At least, that's the way I read his email response to me.
See, like most of you during this latest round of the FISA fight, I was busy calling Senators (including my own from AK) telling them to vote 'No' on the FISA Amendments Act. While I have yet to receive a response from Sen. Murkowski, I did receive one from Sen. Stevens (which clogged my tubes for a good 15 minutes, btw).
Normally I just skim these, since they basically let me know that they completely disagree with whatever my position is. However, I decided I'd read this one to see what he really thought, and this is what stood out:
The pending bipartisan compromise provided by H.R.6304 calls for the dismissal of lawsuits against telephone companies based on the evidence the requests for information were legal and approved by the president-which they were. It also prohibits the intentional targeting of U.S. citizens without a warrant from the FISA court. (emphasis mine)
Now, if anyone is going to have been part of the small group of Congresspeople who have received briefings on this matter, Sen. Stevens is certainly going to be among those who were. He's one of the longest-serving Senators currently active in the Senate. His Anchorage office is housed within a federal building with greater security than that of Sen. Murkowski. Oh, and we know from Congressional testimony that he was briefed about this in late 2001.
Since the bill that passed doesn't grant immunity from criminal prosecution, and we know that there's no way this spying was done legally, I say we start prosecuting and make sure that Uncle Ted takes the stand.
I'll post the entirety of his response below, but first, a quick reminder of why it's important to throw our support behind Orange to Blue candidate Mark Begich:
The Alaskan Constitution protects the right of privacy. The 4th Amendment demands a warrant be issued for any search. And FISA says that domestic electronic surveillance must be approved by a special court. None of these facts should be forgotten on behalf of telecommunications companies that now face legal consequences for the role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I am strongly opposed to retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
Here is Sen. Stevens' response on FISA; read at your own risk.
Dear xxxxx:
Thank you for writing to express your concern over recent legislation proposed to amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, H.R.6304, was introduced June 19, 2008. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 293-129 on June 20th. The Senate had passed, with my support, a similar version of the FISA Amendments Act as S.2248 on February 12, 2008.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) became public law in 1978. The main purpose of the Act was to clarify United States law on electronic surveillance. In 1967, the Supreme Court held in Katz v. United States that electronic surveillance, i.e., wiretapping, required a warrant. The question of whether wiretapping foreign agents required a warrant was never addressed by the Court. FISA decided this question by allowing domestic intelligence agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to acquire intelligence on foreign powers or their agents without warrants. A "lone wolf" amendment was made in 2004 to allow for the monitoring of a foreign individual who acted alone in promoting terrorism. If one of the parties to a communication is a United States citizen, located in the United States, the intelligence agency must have a warrant. In order to speed up the issuance of these warrants and to protect intelligence sources FISA set up the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review applications of warrants. Such protection was viewed as necessary given the assassination of the Athens CIA Station Chief less than three years prior to FISA.
The judges of the FISA Court are appointed by the Chief Justice for a term of seven years from current District Court judges. The FISA Judges continue to act as regular District Court judges while serving on the FISA Court, preventing them from becoming too specialized and possibly inured to granting warrants without thorough review. The FISA Court ensures that an American citizen's right to be free of unreasonable searches, guaranteed by the 4th amendment, is fully protected. The standards used by the FISA Court to prevent the improper issuance of a warrant are the same ones that protect you or any other American in any Court.
The pending bipartisan compromise provided by H.R.6304 calls for the dismissal of lawsuits against telephone companies based on the evidence the requests for information were legal and approved by the president-which they were. It also prohibits the intentional targeting of U.S. citizens without a warrant from the FISA court.
It is my belief that we need to encourage, not discourage, Americans who are called upon to help protect our nation from terrorist attacks. If a citizen is approached by a duly appointed law enforcement agent who requests assistance, I want that citizen to be able to assist the agent, not be sued for acting in good faith to thwart crimes targeting his fellow Americans. Those making good faith efforts to assist their government, when the country is threatened, should not be punished when asked for help. All of us must make every effort to protect our national security and ensure that all American citizens continue to enjoy their basic rights under the Constitution.
With best wishes,
Cordially,
TED STEVENS
U.S. Senator