| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2007 10:22:50 AM |
| Object: |
Spies, Lies and FISA |
Spies, Lies and FISA
The New York Times | Editorial
Sunday 14 October 2007
As Democratic lawmakers try to repair a deeply flawed bill on
electronic eavesdropping, the White House is pumping out the same fog
of fear and disinformation it used to push the bill through Congress
this summer. President Bush has been telling Americans that any
change would deny the government critical information, make it easier
for terrorists to infiltrate, expose state secrets, and make it
harder "to save American lives."
There is no truth to any of those claims. No matter how often Mr.
Bush says otherwise, there is also no disagreement from the Democrats
about the need to provide adequate tools to fight terrorists. The
debate is over whether this should be done constitutionally, or at
the whim of the president.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, requires
a warrant to intercept international communications involving anyone
in the United States. A secret court has granted these warrants
quickly nearly every time it has been asked. After 9/11, the Patriot
Act made it even easier to conduct surveillance, especially in hot
pursuit of terrorists.
But that was not good enough for the Bush team, which was
determined to use the nationıs tragedy to grab ever more power for
its vision of an imperial presidency. Mr. Bush ignored the FISA law
and ordered the National Security Agency to intercept phone calls and
e-mail between people abroad and people in the United States without
a warrant, as long as "the target" was not in this country.
The president did not announce his decision. He allowed a few
lawmakers to be briefed but withheld key documents. The special
intelligence court was in the dark until The Times disclosed the
spying in December 2005.
Mr. Bush still refused to stop. He claimed that FISA was too
limiting for the Internet-speed war against terror. But he never
explained those limits and rebuffed lawmakersı offers to legally
accommodate his concerns.
This year, the administration found an actual problem with FISA:
It requires a warrant to eavesdrop on communications between
foreigners that go through computers in the United States. It was a
problem that did not exist in 1978, and it had an easy fix. But Mr.
Bushıs lawyers tacked dangerous additions onto a bill being rushed
through Congress before the recess. When the smoke cleared, Congress
had fixed the real loophole, but also endorsed the idea of spying
without court approval. It gave legal cover to more than five years
of illegal spying.
Fortunately, the law is to expire in February, and some
Democratic legislators are trying to fix it. House members have
drafted a bill, which is a big improvement but still needs work. The
Senate is working on its bill, and we hope it will show the courage
this time to restore the rule of law to American surveillance
programs.
There are some red lines, starting with the absolute need for
court supervision of any surveillance that can involve American
citizens or others in the United States. The bill passed in August
allowed the administration to inform the FISA court about its methods
and then issue blanket demands for data to communications companies
without any further court approval or review.
The House bill would permit the government to conduct
surveillance for 45 days before submitting it to court review and
approval. (Mr. Bush is wrong when he says the bill would slow down
intelligence gathering.) After that, ideally, the law would require a
real warrant. If Congress will not do that, at a minimum it must
require spying programs to undergo periodic audits by the court and
Congress. The administration wants no reviews.
Mr. Bush and his team say they have safeguards to protect civil
liberties, meaning surveillance will be reviewed by the attorney
general, the director of national intelligence and the inspectors
general of the Justice Department and the Central Intelligence
Agency. There are two enormous flaws in that. The Constitution is
based on the rule of law, not individuals; giving such power to any
president would be un-American. And this one long ago showed he
cannot be trusted.
Last week, The Times reported that the C.I.A. director, Gen.
Michael V. Hayden, is investigating the office of his agencyıs
inspector general after it inquired into policies on detention and
interrogation. This improper, perhaps illegal investigation sends a
clear message of intimidation. We also know that the F.B.I. has
abused expanded powers it was granted after 9/11 and that the former
attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, systematically covered up the
presidentıs actions with deliberately misleading testimony.
Mr. Bush says the law should give immunity to communications
companies that gave data to the government over the last five years
without a court order. He says they should not be punished for
helping to protect America, but what Mr. Bush really wants is to
avoid lawsuits that could uncover the extent of the illegal spying he
authorized after 9/11.
It may be possible to shield these companies from liability,
since the government lied to them about the legality of its requests.
But the law should allow suits aimed at forcing disclosure of Mr.
Bushıs actions. It should also require a full accounting to Congress
of all surveillance conducted since 9/11. And it should have an
expiration date, which the White House does not want.
Ever since 9/11, we have watched Republican lawmakers help Mr.
Bush shred the Constitution in the name of fighting terrorism. We
have seen Democrats acquiesce or retreat in fear. It is time for that
to stop.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101407Z.shtml
--
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have
been warned."
-- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
in news:2rCdnZNy7LA5OojdRVn_iw@comcast.com
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
