GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: National security observers explain FISA ins and outs

• 54851
  

  I have doubts about the ability of Congress to enact any security legislation that takes the actual risks and threats into account and that balances the benefits of the legislation against negative effects, both direct and unintended. Too much knee-jerk political maneuvering.

  Roger Posted July 23, 2008 8:15 PM
• 54849
  

  Do people really believe the government will monitor their innocent conversations? Since when is the Judiciary, the non elected non accountable branch of the government, the experts on national security and foreign policy? What happened to separation of powers? At least the judges appointed to the FISA Court seem to have the good sense not to second guess the Executive Branch certifications in regard to foreign intelligence purpose and need for electronic surveillance and physical search. Still, the exhaustive efforts and hoops the Executive most jump through to intercept communications of suspected terrorists and agents of foreign powers seems wasteful to me, and doesn't give this innocent citizen peace of mind. I have much greater fear that my civil liberties will be violated by terrorists or by foreign powers, than by my elected officials and my government.

  Steve Posted July 23, 2008 7:31 PM
• 54848
  

  Obama was against this bill before he was for it. Think I heard this some where before so if this helped your delima I have to question your decision process. Maybe he voted present!!

  dan m ketter Posted July 23, 2008 7:01 PM
• 54804
  

  Wow!! A reread of the article AND my response brought to the forefront my biggest problems with this bill (other than lack of supervision/oversight) and my failure to mention them.

  As noted in the article, the biggest hole in this legislative nightmare is the geographical aspect talked about in the article.

  Understand that if, in the internet and global cell phone world, they can't "target" anyone geographically in an effort to conform to the bill's requirements; then they'll have to dragnet capture everything and then search/sort for their data. So saying, if you do on-line banking, TSP/401k transactions, phone message listening... any thing electronic in the world, or at least within reach of our satellites, the government (and all those little worker bees) will have access to it.

  Now, I be one of those "bees" and, let's be honest, as much as I would like to disavow Skeeter's fear and loathing of us, we truly are mere reflections of our society and just as prone to illegals and malcontents as any other organization.

  The other aspect that of physical searches, is so new to me that I must have just glazed over. It would have been nice if the article (or a future one) had dwelt a little on that portion; as if the electronic surveillance wasn't more than enough to worry me.

  This bill really has repealed the 4th Amendment. (as long as someone flashes the T-card.)

  Tip off Posted July 23, 2008 10:45 AM
• 54800
  

  Thank you, Shane (and GovExec). You're renewed my faith in my country and my candidate. While being FAR from perfect (and, okay, what law is?), this law SEEMS to go a lot farther in protecting what few rights the Shrub administration and the fear mongers of the Party Pachyderm have left us. Unfortunately, it still lacks the teeth of enforcement.

  "First, remember that FISA does not apply to domestic criminal surveillance"

  I think this is a blatant misconception. IF the authorities think a terrorist movement is making money through criminal enterprises, since they don't need warrants anymore, do you think they'll wiretap their activities?

  "The law encompasses various kinds of surveillance, including [...] physical searches "

  And we are only learning now that these warrantless surveillances include possible searches and seizures?! Please remember, IF they think something criminal is going on, and they CLAIM it is terrorist related; they can do whatever they please. Since the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended under the PATRIOT Act and "suspected" terrorists may not be afforded legal representation nor a right to a speedy trial by their peers, a suspect can be taken in the dead of night, shipped off to Guantanamo Bay and never heard from again.

  I must concur with Ms. Martin, "Proponents now talk about 'targeting' to disguise the effect of the bill. The major purpose of this legislation is to allow the acquisition of millions of American communications without any of those protections."

  Once more, I must ask... "Who is guarding the guards?!" The best thing I learned from this article is that THE LEGISLATION EXPIRES IN FOUR YEARS.

  Tip off Posted July 23, 2008 10:16 AM
• 54755
  

  No criminal immunity, only civil, for knowingly and willfully breaking the law.

  We can only hope, someone will prosecute.

  Don Reno Posted July 22, 2008 4:21 PM
• 54736
  

  This bill is definitely questionable, and the dragnet surveillance of telephone and internet communications it allows is Orwellian to say the least. I appreciate this article for its explanation of the scope of the bill, but I don't believe it's even as airtight as it sounds here. We'll find out if the ACLU's challenge is heard.

  On the Telecom immunity: This won't hold up in courts either. Congress has never stepped into an ongoing civil litigation and decided the winner without providing just compensation. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the remedy from a pending civil suit is protected by the Takings clause of the Fifth Amendment; if someone's smart enough to assume that defense, we should see that provision nullified.

  Zachary Hueras Posted July 22, 2008 9:45 AM
• 54720
  

  The one thing this Bill does talk about or do anything about is the reports that this Admin. actually started some of this Warrantless Wiretapping before 9-11. One Telecom co., Qwest refused to cooperate in this and soon after the Gov. canceled a multimillion dollar contract to Qwest and ended up putting their CEO in prison on questionable charges. Questionable because the Gov. claiming States Secrets blocked evidence that may of proved the innocence of the CEO. Since this law only covers action taken before 9-11 this Admin. may be forced to stand before a Judge and Jury yet.

  Sam Dandy Posted July 22, 2008 8:17 AM