Frist: No New Spy Legislation Needed

[sabra]

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0206/304149.html

Frist: No New Spy Legislation Needed


Washington (AP) - Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, standing firmly with the White House on the administration's eavesdropping program, said Sunday he doesn't think new or updated legislation is needed to govern domestic surveillance to foil terrorists. "I don't think that it does need to be rewritten, but we are holding hearings in the Judiciary Committee right now," Frist said on CBS'"Face the Nation."

Frist also said he didn't think a court order is needed before eavesdropping, under the program, occurs. "Does it have to be thrown over to the courts? I don't think so. I personally don't think so," he said.

Critics argue the program, run by the National Security Agency, sidesteps the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which prohibits domestic eavesdropping without a warrant from a special intelligence court.

"This NSA program - it has to comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and it has to comply with the Fourth Amendment," which guarantees protection against unreasonable searches, California Rep. Jane Harman, ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition."

[Canuckistanian]

1. Of course it's not needed

Shrub will ignore it anyways. He's already said so.

BTW, when is it time for Frist to be "thrown over to the courts"?

[AndyTiedye]

2. No New Law Needed. Bush** Needs To Obey the EXISTING LAW

and if Bush** continues to flout the existing law,
Congress must impeach him and remove him from office.

[Massachusetts]

3. Frist: No New Spy Legislation Needed

Frist is and always has been a milque toast P.O.S.!!!!!! got that NSA, CIA, FBI boys and girls!
This is OUR country WE THE PEOPLE, NOT Shills like Fritz (ooops Freudian slip!)

[acmejack]

4. Frist is a legend in his own mind.

I am convinced he loves to hear himself speak. Especially about obstructionist Democrats slowing down the business of the Senate. I am fully convinced it is in fact Frist talking about the Democrats stalling tactics ad nauseum that is actually delaying the Senates business.

[teryang]

5. "Patriot" Act Reform is the epitaph of 1st and 4th Amendments

So he's right.

See Senator Feingold's critical commentary on the so called reform on Truthout.org:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021506R.shtml

Statement of US Senator Russ Feingold as prepared for delivery from the Senate floor, February 15, 2006.

<...NSLs can only be used to obtain certain categories of business records, while Section 215 orders can be used to obtain "any tangible thing." But even the categories reachable by an NSL are quite broad. NSLs can be used to obtain three types of business records: subscriber and transactional information related to Internet and phone usage; credit reports; and financial records, a category that has been expanded to include records from all kinds of everyday businesses like jewelers, car dealers, travel agents and even casinos.

Just as with Section 215, the Patriot Act expanded the NSL authorities to allow the government to use them to obtain records of people who are not suspected of being, or even of being connected to, terrorists or spies. The government need only certify that the documents are either sought for or relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation, a far-reaching standard that could be used to obtain all kinds of records about innocent Americans. And just as with Section 215, the recipient is subject to an automatic, permanent gag rule...>


<...One of the most fundamental protections in the Bill of Rights is the Fourth Amendment's guarantee that all citizens have the right to "be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" against "unreasonable searches and seizures." The idea that the government cannot enter our homes improperly is a bedrock principle for Americans, and rightly so. The Fourth Amendment has a rich history and includes in its ambit some very important requirements for searches. One is the requirement that a search be conducted pursuant to a warrant. The Constitution specifically requires that a warrant for a search be issued only where there is probable cause and that the warrant specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Why does the Constitution require that particular description? Well, for one thing, that description becomes a limit on what can be searched or what can be seized. If the magistrate approves a warrant to search someone's home and the police show up at the person's business, that search is not valid. If the warrant authorizes a search at a particular address, and the police take it next door, they have no right to enter that house. But of course, there is no opportunity to point out that the warrant is inadequate unless that warrant is handed to someone at the premises. If there is no one present to receive the warrant, and the search must be carried out immediately, most warrants require that they be left behind at the premises that were searched. Notice of the search is part of the standard Fourth Amendment protection. It's what gives meaning, or maybe we should say "teeth," to the Constitution's requirement of a warrant and a particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or items to be seized...>

(comment: national security letters are the meaningless Orwellian substitute for warrants our elected representatives are using to eviscerate the First and Fourth Amendments.)

[Placebo]

6. A worthless waste of space.

You could put a rock in his senate seat and it'd do more for this country than Frist does.

[MGKrebs]

7. But if a terrorist were to become Vice President, and then go hunting,

he might shoot somebody in the face. THAT should require some new legislation!

[Vidar]

8. He's right if the existing laws were enforced.

[rodeodance]

9. apparently no one at the WH told Frist they flipped flopped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/politics/20nsa.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

February 20, 2006
Facing Pressure, White House Seeks Approval for Spying
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and DAVID E. SANGER

After two months of insisting that President Bush did not need court approval to authorize the wiretapping of calls between the United States and suspected terrorists abroad, the administration is trying to resist pressure for judicial review while pushing for retroactive Congressional approval of the program.

The administration opened negotiations with Congress last week, but it is far from clear whether Mr. Bush will be able to fend off calls from Democrats and some Republicans for increased oversight of the eavesdropping program, which is run by the National Security Agency.

The latest Republican to join the growing chorus of those seeking oversight is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Mr. Graham, a former military prosecutor whose opinion on national security commands respect in the Senate, said he believed there was now a "bipartisan consensus" to have broader Congressional and judicial review of the program.

[sattahipdeep]

11. Graham....Horse Shite

White House officials are discussing a proposal by Sen. Mike
DeWine, R-Ohio, that would more specifically OK warrantless
domestic surveillance, but give lawmakers more oversight.

Graham said....
``If you're going to follow an American citizen around for an
extended period of time believing they're collaborating with the
enemy, at some point in time, you need to get some judicial
review, because mistakes can be made.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-5632011,00.html

[gratuitous]

10. Of course no new laws are needed

When the corrupt Bush administration is ignoring the laws on the books now, they don't need any more meaningless laws passed. And with the Republican-controlled Congress incapable of exercising its oversight responsibilities and the Courts uninterested in providing their constitutionally-mandated check, there's nothing to stop an out of control Executive anyway. At least, nothing in the government as currently constituted.