I highlighted this in post #19 on this thread, but...the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that, if I had posted a defense of the non-amnesty part of the bill passed in the house, last friday, the following criticism of the bill would be a key point for me to hone in on, if I was serious about supporting my opinion that the bill is, "not that bad":
Quote:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/g...l-part-ii.html
Sunday, June 22, 2008
A Guide to the New FISA Bill, Part II
Guest Blogger
David Kris
....It is interesting to compare the pending legislation to the TSP as it may have been implemented just prior to, and just after, the January 2007 FISA Court orders. There appear to be two main differences. First, the pending legislation applies only to targets located abroad, while the January 2007 orders may have allowed surveillance of targets in the U.S. (as long as they were making international calls). Second, more importantly, the pending legislation focuses only on the target’s location (or the government’s reasonable belief about his location) not his status or conduct as a terrorist or agent of a foreign power. In other words, there is no requirement that anyone – the FISA Court or the NSA – find probable cause that the target is a terrorist or a spy before (or after) commencing surveillance....
|
So, what about it....dc_dux, I'm asking you because you probably know how to quickly compare this outrageous revision to the language in the recently passed senate bill, the bill the house passed before this one, and to the bill last August that became law for a year and will soon sunset. Is this a new loophole, put in this bill, that works to make the government free from having to justify any elements of probable cause to conduct it's surveillance?
Obama, at least his spokesperson, today....and the house leadership, are not lowering my level of concern:
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...yer/index.html
UPDATE: I know I made this point earlier this week but I want to highlight it again to give context to Steny Hoyer's mentality. Fox News released a new poll (.pdf) earlier this week and look at what it found:
The Democratic Congress is more popular with Republicans than with Democrats. I really wonder if this is the first time in modern American history when a Congress is more popular among the opposition party than among the party that putatively controls it. And this was taken before the FISA vote, so Hoyer's Congress is certain to become even more popular among the GOP....
....It also doesn't require warrants when the target is "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. and communicating with someone inside the U.S. The Government can tap into U.S. phone and email networks for the first time with no warrants of any kind.
How odd to see The Washington Times, National Review, and the far-right of the GOP celebrating a "great victory for the Democratic Party." I wonder why they're so happy about such a great Democratic accomplishment.
It still remains to be seen what Barack Obama will do. I was just on a conference call with Obama foreign policy advisor Dennis McDonough. The Huffington Post's Scott Bellows asked about Obama's abandonment of his rhetoric vowing to defend the Constitution in order to support this bill, and McDonough adopted the Hoyer line, claiming that this bill has all sorts of great oversight protections including the requirement that the Inspector General submit a report on Bush's spying program (audio is here). That's what now passes for oversight in our Government -- the Executive branch investigates itself when it comes to allegations of criminality. Whatever else is true, there's just no getting around the fact that Obama -- when seeking the nomination -- vowed to support a filibuster of any bill that contains telecom immunity, and his failure to do that here will be a patent breach of that commitment. There's still time for him to adhere to that promise.
...UPDATE III: Barack Obama, trying to be the Democratic nominee, in November, 2007 (h/t C_O):
Barack Obama just unleashed a corker of a speech that had students here at Converse College on their feet and cheering. . . . One of his most passionate passages was not in the prepared text. He promised to close down Guantanamo "because we're not a nation that locks people up without charging them. We will restore habeas corpus. We are not a nation that undermines our civil liberties. We are not a nation that wiretaps without warrants."
Barack Obama, with the Democratic nomination secured, last Friday speaking on the warrantless eavesdropping bill:
But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise . . . .
|