’m afraid.
perris, I agree with him, The Senate bill gives the admin way too much power even if it comes out as we think might be the best likely outcome. It should be veto’d -;)
Biodun @ 56
Second!
BTW, I did send a link to this thread to our folks in Hse & Senate, plus leadership, with plea for the critters and their staffs to use your site to -um-
educate themselves, for help on the subject.sigh. how could it hurt? eh?
I figure the more sunshine the better…
“Clarifies that nothing in the Act or the amendments to the Act shall be construed to prohibit lawful surveillance necessary to:
Ø prevent Osama Bin Laden, al Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization from attacking the U.S., any U.S. person, or any ally of the U.S.;
Ø ensure the safety and security of our Armed Forces or other national security or intelligence personnel;
Ø protect the U.S., any U.S. person, or any U.S. ally from the threat of WMD or any other threats to national security.”
But doesn’t the Govt maintain Bush has the authority to bypass FISA due to the great unending war of civillizations against the scary, evil, islamofascists? If he maintains that what he is doing is within his inherent rights as CommanderGuy, can’t he say it is therefore “lawful” and in compliance with this section?
Reality Based News Feed
20 new blog posts and news stories today. Content updates every 3-4 hours.
-ck- @ 32
They dont’ hate freedom, that’s one of their code words.
They hate big government, that’s absolutely the way to frame it because “big government” is that huge bogey man they’ve rattled for years.
So…hating big gov’t but loving big brother is perfect.
*snarfing into quotes file*
OT–
I’m not sure what this means, if anything. I don’t know anything about the guy:
RESTORE keeps the programmed, targeted categories of data, no-probable-cause spying provisions of the PAA intact. And prospective immunity when it’s effectively (even with some weak oversight by the secret FISA Court) the Executive Branch “legalizing” its own actions, is a different kettle of fish, than normal per-valid-court-order held harmless prospective immunity. In other words, if the Executive Branch does it in the name of “national security” (as that branch, and only that branch, chooses to define national security) it’s legal and Constitutional, is what Congress is trying to say with its FISA legislation. The door to ignoring the Fourth Amendment was opened by the establishment of the secret FISA Court in the 1970s, and now Congress, goaded by the Bush Administration, is trying to rip that door off its hinges, with these provisions to gut the original, carefully-crafted (what a concept…) FISA legislation.
Notice how few changes the Managers’ Amendment passed by the Rules Committee yesterday makes to RESTORE (see the “Summary” heading part way down the list from the ACLU in Christy’s post). This is tinkering around the edges of a bill the ACLU has already declined to endorse. I don’t think this is good news for our country.
Thanks, Christy!!!
Bob in HI
If Mucousy says veto - the decider chimp will veto. Veto is the chimp’s favorite new toy. The chimp will have a temper tantrum; the media will help him label democrats as candy *sses; the dems will capitulate and cede any ground, (significant or otherwise) once again. Or maybe things will be better. ;)
Are there no Republicans with honor?
Prairie Sunshine @ 69
not anymore
does anyone other than me wonder if the C-Span & Hse Judic. Commttee sound-system feed problems of late might be caused by human gremlins up to no good?
*tightens chinstrap on foil duncecap*
Prairie Sunshine @ 69
Maybe Ron Paul…*g*
Prairie Sunshine @ 69
That does seem to fit the definition of oxymoron.
Biodun @ 73
You might be right. Which is worse, an honorable whack-job or just the old fashioned kind?
I think that a Domestic Data Mining project would be, on it’s face, illegal. And isn’t the 45 Day Waiver during an emergency (which nowadays is de factoperpetual) a subclause that deals with foreign-to-foreign intelligence gathering.
The way I read this is it relates to foreign targets…not US targets.
dakine01 @ 74
anoxic moron?
BTW there was this from the last thread:
njprogressive @ 77
Basically, I found the idea of the article dopey. It proposes coming up with a new law that would restrict the government’s use of the state secrets argument to have suits thrown out of court. Telecoms could then show the legal rationales they were given by the government to justify their participation in the spying program. Bush would, of course, veto any such bill even if it made it out of the Senate which is unlikely. So really what is the point of such an article? It proposes a solution that even if you accept its premise will never happen.
speaking of ron paul …..
Ron Paul May Lose His House Seat
from Brave New Films blog by info@bravenewfilms.org
Wow, it turns out while he’s off presidentin’, the folks at home are a wee bit pissed.
From the same link at 65:
My bold. Yeah. Real urgent. Military and judicial. Paging Pervez Musharraf.
A little OT (but connected to the last thread), for anyone who is concerned about the whole “getting a twofer” issue, the Rethugs have their own. Just give Mrs. Huckabee some armaments - she’s a one-woman army.
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....-launcher/
dakine01 @ 73
Isn’t Rush the OxyMoron?
pow wow @ 66
did holt get anything of substance that could explain his cave?
selise @ 46
I’d like someone to ask him if he’s been reading FDL, The Next Hurrah and the other blogs to find out what’s really going on.
Update above on text of the Feingold amendment now.
Hugh @ 57
this merely extends an existing provision, I think the existing provision allows for 3 days or so
it also cuts off the argument that a warrant is too cumbersome when information is vital to be had immediately
45 days is a bit muchn I agree, I wouldn’t mind seeing something like 2 weeks as the horizon
Christy Hardin Smith @ 85
“The govt is required to certify on this” to whom?
If it means the AG can call up the telecoms and say “it’s all good,” then it legalizes the mess we’re in now. OTOH, if it means “tell it to the judge” (FISA or otherwise), that’s better.
cinnamonape @ 58
Janis Joplin redux..Except Janis continued to do good work despite Southern Comfort, Amphetamines and heroin.
Thanks for the updates Christy! And for everything else as well.
cinnamonape — That was my reading as well. The original protectins for American citizens and legal residents was put back in and the provisions allowing for datamining operations are to be applied to foreign targets only, with third-party legal supervision built-in to ensure there is no fudging of the lines on this, so to speak. But it has only been a very quick read, as I’m trying to get The Peanut down for a nap in between phone calls…
Peterr at 87 — It means they have to certify to the Court upon application for a warrant. Sorry, am getting hit fast and furious with information that I’m then trying to verify through other sources, so I’m perhaps shorthanding a bit more than I should…
” I am told the purpose of the amendment is to require that there is an individualized reason for the surveillance and to prevent bulk surveillance as McConnell testified the Protect America Act would allow when his congressional testimony was required on this. The government is required to certify on this, as I understand it. Will link up when it is available online. More as I get it…”
Question is who certifies to whom? If it is one of those AG self certifications that is never effectively reviewed by FISC, it is basically meaningless.
Hugh and all — One thing on the extended period before obtaining a warrant question: (1) Am still chasing details down on specifics with this but (2) if the warrant is not obtained, then they would not be able to use any information retrieved through surveillance in court proceedings, because it would be fruit of a poisonous tree. But again, I’m still trying to get specifics on all of this — it’s really fluid on both sides of the house.
cinnamonape @ 76
Again this is all about dancing around the definitions. Purely foreign to foreign communications have always been considered fair game probably since the invention of the telegraph.
FISA essentially covers communications where one end has an American on it or one end originates in this country. The key is how a target is defined and who the real target is. The criticism is that the government can use the definitions to engage in reverse targeting, where it says a foreigner is the target but the real target is an American in communication with the foreigner.
None of this addresses why the government needs to listen in on an American for 45 days without making a case to the FISA court. The 4th Amendment does not say the government can make searches and seizures for 45 days before getting a warrant. It pretty much says the opposite.
I’ve clarified above on the warrant certification to the court question…
bmaz @ 92
one thing we should never stand for is the ability of an ag to “certify” the right to search, that is clearly a conflict of interest
perris @ 86
The point of the existing time limit was to minimize the damage to the 4th Amendment protection consistent with the exigencies of national security. With a 45 day provision, government officials could take a 2 week vacation and still get back in plenty of time to finish the paper work, all of which completely trivialized the 4th Amendment.
Again, folks — the AG doesn’t certify. The government has to certify to the FISA court in an application for a warrant. I’ve clarified above in the post — sorry for any confusion.
Here’s the bottom line:
Things look terrible right now.
Surveillance Bills up for Votes Today
In order to see what is going to happen, you will need to know what the Senate is going to do, and the Senate Judiciary Committee is a lot further to the right in the specturm of what Rep. Doggett (D-Texas) characterized as “unlimited executive power and unrestrained authority to intrude into our everyday lives. And today we dare to impose some limitations on one of so many examples of their callous disregard of our liberties.”
Let’s be clear about this:
Much has been written about the DOJ–the DOJ that Christy knew and the DOJ that others who blog here knew when they were AUSAs. If only Christy Hardin Smith were Attorney General, you’d have the kind of DOJ we should have, but never will. That DOJ is long gone, and sure there are dedicated principled career attorneys in the criminal and civil divisions of DOJ, but they are far from running the show. In fact, it is easy to site many many key instances during the Bush/Addington/Miers/Gonzales stands that they were shouted down or silenced. Certainly this happened in Civil rights, and I can make a very strong case that there have been targeted proseuctions now that trace directly to Karl Rove and the types of people like Sampson and Goodling who inserted loyall Bushies who are outright liars into the DOJ.
Rachel Paulose is another kind of malfunctioning zealot, who is focused on jamming her office with routine “gun posession by convicted felon” violations and meaningless convictions while ignoring much more complicated and significant work that won’t be done as long as she’s anywhere in DOJ.
The DOJ is an instrument of a President bent on Unitary Executive rule, and I said time and time again that if Mukasey got in, it would not change and he has given every indication immediately that it won’t.
Mukasey has stated he will have Bush Veto the Leahy surveillance plan.
Unless you were on another planet, if you saw how he comported himself in the SDNY as to material witnesses, you knew he belonged nowhere near the AG’s office.
New AG threatens veto of Leahy surveillance plan
During the hearings for Alito and Roberts I was in tremendous pain, and all of you should have been. I would have to go back to read the blogs of Christy and others, but I don’t doubt for a minute they knew that this was the culmination of an effort by the Federalist society and many many other like groups to stack the Court irreversibly to the far right for the rest of their lifetimes.
I think everyone would acknowledge that when Bush got Alito and Roberts through a passive, meek Senate Judiciary who wouldn’t ask any significant questions, of two attorneys who were not about to answer any significant questions–that Bush and the spineless Democrats and Republicans inflicted irreversible damage to freedom and liberty and the Constitution of this country for a generation and possibly two or three.
The same thing is happening this week with respect to this Intelligence bill.
In order for any semblance of sanity in this bill, there are going to need to be the votes to overcome a veto that will come if (and I doubt this will happen) Senate Judiciary has the cajones to keep 3 major Bush and Female Bush Feinstein (call her a Democrat if you want many people to call you naieve) principles out of it:
1) Telco Immunity–I’ll bet anyone that sails through without a veto.
2) Complete Mukasey control or right winged Unitary Executive DOJ control over what happens with the bill–i.e. DOJ discretion as to what is legal wiretapping and what isn’t.
3) Basket warrants–the argument has been ridiculous on its face that there is anything cumbersome about individual warrants becasue the FISA court never frigging turns down a warrant unless you’re into .0000000000something percent of them in their history and one since 2005.
Am I implying that in Conference Committee the Senate Democratic Cowards and Republican Nazis will prevail? You bet I am.
I appreciate Christy’s link but I couldn’t make it work, and I suspect that if there are more markup sessions C-Span will follow the same witless proceedure of not televising any of them and televising some meaningless hearing on Armed services that gets nothing changed as it did this morning on C-Span 3.
OT, if anyone is a Kossack, DavefromQueens –the Sean Hannity pursuer with a vengence–passed the New York Bar Exam and got the news in mid-discussion with his commenters, so we all got to snoopy dance with him.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/15/73319/380
OT New Froomkin up Bush’s Irrational Exuberance
I am sending the letter below to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thought I would pass it along to inspire others to write, too.
Oh, Christy, that Feingold amendment sounds good… How did he get that through - Feinstein must have voted in favor…
selise @ 83 - Holt got language that tightens RESTORE somewhat when there is an individual, targeted American being surveilled. But that doesn’t seem to apply when the American is just one of many ’swept up’ in programmed surveillance ‘directed’ abroad at those who may, or may not, be communicating with Americans in America. Those innocent ’swept up’ Americans are still at the mercy of the Executive Branch’s “national security” definition for how their (unminimized) information will be held and disseminated, at least as I read it.
But Russ Feingold and the SJC may have just changed the parameters of that debate very much for the better…
[I agree that Lloyd Doggett’s excellent comments hit the bullseye on how to respond to Republican Party authority-worshippers in Congress and elsewhere. It’s a bullseye that’s been obvious and begging to be hit by the Democrats for years now. One comment isn’t enough. Any ‘message machine’ that Nancy Pelosi oversees ought to be off and running with that theme, coordinating and re-emphasizing messages about such democracy-hostile behavior, every single day.]
Christy Hardin Smith @ 93
Such information might not be admissible in court but I am not sure that is the purpose of most intelligence gathering. The question I have is what would be done with such information. It is a maxim that information once obtained is virtually never destroyed.
And what sanctions would be placed on those who gathered such information erroneously or maliciously? What enforcement mechanisms are there to guard against abuse? I don’t see any.
OT..Digby hammers Broder:
link
Hugh @ 37
This struck me as well, Hugh. Thanks for pointing it out.
Tula’s upstairs…
Peterr,
I was thinking about you yesterday when I read this;
http://mistrelboy.blogspot.com.....jesus.html
For the zillionth time: The executive Branch does not need MORE POWER to save us in a “Jack Bauer” scenario. They are full of SHIT !(that’s a technical term we lawyers sometimes use)
under both FISA and Title III [specifically 18 USC 2518] (domestic wiretaps) the AG can ALWAYS authorize emergency wiretaps w/o a warrant for the Jack Bauer sceneario. He always could–for years and years and years. The sole requirement is that the Emergency he is certifying must:
1) specifically involve danger of immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury
2) conpiracy activites threatening the national security interest, or
3) conspiracy activites involving organized crime that must be addressed before a warrant can be obtained.
This is under the regular criminal rules!!!! All the AG has to do under either FISA or the RUles of Criminal Procedure is ceritfy and tap, then apply for warrant w/in 48 hours.
The AG has always had all the power he needed for the Jack Bauer scenario. Some lergal scholars believe that the authority for this rests on the 4th Ammendment exception for exigent circumstances, though the legistaive history is not explicit on this point. The exigent circumstances exception allows warratnless searches to prevent destruciton of evidence (like flushing the dope down the john) or to prevent harm to a person (so if I hear the hostage screaming inside, I don’t have to wait for a warrant before I break down the door to save her)
looseheadprop @ 109
Bingo. Greetings, LHP.
Um, what’s this?
Is this about Feingold’s Amendment?
LHP at 109 — Well, if you are going to use common sense and precedent…sheesh.
O.o
looseheadprop @ 109
<3
I love these technical explanations for us laypersons…
OT, but elderly antiwar veterans in Boston could use your help.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/15/11129/658
Yes, I know its blogwhoring but I have reached out to these people and am committed enough to what they are doing that I don’t mind if you flame away at me so long as some of you consider, writing a letter, sending a FAX, or making a call on their behalf.
We all like to say, including myself, that we support the troops and vets but not the war. This is a simple way to show that.
peanutbutter @ 113
One of the truly great benefits of a blog such as FDL.
Prairie Sunshine @ 70
… you mean like Reagan and Goldwater ?!! /s
Christy Hardin Smith @ 85
Thanks Christy, for all that you do.
… hope the Peanut is feeling better and that you’re catching up on lost sleep … oh right, that happens when they go off to college … *g*
Prairie Sunshine @ 70
maybe the anti-Hugh could create a list. likely to not be very time-consuming.
nothing…inhibits. nothing… inhibits???
i’m all for protecting this great country, but Bush has managed to link everything short of his great pretzel-choking incident on bin Laden and/or WMD. he’ll surely drive a truck thru this.
And about that “honorable Republican” Ron Paul:
perris @ 86
slippery sloping down the hill. 3 days seems fine to me.
looseheadprop @ 109
Exactly! And we might also note that somewhere LESS than one percent of these applications have been denied, at least as to FISA; and I have seen damn few of the more standard criminal variety denied as well. They have NO problems under these circumstances, and the application process is pretty streamlined in “exigent circumstance” situations as well.
Hi Toby, sent you email
Christy, 90% of this bill (maybe more) was completely superfluous. What a wate of paper and ink.
looseheadprop @ 123
LHP - I got it and responded to you.
Just a question: If we can intercept calls that originate and end outside the US, can our calls be intercepted by another government? If so, what would stop the US from getting that government to listen to our calls for them?
MN USA — the technology that a lot of these calls are routed through is in the US. We have most of the switching points for a lot of the call routing, which theoreticallyis where a lot of the interceptions are occurring.
But nothing prevents foreign governments from doing the same thing wih technology in their countries as well, other than laws and the enforcement and oversight thereof…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 126
So could our government ask, say, Mexico for any information Mexico intercepted on any US citizen?
Elliott — Asking for it and being able to use the information in court are two different things…so the answer is yes, but not for legitimate law enforcement purposes. Unless they do so by subpoena and can show that it wasn’t done in contravention of the law. Which is where oversight requirements come into play…and why it is so important to have safeguards of third-party review in place.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 128
Ahh, thank you!
Biodun @ 66
Filip, at 41, is one of the youngest of George W. Bushes appointees to the Federal Courts. He’s replacing the acting Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford, a career Justice Department prosecutor who temporarily stepped into the job after Paul McNulty, resigned last summer.
It could take weeks if not months, however, before the Senate confirms Filip. Filip was nominated for the federal bench in November 2003, and is viewed by the Chicago Bar as a pragmatic and disciplined jurist. He ranked first among federal judges in several categories in a 2006 poll of Chicago-area attorneys. Some have placed him on lists of potential nominees to higher judicial positions with the goal of placing him in a position to be considered for the Supreme Court.
He attended Oxford as a Marshall Scholar after graduating from the University of Illinois in 1988, and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1992. He was vice president of the Harvard Law School Federalist Society and he authored an article entitled “Why Learned Hand Would Never Consult Legislative History Today.” Filip argued that referring to legislative history should be rejected by judges as it merely reflects the desires of congressional staff and lobbyists, and because it does not reflect the majority will of Congress. Filip argued that, when confronted with statutory language that would lead to an absurd result, a judge should apply his or her own reasoning rather than legislative history.
Filip served as clerk in the early 1990’s to Supreme Court Justice Scalia. In 2000 he acted as a poll monitor in Broward County, Florida for the Bush campaign during the controversial hand recounts.
He was a partner with the Chicago-based Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom, where in 2003 he represented several HMO’s facing a class action lawsuit filed by doctors claiming they were cheated on reimbursements. Soon after his appointment vas a Federal Judge he made a controversial $2000 donation to the Bush-Cheney Re-Election Committee.
In 2005 while a Federal judge, he permitted a class action discrimination lawsuit against Daimler-Chrysler Services North America LLC by black car-buyers to go proceed. Filip also served previously as an assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago, where he received a Justice Department award for his successful prosecution of seven corrupt police officers.
At Mukasey’s swearing-in ceremony earlier this week, Bush said he would announce appointments filing some of the 12 highest-ranking Justice Department jobs -including the No. 2 and 3 spots and six assistant attorneys general - currently are held by officials not yet confirmed by the Senate. In addition, two other senior officials have announced their resignations.
Here is another case that Filip has decided that relates to sexual discrimination…you decide if he is rational.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/and.....trout.html
Thanks, cinnamonape, for a great review of Filip. He sounds like bad news.
HOLY MOLEY !!
Christy Hardin Smith @ 126
Note too that the “at least one end of the communication originating outside the US” criterion may be vulnerable to technical chicanery and legal parsing. What if the internet backbone taps (like AT&T tech Mark Klein found in SF) are patched to lines that run out of the US, touch base in another country, then run back into the US for analysis? In such a case there might be a plausible parsing that one end of the ‘communication’ originated outside the US… even though the sender and recipient could both be US persons located inside the US.
Hmmm.
I’m assuming (and hoping) that Senator Feingold’s amendment changes the language of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s bill - as it sounds like it does - where the current Title I, Section 101’s new FISA Section 703(e)(1) reads as follows (which I assume was intended to authorize programmed surveillance targeting categories of data), after Senate Intelligence Committee passage:
If Feingold’s amendment does amend that language in subsection (e) of Section 703, it would now read:
http://intelligence.senate.gov/071025/s2248.pdf
Here’s what Senator Leahy had planned today re this bill, from his opening statement:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/me.....it_id=2629
I just saw this here from Glenn Greenwald:
Just thought you guys would want to know. Looks like retroactive immunity for telecoms will be in the bill that hits the Senate floor.
Eric @ 135
Doesn’t the gating question remain whether Mukasey’s veto promise still holds? I.e. if so, then there’s still a later opportunity to debate and revise.
While the goal of protecting America and our allies is always laudable, the one thing I notice is that much is allowed in the name of defense, but our Constitution is mostly about protecting ALL our Rights. The distinction is that in empowering government to protect us from physical harm they might feel emboldened to step all over our other Rights. We’ve seen the Bush administration do that and it’s not a big leap of imagination to think others might do it, if only by accident. When does a Free Speech Zone become normal in the defense of ‘national security’?
Can extremism in the defense of national security become a vice?
Hugh @ 37
I have to wonder, what if the government spies on someone or some group for 30 days and then stops. Do they still have to get a FISA warrant later?
What if they go to the court after they’ve spied and the court refuses the warrant? What’s the penalty?
The whole idea of getting a warrant afterward is strange.
Hugh @ 94
I occurs to me that a workaround the Bushies might try is to say they’re targeting a terrorist group, but neglecting to say it’s composed of individual American citizens.
MN USA @ 125
Mack truck…meet huge freakin’ loophole.
And, it’s been that way for years.
It’s like the ban on governmental creation of databases of civilian data. It doesn’t stop them from receiving databases created by private companies.
Loopholes galore.
looseheadprop @ 109
Hugh @ 104
LHP @ 109:
I don’t know what the impact of the inevitable behind very closed doors Conference Committee surgery on what comes from the Senate the version the House passed today (227 to 189)of the so-called “Restore” bill and the subsequent Veto battle of Bush and Congress will be on 18USC 2518.
I do know however, I would not trust this “Curve-Ball” torture to help start a fiasco in Iraq dependent and fear mongering government as far as I could spit them to correctly ever designate a situation as accurately fulfilling the requirements of 18USC 2518.
They have displayed time and time again that they will lie about exigent circumstances that threaten National Security. They now have over 100,000 people on a no-fly list and there hasn’t been a peep and I haven’t seen any discussion here who have little recourse and certainly no recourse after Joe Blow has been told he can’t fly to see Aunt Martha or Mom. Not everyone on that list has the clout that Senator Ted Kennedy does when he’s momentarily detained at an airport.
Right now, the provisions of the Senate Bills that Harry Reid can choose to put on the floor all contain extremely vague wire tapping provisions driven by the AG’s ability to interpret their necessity and legality (consistent with his religious subscription to the Unitary Executive theory) and the ability to wiretap for 45 days without a warrant (absurd).
Too much in this bill is a vague, subjective “enigma enshrouded in a mystery”.
As Hugh @ 109, points out, we have no idea what’s being done or what will be done, with all the information that’s being gathered and matrixed onto data bases among various agencies. Once that data is gathered, it’s never going away.
Look at the horrific abuse by the F.B.I. of so-called “National Security Letters” that Mueller dismissed with a non-chalant sentence or two in hearings
From:
The Inspector General’s Independent Report on the F.B.I.’s Use of National Security Letters (Conyers Statement)
The number of NSL requests had increased from 8,500 in 2000 to in excess of 143,000 from the 3-year period between 2003-2005.
DOJ consistently provided inaccurate information to Congress concerning NSL’s, failing to identify at least 4,600 NSL requests to us.
NSL’s were routinely issued without proper authorization and outside of statutory and regulatory requirements. The Inspector General found that 60% of the investigatory files they looked at included one or more violations of FBI policy.
The IG found even more widespread abuses concerning so-called “exigent letters” – emergency requests for telephone and other data. An exigent letter, as opposed to an NSL, is meant to obtain information in an extreme emergency like a kidnaping when the Bureau has already sought subpoenas for the requested information. But the FBI issued these letters in non-emergencies, as a means to bypass the requirements of the NSL procedure.
“As if this wasn’t troubling enough, in many instances the Bureau attempted to issue after-the-fact NSL’s to cover their tracks on their use of exigent letters. The IG specifically found that…the abuse and misuse of the NSLs is not an isolated instance. Instead, it appears to be part of a pattern by which the Department of Justice has violated not only our trust, but the very laws they are charged with enforcing.”:
Exigent letters were ordinarily issued when there was no emergency present, and very often when there was not even a pending investigation. More often than not, the letters were issued based on promises that subpoenas were in the process of being issued, when that was not the case and even though subpoenas were never issued.
The FBI made numerous factual misstatements in the letters, which were frequently issued in violation of statute as well as Attorney General and FBI guidelines.
The record-keeping was so poor that it was impossible for the IG to document how and why all of these problems occurred.
I think the kind of abuse we saw with these letters and analagous fishing for thousands of bank records (and the target victim couldn’t even make pubic that they were being deliberately and illegally abused by this horrific practice) is prima facie evidence you can’t trust the government of the U.S. to accurately certify what is an emergency.