backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 73 comment(s) - last by nstott.. on Jun 24 at 8:46 PM

Critics say compromise bill is anything but

The U.S. House of Representatives quickly passed the FISA Amendments Act yesterday, which if made into law would expand the government's surveillance abilities and grant retroactive immunity to telecoms for their role in post-9/11 mass domestic wiretapping.

The Act, known more formally as H.R. 6304 and born after months of negotiations, represents a “bipartisan compromise” over similar legislation that died on the House floor last February.

Much of the negotiations revolved around the thorny issue of “telecom immunity,” which if included would kill the 40+ lawsuits currently in progress accusing communications providers of assisting the Bush Administration in an illegal, post-9/11 surveillance program. As the bill currently stands, a court review will determine if providers received a presidential order requesting the wiretaps – regardless of whether or not the correct warrants were filed – and then drop all pending litigation if that condition was met.

The “warrantless wiretapping” program, initiated by the Bush Administration in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, ran for almost six years until it was discovered by the New York Times.

With time running out on the country’s surveillance laws – current versions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs the nation’s surveillance activities, are set to expire in August – Congress has little time to negotiate. The Bush Administration previously took a hard-line stance against FISA updates that failed to include a provision for telecom immunity, although it was reported earlier this year that the White House decided to relax its stance.

The FISA Amendments Act “balances the needs of our intelligence community with Americans' civil liberties, and provides critical new oversight and accountability requirements,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

“The House of Representatives today has fallen down on the job,” said the Electronic Frontier Foundation activist Hugh D’Andrade. “By passing the FISA Amendments Act … [the House] voted to give this lame duck President an undeserved parting gift by passing immunity for telecoms that helped the President violate the Constitution by participating in the NSA's massive and illegal spying program.”

“Immunity for telecom giants that secretly assisted in the NSA's warrantless surveillance undermines the rule of law and the privacy of every American,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. “We are deeply disappointed that the House Leadership, which was so courageous in its previous opposition to telecom immunity, caved to the Administration's fear-mongering and put this seriously flawed legislation on the floor for a vote.”

In addition to the aforementioned telecom immunity provisions, the FISA Amendments Bill would:

  • Allow the government to conduct emergency eavesdropping without court approval for up to a week.
  • Allow secret FISA courts to review expiring surveillance orders for up to 30 days before renewing them.
  • Prohibit the government from superseding surveillance rules, even if it invokes war powers.
  • Require court permission to wiretap Americans overseas.
  • Obscure out American citizens’ names when wiretapping conversations between an American citizen and a foreigner.

H.R. 6304 passed the House 239-129, and is slated for the Senate as early as June 23.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By pauldovi on 6/21/2008 10:15:47 AM , Rating: 4
Neo-cons can make a reaonable argument for some of their surveilance stuff, but this retroactive immunity crap is a joke.




RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By wrekd on 6/21/2008 10:44:12 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah but it will keep the Telco's stock prices from falling. No fines, no jail time, no fault.

Checks and balances are gone. Long live the Corporate Juggernaut.


RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By straycat74 on 6/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/21/2008 9:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I cast my vote for CHANGE! (any change is good change, right?)

That line of thinking is what gets us into really sticky situations.


RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By callmeroy on 6/23/2008 8:57:06 AM , Rating: 5
And yet that's how Obama is gonna win this fall..."vote for change".......lol Everyone goes YAY voting for Change...woohoo!

So then you ask these obama folks "So why you voting for Obama" --- "He's for change! That's why!". Then you counter and "what change is that?"....

< dead silence >

...... "Well he's for change!".

;)

I love that stuff...lol


By GlassHouse69 on 6/24/2008 3:32:21 AM , Rating: 2
the only change is that someone with a middle name of

HUSSEIN

is going to not be a dictator we execute, but some inexperienced President.

It's time to change!! yeah, time to brainwash people and split the country racially when you arent even Black, youre a son of a Kenyan diplomat who happened to have his kid on the island of Hawaii.

yay! thats my form of affirmative action! right on?


By dsx724 on 6/22/2008 7:11:12 PM , Rating: 3
The lawsuits aren't exactly about fines or jail time. They are used to create a base from which future cases can reference.

There is nothing wrong with legislation to assist in gathering intelligence. However, the potential for abuse is great when we make them permanent. We assume that future presidents, politicians, and business leaders will be ethical in their decision when invoking these measures.

Bush clearly proved that wrong. He used every legal means to manipulate laws for his own agenda and to shove that agenda down every American's throat. Therefore, it is hazardous to make permanent laws that are as broad as this. This law is already pushing the boundary. Just think of future revisions of the law and the boundaries they will re-define.


RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By rninneman on 6/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Ryanman on 6/21/2008 10:00:03 PM , Rating: 1
It's not a question of me being a criminal. You telling me "don't be a terrorist, and you won't have anything to hide" is complete BS.
Who really DOES care if someone's listening in on their conversations? Given the choice between having a G-man hearing me having phone sex and not, I'd take the latter. Any day. And wiretapping (and any other form of domestic surveillance) opens up a huge hole in the entire purpose of the constitution.
Lets say the Government passes a law allowing all of its employees to rape any person they choose. At that point, would you consider overthrowing the government? I know I would. So you have an incredibly entrenched domestic spying program that makes any sort of revolution impossible.
Now, I know what YOU and many other statists that seems to populate anandtech are thinking. "But Ryan, surely the government would never do that" and "nobody would ever condone such a thing... even in the future" And they might not (although it could be anything that pushes the apathetic public into a revolutionary epiphany). Maybe Bush and his cronies, not to mention their successors, are all moral people with a true desire to see free people. I doubt it.
No state run by humans can embrace freedom for eternity. Those in power will gain more, and the system will be corrupt. In a best case scenario, a revolution occurs and the series of events resets itself.
Read a history book. In the 18th and 19th centuries, the government didn't even have an income tax! Study many different aspect of how government has grown in size and power over its existence. It's a linear (if not geometrical) progression toward a police state. And if you're comfortable with that, feel free to move to Russia or even Britain. I'll continue to fight this trend by our legal system, and with deadly force when the time comes.


RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/08, Rating: 0
RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Ryanman on 6/22/2008 1:34:13 AM , Rating: 3
At no point did I suggest that I'm a badass, that I'm a "rebel", that me arguing with people such as yourself makes my genitals larger or that it matters to anyone.

Nor did I say Bush invented wiretapping. If you notice, I spoke of the entire history of the United States as a whole, from the Civil War, to the New Deal, to WWII, to now. There has been a trend showing the increase in government power. By mincing my words and quoting select passages, you dodge the main question I put forth.

As you said I'm a "kid". I was an idiot who believed god existed back when Clinton was getting sucked off by Lewinski. And you making this into a personal attack about my age when you can't even muster respect and coherence speaks volumes about not only yourself, but people who accept what is told to them.

And as I also said in my reply, that was of course an extremist argument. My main question is: "WHAT if anything will get people to stop accepting domestic surveillance as a necessary evil to prevent terrorism". Our forefathers are rolling in their graves while the American public stares at the TV and continues to be apathetic about their constitutional rights being "raped".


RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2008 5:02:33 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
"WHAT if anything will get people to stop accepting domestic surveillance as a necessary evil to prevent terrorism"


The freedoms we enjoy go both ways. The terrorist living here and learning how to fly planes into buildings were also enjoying our freedoms. How can you possibly stop that without legislation like the Patriot Act and wiretapping ? Would you rather we just rounded up all the dark looking people and throw them in internment camps WWII style ? Thankfully we have a better way now.

The freedoms we enjoy today could very well be because Lincoln, in an effort to save this country, completely discarded the Constitution and did what he had to do to secure the union.

quote:
Our forefathers are rolling in their graves while the American public stares at the TV and continues to be apathetic about their constitutional rights being "raped"


I think our forefathers would be damned proud today, and I don't care one bit for your over exaggerating doom and gloom outlook. America has helped defeat fascism. It took 40 years to defeat, mostly, Communism. Here we are 200 years later, after all the wars, death, pain. Triumphant. We stand alone in the world, and everyone knows it. We are the direct embodyment of the principles they left us with.

Do we not have freedom, liberty, equality, and opportunity? All that didn't come from a single piece of paper. All of that can't, and wont, be brought down by a 4 or 8 year term of the President.

Either go live somewhere else, or build a time machine so you can go back 200 years and live like they did. I guess I'm content to be an " apathetic " American who realizes wire tapping isn't the end of the world, and won't effect my life. Because I KNOW why they are doing it. Its to PROTECT me, and the ones I love.

I respect your opinion. I don't like the IDEA of wirtapping either. But people like you who want to pretend the world is Hello Kitty and hold onto ideals while stark realities are presented don't do anyone any good.


RE: Who follows the Constitution Anyways?
By Polynikes on 6/22/2008 5:55:20 PM , Rating: 3
You think our forefathers would be "damned proud" of our current government?

State's rights: died with slavery.

The federal government having limited power? It's practically limitless now. We have an extremely strong central government, which is exactly what the founding fathers DIDN'T want.

Security? I know at least one founding father who wouldn't like today's security situation. You've probably read this quote 800 times, but here, you can read it again:
quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Ben Franklin


By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2008 7:48:52 PM , Rating: 1
Ummm wasn't Ben Franklin also the one who said " The Constitution is not a suicide pact " ??