|
Banned
|
...again...are they wingnuts...ruining the country? Last night, the statement of DNI McConnell, praised the democrats in a statement displayed below. McConnell, as his essay posted on the Ground Hog Day thread, clearly shows, is not above writing a clearly misleading op-ed on FISA's history of modernization over the past dozen years....
yet today, the decider clearly ignores McConnell's statement, just 12 hours old. Would you trust Bush, Gonzales, or McConnell with warrantless surveillance of anyone? Have they been honest and forthright in seeking this unprecedented new authority? What do their statements and actions, since 2001, make those who support them, seem like to you....informed, well reasoning, apolitical, or???
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070803-9.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 3, 2007
President Bush Meets with Counterterrorism Team
J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building
Washington, D.C.
......The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has provided the Congress with a narrow and targeted piece of legislation that will close the gaps in intelligence. In other words, he's working on the Hill and he's told members this is what we need to do our job to protect the American people. It's the bare minimum the DNI said he needs to do his job. When Congress sends me their version, when Congress listens to all the data and facts and they send me a version of how to close those gaps, I'll ask one question, and I'm going to ask the DNI: Does this legislation give you what you need to prevent an attack on the country? Is this what you need to do your job, Mr. DNI? That's the question I'm going to ask. And if the answer is yes, I'll sign the bill. And if the answer is no, I'm going to veto the bill.
And so far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign. We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short. I'm going to ask Congress to stay in session until they pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States.
Thank you for your time. ....
|
Quote:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/w...-fisa-fix.html
Friday, August 03, 2007
More Tales from the "Unitary" Executive (or, What's Going On with the FISA Fix/Mess?)
Marty Lederman
Very hard to keep up, things are moving so fast. To the best of my very imperfect knowledge, here's the state of play:
Last night, Director of National Intelligence McConnell distributed this Statement, describing what he thought was necessary in an urgent FISA amendment. I found it cryptic, to say the least, but each point in it apparently corresponds to some facet of the negotiations that have been ongoing.
<center><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1186145040dni-fisa_Page_1.jpg"><p>
<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1186145047dni-fisa_Page_2.jpg"></center>
This morning, the Democrats on the Intelligence Committees and the Democratic leadership agreed to legislation that would satisfy McConnell's requirements. Here is <a href="http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/FISA2007.democratic.fix.pdf">the bill</a>. I very roughly describe its principal components below. It is strongly opposed by the communications privacy community (DCT, CNSS, ACLU, etc.) as being too conciliatory, and as going well beyond authorization to exclude purely foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA, i.e., far beyond what is necessary to address the problem that the Administration has described.
DNI McConnell took the negotiated legislation back to the White House . . . and the White House rejected it as insufficient.
So the Republicans are not on board.
The Democratic leadership is trying to pass the bill today. Its prospects in the House are uncertain, because it will be opposed from both the left and (mainly) the right.
If it passes both chambers, the President will likely veto the bill . . . that his own Director of National Intelligence negotiated.
Quite a way to run the greatest democracy in the world, eh? Keep in mind that FISA was crafted after three years of intensive and comprehensive -- and public -- hearings, debates, and negotiations. This bill? Not so much. And it shows in the finished product. What's that old adage about legislation and sausage? We need some meat inspectors here . . .
The <a href="http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/FISA2007.democratic.fix.pdf">Democratic bill</a> would do the following:
1. New section 105A would address the foreign-to-foreign issue: "Notwithstanding any other provision of [FISA], a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located within the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States."
2. Section 105B would allow the Attorney General to apply to the FISA court for an order authorizing electronic surveillance for up to one year "directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The court would grant such an order if satisfied, inter alia, that methods described by the Attorney General are "reasonably designed to determine whether the persons are outside the United States; that "a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information"; and that certain minimization procedures are sufficient.
3. "At or before the end of the period of time for which electronic surveillance is approved by an order or an extension under this section, the judge may assess compliance with the minimization procedures by reviewing the circumstances under which information concerning United States persons was acquired, retained, or disseminated." [No mention of what she should do then.]
4. [This apparently is potentially the most important section -- it's certainly the most inscrutable.] "The Attorney General shall establish guidelines that are reasonably designed to ensure that an application is filed under section 104, if otherwise required by this Act, when the Attorney General seeks to initiate electronic surveillance, or continue electronic surveillance that began under this section, of a United States person." If anyone understands what this means . . .
5. The Act would sunset after 120 days.
|
Last edited by host; 08-03-2007 at 03:52 PM..
|