The New Wiretapping Law: A Blank Check for Domestic Spying

[struggle4progress]

By MARJORIE COHN

~snip~ FISA was enacted in 1978 in reaction to excesses of Richard Nixon and the FBI, who covertly spied on critics of administration policies. FISA set up a conservative system with judges who meet in secret and issue nearly every wiretapping order the administration requests. ~snip~

By its terms, the new law will sunset in 180 days. But this is a specious limitation. The AG and DNI can authorize surveillance for up to one year. So just before the statute is set to expire around February 1, 2008, they could approve surveillance that will last until after Bush leaves office. ~snip~

The Supreme Court held in the 1967 case of Katz v. United States that government wiretapping must be supported by a search warrant based on probable cause and issued by a judge. In 1972, the Court, in U.S. v. U.S. District Court (Keith), struck down warrantless domestic surveillance. The Court has recognized the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement. The special need must be narrowly tailored to the problem. However, the new law is much too broad to come under this exception. Congress eliminated any need that the person surveilled be a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. The government need only show it is seeking "foreign intelligence information." There is no requirement of any connection with terrorism. The special needs exception also requires an absence of discretion in the implementing authority. There is unlimited discretion now as long as the target is reasonably believed to be outside the United States. ~snip~

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn08102007.html

[AndyTiedye]

1. Which Allows them to Watergate All The Dems Through the Next Election, Legally!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3438520

[izzie]

2. I think that is what it is for. Get into what Dem. are doing

It makes me think that people who see the parties as being just alike are more correct than one wants to think. If the next President is a Dem. they will have the same rights to snoop into anything they want and say it is for our safety also. What we seem to have in Congress is a lot of people who are really worried if they can hold their jobs so are bowing to this 911 stuff. One wonders how the Brits kept their country with the Irish blowing them up all the time. Every thing seems to be scary to Congress or that is the talk. Bush drags out 911 every time he wants something and Congress gives in. If one was as old as I am they would recall USSR saying we should spend ours selfs to death and I think we are doing it along with to much killing off of just who we were and handing power off to these nuts we put into office. Times do change things but I can not see any reason for Bush to have this power or any Dem. President either. Does any one think a Dem. President would give up the power if it was handed to him?

[AndyTiedye]

3. They Don't Intend to Hand Over Power to the Democrats, Ever

[izzie]

4. I am sure you are right but they may have to.

When people are sure they are right they tend to think any thing goes to keep them in power. After all they will tell you they are Right. This is not just in the big wigs but you hear it every day you turn on to the calls coming into C-span. If the big wigs get enough of those behind them they win. We were always told we would have to work to keep our country and it is very true. Things are never calm and with all that money and power around the greedy ones will always be their along with the people who are sure they are the Right ones.