I have no objection to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.
Dear Nancy and Harry;
I wanted to thank you for not using your leadership position to prevent the FISA amendments from coming to a floor vote, and suggest some ‘enhancements’ for when the issue gets revisited within 6 months.
I have carefully parsed the text of the bill (that’s what they taught us to do at G’twn law)
and was delighted to see the broad exemption in Section 105(a) which states that
"Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."
While to most that language is clear, there is an open question as what does ‘reasonably believed to be outside the United States’ mean in the eyes of those charged with administering this Act?
For example, those pulling Gonzo’s strings believe that the San Francisco Bay Area, indeed most of Blue America, is not the real United States and thus communications to persons located there would be exempt from scrutiny. But then surely Mr. Rove (code name Turdblossom), or The Dick (Angler) would have no interest in such communications .... like yours ...I’m sure we can trust them to limit the intercepts to things like when you are talking to those nasty Syrians, as well as new Prime Minister Brown.
I realize the Act has a limited sunset provision -that nasty text says that:
(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).
I’m glad to see that the sunset has been eclipsed and the Administration can take this 6 month window, and has carte blanche to conduct surveillance to dates well in the future, like 1/20/09, so long as it is pursuant to a directive issued by The Great Gonzo.
Now we come to the crux of the matter. What’s in those directives? How will anybody know? Oh section 4 allows reporting to Congress... that’s nice ... what does it say:
(2) the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.
Of course- what’s actually in those directives is limited to the Executive and the 4th Branch – for now. We need to fix this.
In fact, I say we go further, and that we cease objecting to increasing powers of surveillance by the administration as long as there is a quid pro quo: give the voting public the same rights of surveillance of their elected executive branch.
I
propose we call this the I.M.P.E.A.C.H. Act – the Interception, Modification, and Prevention of Executive Acts of Cowardice and Hubris Act. The title is drawn from Rovian playbook- accuse the other side of what they accuse you of, such as cowering in the face of terror threats- like those emanating from the 4th Branch.
So here is my legislative language for the next debate – this is a full service blog – THE LANGUAGE IN ITALICS IS TO BE DELETED F
Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, any Committee of Competent Jurisdiction may authorize the acquisition of intelligence information concerning actions by persons reasonably believed to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors acting pursuant to the express or implied authorization of any person of actual or apparent authority within the Executive Branch of the United States, including the office of the Vice President, if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General the Chairs of such Committees determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
`(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for promptly trying such high crimes and misdemeanors determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act ;
` (2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance; involves e mail accounts that may aid or abet violation of the Presidential Records Act, including but not limited to gwb43.com,
` (3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information that may reasonably be believed to constitute evidence of high crimes or misdemeanors, including but limited to the following:
(a) the lies leading up to the invasion of Iraq;
(b) the list of those attending Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy conference; and other efforts at limiting environmental protections
©phone records on the role of Alberto R. Gonzales and others in the firing of United States attorneys;
(d) ascertaining who was responsible for inadequately protecting our troops with proper equipment and support;
(e) interference with the findings of government scientists on the basis that such findings interfered or conflicted with Administration policies or otherwise lacked foundation in Biblical literacy and
-(f), as in FU - the advocacy of concepts of unitary executives and Executive privilege.
As you know, Republicans are fond of saying that government should be forced to live up to the standards imposed on business – you can find quotes to that effect from both the Donald and The Dick ..... so who could object?