Skip to main content

Increased surveillance by the NSA, et al, presumes that the Executive branch is the sole recipient of these powers.  Just reading HR 6304 fills me with dread.

Let's pretend that we have no knowledge about any of this surveillance stuff and we were given the transcripts of the FISA amendments Act of 2008 to read and then respond.

This law enacted a few months before the 2008 election does what exactly.

It prohibits the government from collecting information on anyone within the United States.  So even if the new President Suspected Say American bankers or Wall Street executives of malfeasance, this law prohibited US intelligence agancies from any surveillance of Americans while within the US as we'll as prohibiting them from surveillance of Americans outside the US if they know that they are outside the US.

Just reading these two limitations on surveillance this amendment puts in place is mind numbing.

‘(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;

‘(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;

This law grants immunity to all past actions by telecommunication companies and at the same time grants them the power to refuse future demands for information by the government.  

So basically these companies give Bush whatever information he wanted and recieve immunity from prosecution in return, but right before he leaves office, he signs a new law which prevents the next Administration from doing the same and tops it off by giving the telecommunications industry the power to refuse demands for information by the next Administration by appealing to the FISA court for review and determination of cause.  

Then comes the authorization for certification by the FISA court.  The new demands are incredible.  The requirements section confirms that, not only was this law passed to protect the Bush Administration and government from government surveillance, but because it requires a written affidavit from a Presidential appointee, approved by the senate, it conveniently and effectively neuters any surveillance power this law could allow.  Requiring a written affidavit from a presidential appointee guarantees that any attempt to investigate the previous government for criminal behavior would never happen through surveillance.  Any request from Obams certainly be appealed to the FISA court and then Obama would be forced to divulge any proof of wrong doing that supports his request and then he would have to wait up to 30 days for approval.  I can only imagine what a company like Google or Verizon could accomplish in 30 days.

What really blows my mind is that records of filings and rulings by the FISA court have only a 10 year retention requirement.  That is unprecedented.  That means that the FISA court could already have destroyed any rulings they made during the first two years of the Bush Administration.  Isn't that convenient?

It continues but perhaps a small degree of doubt about the reality of all of this could be allowed to be made.  A kernel of skepticism perhaps?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the FISA court is essentially unconstitutional (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, arlandbaee

    in that it has abrogated powers to itself that are in direct contradiction to the constitution and are outside of any of the checks and balances and transparency the constitution intended for an institution of such power.

    it is no more legal than if congress made a law that created a "special committee of 100 senators and representatives" with power to, say, declare war, pass laws, and appoint federal judges. this committee would not be elected but rather appointed by the CEOs of the largest corporations and the Fed presidents.

    If that was the case, we would immediately see that commission for what it would be: a blatant attempt to sidestep the constitution and create an illegal government in the USA. the FISA court is really not that different.

  •  The stench from the NSA becomes near poisonous. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site