Here is the Full Text of the FISA Bill. I'm not seeing BLANKET immunity to Telecom.

[berni_mccoy]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c110:./temp/~c110VUBaDK

Many people here are bantering about the term BLANKET IMMUNITY. I'm not seeing it. The FISA Bill that is to be voted upon in the Senate does not grant blanket immunity. It calls out that an individual cannot sue a service provider who acted in accordance with a government order. That'd be like suing the telecom company for handing over your call records under a search warrant. Instead, individuals who have a civil case for wrongly being searched can still sue the U.S. Government, which under the Bush Administration, these people don't even have that right nor has Bush gone through FISA. So what this says to me is that the Administration must now:

1. Go through FISA (which they haven't been doing)
2. Be held accountable (again, which hasn't been possible to date).
3. Makes it so no war-time powers can be invoked to do illegal spying again in the future.

I see no immunity being granted, rather, holding the Administration accountable to those people.

Of course, your free to have your own opinion, but when you throw a term around like BLANKET IMMUNITY, it only weakens your own case and position when the truth is readily available.

Full text pasted below:

HR 6304 EH

110th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 6304

AN ACT

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008' or the `FISA Amendments Act of 2008'.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents for this Act is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
TITLE I--FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

Sec. 101. Additional procedures regarding certain persons outside the United States.
Sec. 102. Statement of exclusive means by which electronic surveillance and interception of certain communications may be conducted.
Sec. 103. Submittal to Congress of certain court orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 104. Applications for court orders.
Sec. 105. Issuance of an order.
Sec. 106. Use of information.
Sec. 107. Amendments for physical searches.
Sec. 108. Amendments for emergency pen registers and trap and trace devices.
Sec. 109. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
Sec. 110. Weapons of mass destruction.
TITLE II--PROTECTIONS FOR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS

Sec. 201. Procedures for implementing statutory defenses under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Sec. 202. Technical amendments.
TITLE III--REVIEW OF PREVIOUS ACTIONS

Sec. 301. Review of previous actions.
TITLE IV--OTHER PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Severability.
Sec. 402. Effective date.
Sec. 403. Repeals.
Sec. 404. Transition procedures.
TITLE I--FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

SEC. 101. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REGARDING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) In General- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking title VII; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
`TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REGARDING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

`SEC. 701. DEFINITIONS.

`(a) In General- The terms `agent of a foreign power', `Attorney General', `contents', `electronic surveillance', `foreign intelligence information', `foreign power', `person', `United States', and `United States person' have the meanings given such terms in section 101, except as specifically provided in this title.
`(b) Additional Definitions-
`(1) CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES- The term `congressional intelligence committees' means--
`(A) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; and
`(B) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
`(2) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT; COURT- The terms `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court' and `Court' mean the court established under section 103(a).
`(3) FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW; COURT OF REVIEW- The terms `Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review' and `Court of Review' mean the court established under section 103(b).
`(4) ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `electronic communication service provider' means--
`(A) a telecommunications carrier, as that term is defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153);
`(B) a provider of electronic communication service, as that term is defined in section 2510 of title 18, United States Code;
`(C) a provider of a remote computing service, as that term is defined in section 2711 of title 18, United States Code;
`(D) any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications either as such communications are transmitted or as such communications are stored; or
`(E) an officer, employee, or agent of an entity described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D).
`(5) INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY- The term `intelligence community' has the meaning given the term in section 3(4) of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).
`SEC. 702. PROCEDURES FOR TARGETING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES OTHER THAN UNITED STATES PERSONS.

`(a) Authorization- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon the issuance of an order in accordance with subsection (i)(3) or a determination under subsection (c)(2), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.
`(b) Limitations- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a)--
`(1) may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
`(2) may not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
`(3) may not intentionally target a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
`(4) may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States; and
`(5) shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(c) Conduct of Acquisition-
`(1) IN GENERAL- An acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall be conducted only in accordance with--
`(A) the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e); and
`(B) upon submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g), such certification.
`(2) DETERMINATION- A determination under this paragraph and for purposes of subsection (a) is a determination by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence that exigent circumstances exist because, without immediate implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), intelligence important to the national security of the United States may be lost or not timely acquired and time does not permit the issuance of an order pursuant to subsection (i)(3) prior to the implementation of such authorization.
`(3) TIMING OF DETERMINATION- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may make the determination under paragraph (2)--
`(A) before the submission of a certification in accordance with subsection (g); or
`(B) by amending a certification pursuant to subsection (i)(1)(C) at any time during which judicial review under subsection (i) of such certification is pending.
`(4) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in title I shall be construed to require an application for a court order under such title for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
`(d) Targeting Procedures-
`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt targeting procedures that are reasonably designed to--
`(A) ensure that any acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(B) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.
`(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(e) Minimization Procedures-
`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate, for acquisitions authorized under subsection (a).
`(2) JUDICIAL REVIEW- The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(f) Guidelines for Compliance With Limitations-
`(1) REQUIREMENT TO ADOPT- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall adopt guidelines to ensure--
`(A) compliance with the limitations in subsection (b); and
`(B) that an application for a court order is filed as required by this Act.
`(2) SUBMISSION OF GUIDELINES- The Attorney General shall provide the guidelines adopted in accordance with paragraph (1) to--
`(A) the congressional intelligence committees;
`(B) the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and
`(C) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
`(g) Certification-
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) REQUIREMENT- Subject to subparagraph (B), prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall provide to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court a written certification and any supporting affidavit, under oath and under seal, in accordance with this subsection.
`(B) EXCEPTION- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2) and time does not permit the submission of a certification under this subsection prior to the implementation of an authorization under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall submit to the Court a certification for such authorization as soon as practicable but in no event later than 7 days after such determination is made.
`(2) REQUIREMENTS- A certification made under this subsection shall--
`(A) attest that--
`(i) there are procedures in place that have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that are reasonably designed to--
`(I) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(II) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
`(ii) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition--
`(I) meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate; and
`(II) have been approved, have been submitted for approval, or will be submitted with the certification for approval by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court;
`(iii) guidelines have been adopted in accordance with subsection (f) to ensure compliance with the limitations in subsection (b) and to ensure that an application for a court order is filed as required by this Act;
`(iv) the procedures and guidelines referred to in clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) are consistent with the requirements of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States;
`(v) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
`(vi) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of an electronic communication service provider; and
`(vii) the acquisition complies with the limitations in subsection (b);
`(B) include the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e);
`(C) be supported, as appropriate, by the affidavit of any appropriate official in the area of national security who is--
`(i) appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; or
`(ii) the head of an element of the intelligence community;
`(D) include--
`(i) an effective date for the authorization that is at least 30 days after the submission of the written certification to the court; or
`(ii) if the acquisition has begun or the effective date is less than 30 days after the submission of the written certification to the court, the date the acquisition began or the effective date for the acquisition; and
`(E) if the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence make a determination under subsection (c)(2), include a statement that such determination has been made.
`(3) CHANGE IN EFFECTIVE DATE- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may advance or delay the effective date referred to in paragraph (2)(D) by submitting an amended certification in accordance with subsection (i)(1)(C) to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(4) LIMITATION- A certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.
`(5) MAINTENANCE OF CERTIFICATION- The Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General shall maintain a copy of a certification made under this subsection.
`(6) REVIEW- A certification submitted in accordance with this subsection shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to subsection (i).
`(h) Directives and Judicial Review of Directives-
`(1) AUTHORITY- With respect to an acquisition authorized under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may direct, in writing, an electronic communication service provider to--
`(A) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in a manner that will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such electronic communication service provider is providing to the target of the acquisition; and
`(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such electronic communication service provider wishes to maintain.
`(2) COMPENSATION- The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, an electronic communication service provider for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).
`(3) RELEASE FROM LIABILITY- No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).
`(4) CHALLENGING OF DIRECTIVES-
`(A) AUTHORITY TO CHALLENGE- An electronic communication service provider receiving a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1) may file a petition to modify or set aside such directive with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such petition.
`(B) ASSIGNMENT- The presiding judge of the Court shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) to 1 of the judges serving in the pool established under section 103(e)(1) not later than 24 hours after the filing of such petition.
`(C) STANDARDS FOR REVIEW- A judge considering a petition filed under subparagraph (A) may grant such petition only if the judge finds that the directive does not meet the requirements of this section, or is otherwise unlawful.
`(D) PROCEDURES FOR INITIAL REVIEW- A judge shall conduct an initial review of a petition filed under subparagraph (A) not later than 5 days after being assigned such petition. If the judge determines that such petition does not consist of claims, defenses, or other legal contentions that are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law, the judge shall immediately deny such petition and affirm the directive or any part of the directive that is the subject of such petition and order the recipient to comply with the directive or any part of it. Upon making a determination under this subparagraph or promptly thereafter, the judge shall provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for such determination.
`(E) PROCEDURES FOR PLENARY REVIEW- If a judge determines that a petition filed under subparagraph (A) requires plenary review, the judge shall affirm, modify, or set aside the directive that is the subject of such petition not later than 30 days after being assigned such petition. If the judge does not set aside the directive, the judge shall immediately affirm or affirm with modifications the directive, and order the recipient to comply with the directive in its entirety or as modified. The judge shall provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for a determination under this subparagraph.
`(F) CONTINUED EFFECT- Any directive not explicitly modified or set aside under this paragraph shall remain in full effect.
`(G) CONTEMPT OF COURT- Failure to obey an order issued under this paragraph may be punished by the Court as contempt of court.
`(5) ENFORCEMENT OF DIRECTIVES-
`(A) ORDER TO COMPEL- If an electronic communication service provider fails to comply with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1), the Attorney General may file a petition for an order to compel the electronic communication service provider to comply with the directive with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such petition.
`(B) ASSIGNMENT- The presiding judge of the Court shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) to 1 of the judges serving in the pool established under section 103(e)(1) not later than 24 hours after the filing of such petition.
`(C) PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW- A judge considering a petition filed under subparagraph (A) shall, not later than 30 days after being assigned such petition, issue an order requiring the electronic communication service provider to comply with the directive or any part of it, as issued or as modified, if the judge finds that the directive meets the requirements of this section and is otherwise lawful. The judge shall provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for a determination under this paragraph.
`(D) CONTEMPT OF COURT- Failure to obey an order issued under this paragraph may be punished by the Court as contempt of court.
`(E) PROCESS- Any process under this paragraph may be served in any judicial district in which the electronic communication service provider may be found.
`(6) APPEAL-
`(A) APPEAL TO THE COURT OF REVIEW- The Government or an electronic communication service provider receiving a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1) may file a petition with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review for review of a decision issued pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5). The Court of Review shall have jurisdiction to consider such petition and shall provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for a decision under this subparagraph.
`(B) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT- The Government or an electronic communication service provider receiving a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1) may file a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of a decision of the Court of Review issued under subparagraph (A). The record for such review shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
`(i) Judicial Review of Certifications and Procedures-
`(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) REVIEW BY THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) and the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e), and amendments to such certification or such procedures.
`(B) TIME PERIOD FOR REVIEW- The Court shall review a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) and the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) and shall complete such review and issue an order under paragraph (3) not later than 30 days after the date on which such certification and such procedures are submitted.
`(C) AMENDMENTS- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may amend a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) or the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) as necessary at any time, including if the Court is conducting or has completed review of such certification or such procedures, and shall submit the amended certification or amended procedures to the Court not later than 7 days after amending such certification or such procedures. The Court shall review any amendment under this subparagraph under the procedures set forth in this subsection. The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize the use of an amended certification or amended procedures pending the Court's review of such amended certification or amended procedures.
`(2) REVIEW- The Court shall review the following:
`(A) CERTIFICATION- A certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) to determine whether the certification contains all the required elements.
`(B) TARGETING PROCEDURES- The targeting procedures adopted in accordance with subsection (d) to assess whether the procedures are reasonably designed to--
`(i) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(ii) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.
`(C) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES- The minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsection (e) to assess whether such procedures meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or section 301(4), as appropriate.
`(3) ORDERS-
`(A) APPROVAL- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) contains all the required elements and that the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are consistent with the requirements of those subsections and with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall enter an order approving the certification and the use, or continued use in the case of an acquisition authorized pursuant to a determination under subsection (c)(2), of the procedures for the acquisition.
`(B) CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES- If the Court finds that a certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) does not contain all the required elements, or that the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) are not consistent with the requirements of those subsections or the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Court shall issue an order directing the Government to, at the Government's election and to the extent required by the Court's order--
`(i) correct any deficiency identified by the Court's order not later than 30 days after the date on which the Court issues the order; or
`(ii) cease, or not begin, the implementation of the authorization for which such certification was submitted.
`(C) REQUIREMENT FOR WRITTEN STATEMENT- In support of an order under this subsection, the Court shall provide, simultaneously with the order, for the record a written statement of the reasons for the order.
`(4) APPEAL-
`(A) APPEAL TO THE COURT OF REVIEW- The Government may file a petition with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review for review of an order under this subsection. The Court of Review shall have jurisdiction to consider such petition. For any decision under this subparagraph affirming, reversing, or modifying an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Court of Review shall provide for the record a written statement of the reasons for the decision.
`(B) CONTINUATION OF ACQUISITION PENDING REHEARING OR APPEAL- Any acquisition affected by an order under paragraph (3)(B) may continue--
`(i) during the pendency of any rehearing of the order by the Court en banc; and
`(ii) if the Government files a petition for review of an order under this section, until the Court of Review enters an order under subparagraph (C).
`(C) IMPLEMENTATION PENDING APPEAL- Not later than 60 days after the filing of a petition for review of an order under paragraph (3)(B) directing the correction of a deficiency, the Court of Review shall determine, and enter a corresponding order regarding, whether all or any part of the correction order, as issued or modified, shall be implemented during the pendency of the review.
`(D) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT- The Government may file a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of a decision of the Court of Review issued under subparagraph (A). The record for such review shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
`(5) SCHEDULE-
`(A) REAUTHORIZATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS IN EFFECT- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence seek to reauthorize or replace an authorization issued under subsection (a), the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall, to the extent practicable, submit to the Court the certification prepared in accordance with subsection (g) and the procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) at least 30 days prior to the expiration of such authorization.
`(B) REAUTHORIZATION OF ORDERS, AUTHORIZATIONS, AND DIRECTIVES- If the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence seek to reauthorize or replace an authorization issued under subsection (a) by filing a certification pursuant to subparagraph (A), that authorization, and any directives issued thereunder and any order related thereto, shall remain in effect, notwithstanding the expiration provided for in subsection (a), until the Court issues an order with respect to such certification under paragraph (3) at which time the provisions of that paragraph and paragraph (4) shall apply with respect to such certification.
`(j) Judicial Proceedings-
`(1) EXPEDITED JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS- Judicial proceedings under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible.
`(2) TIME LIMITS- A time limit for a judicial decision in this section shall apply unless the Court, the Court of Review, or any judge of either the Court or the Court of Review, by order for reasons stated, extends that time as necessary for good cause in a manner consistent with national security.
`(k) Maintenance and Security of Records and Proceedings-
`(1) STANDARDS- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall maintain a record of a proceeding under this section, including petitions, appeals, orders, and statements of reasons for a decision, under security measures adopted by the Chief Justice of the United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.
`(2) FILING AND REVIEW- All petitions under this section shall be filed under seal. In any proceedings under this section, the Court shall, upon request of the Government, review ex parte and in camera any Government submission, or portions of a submission, which may include classified information.
`(3) RETENTION OF RECORDS- The Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence shall retain a directive or an order issued under this section for a period of not less than 10 years from the date on which such directive or such order is issued.
`(l) Assessments and Reviews-
`(1) SEMIANNUAL ASSESSMENT- Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence shall assess compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) and the guidelines adopted in accordance with subsection (f) and shall submit each assessment to--
`(A) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; and
`(B) consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution--
`(i) the congressional intelligence committees; and
`(ii) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
`(2) AGENCY ASSESSMENT- The Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the Inspector General of each element of the intelligence community authorized to acquire foreign intelligence information under subsection (a), with respect to the department or element of such Inspector General--
`(A) are authorized to review compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) and the guidelines adopted in accordance with subsection (f);
`(B) with respect to acquisitions authorized under subsection (a), shall review the number of disseminated intelligence reports containing a reference to a United States-person identity and the number of United States-person identities subsequently disseminated by the element concerned in response to requests for identities that were not referred to by name or title in the original reporting;
`(C) with respect to acquisitions authorized under subsection (a), shall review the number of targets that were later determined to be located in the United States and, to the extent possible, whether communications of such targets were reviewed; and
`(D) shall provide each such review to--
`(i) the Attorney General;
`(ii) the Director of National Intelligence; and
`(iii) consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution--
`(I) the congressional intelligence committees; and
`(II) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
`(3) ANNUAL REVIEW-
`(A) REQUIREMENT TO CONDUCT- The head of each element of the intelligence community conducting an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) shall conduct an annual review to determine whether there is reason to believe that foreign intelligence information has been or will be obtained from the acquisition. The annual review shall provide, with respect to acquisitions authorized under subsection (a)--
`(i) an accounting of the number of disseminated intelligence reports containing a reference to a United States-person identity;
`(ii) an accounting of the number of United States-person identities subsequently disseminated by that element in response to requests for identities that were not referred to by name or title in the original reporting;
`(iii) the number of targets that were later determined to be located in the United States and, to the extent possible, whether communications of such targets were reviewed; and
`(iv) a description of any procedures developed by the head of such element of the intelligence community and approved by the Director of National Intelligence to assess, in a manner consistent with national security, operational requirements and the privacy interests of United States persons, the extent to which the acquisitions authorized under subsection (a) acquire the communications of United States persons, and the results of any such assessment.
`(B) USE OF REVIEW- The head of each element of the intelligence community that conducts an annual review under subparagraph (A) shall use each such review to evaluate the adequacy of the minimization procedures utilized by such element and, as appropriate, the application of the minimization procedures to a particular acquisition authorized under subsection (a).
`(C) PROVISION OF REVIEW- The head of each element of the intelligence community that conducts an annual review under subparagraph (A) shall provide such review to--
`(i) the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court;
`(ii) the Attorney General;
`(iii) the Director of National Intelligence; and
`(iv) consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution--
`(I) the congressional intelligence committees; and
`(II) the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
`SEC. 703. CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS INSIDE THE UNITED STATES TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Jurisdiction of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to enter an order approving the targeting of a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such acquisition is conducted within the United States.
`(2) LIMITATION- If a United States person targeted under this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the United States during the effective period of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such United States person under this section shall cease unless the targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to be located outside the United States while an order issued pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.
`(b) Application-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Each application for an order under this section shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1). Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon the Attorney General's finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application, as set forth in this section, and shall include--
`(A) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
`(B) the identity, if known, or a description of the United States person who is the target of the acquisition;
`(C) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the applicant's belief that the United States person who is the target of the acquisition is--
`(i) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(ii) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;
`(D) a statement of proposed minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate;
`(E) a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to acquisition;
`(F) a certification made by the Attorney General or an official specified in section 104(a)(6) that--
`(i) the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
`(ii) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
`(iii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
`(iv) designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 101(e); and
`(v) includes a statement of the basis for the certification that--
`(I) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
`(II) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
`(G) a summary statement of the means by which the acquisition will be conducted and whether physical entry is required to effect the acquisition;
`(H) the identity of any electronic communication service provider necessary to effect the acquisition, provided that the application is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition authorized under this section will be directed or conducted;
`(I) a statement of the facts concerning any previous applications that have been made to any judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court involving the United States person specified in the application and the action taken on each previous application; and
`(J) a statement of the period of time for which the acquisition is required to be maintained, provided that such period of time shall not exceed 90 days per application.
`(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application.
`(3) OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDGE- The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the findings required by subsection (c)(1).
`(c) Order-
`(1) FINDINGS- Upon an application made pursuant to subsection (b), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified by the Court approving the acquisition if the Court finds that--
`(A) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
`(B) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant, for the United States person who is the target of the acquisition, there is probable cause to believe that the target is--
`(i) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(ii) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;
`(C) the proposed minimization procedures meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate; and
`(D) the application that has been filed contains all statements and certifications required by subsection (b) and the certification or certifications are not clearly erroneous on the basis of the statement made under subsection (b)(1)(F)(v) and any other information furnished under subsection (b)(3).
`(2) PROBABLE CAUSE- In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) may consider past activities of the target and facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target. No United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(3) REVIEW-
`(A) LIMITATION ON REVIEW- Review by a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) shall be limited to that required to make the findings described in paragraph (1).
`(B) REVIEW OF PROBABLE CAUSE- If the judge determines that the facts submitted under subsection (b) are insufficient to establish probable cause under paragraph (1)(B), the judge shall enter an order so stating and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for the determination. The Government may appeal an order under this subparagraph pursuant to subsection (f).
`(C) REVIEW OF MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES- If the judge determines that the proposed minimization procedures referred to in paragraph (1)(C) do not meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate, the judge shall enter an order so stating and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for the determination. The Government may appeal an order under this subparagraph pursuant to subsection (f).
`(D) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- If the judge determines that an application pursuant to subsection (b) does not contain all of the required elements, or that the certification or certifications are clearly erroneous on the basis of the statement made under subsection (b)(1)(F)(v) and any other information furnished under subsection (b)(3), the judge shall enter an order so stating and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for the determination. The Government may appeal an order under this subparagraph pursuant to subsection (f).
`(4) SPECIFICATIONS- An order approving an acquisition under this subsection shall specify--
`(A) the identity, if known, or a description of the United States person who is the target of the acquisition identified or described in the application pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(B);
`(B) if provided in the application pursuant to subsection (b)(1)(H), the nature and location of each of the facilities or places at which the acquisition will be directed;
`(C) the nature of the information sought to be acquired and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to acquisition;
`(D) a summary of the means by which the acquisition will be conducted and whether physical entry is required to effect the acquisition; and
`(E) the period of time during which the acquisition is approved.
`(5) DIRECTIVES- An order approving an acquisition under this subsection shall direct--
`(A) that the minimization procedures referred to in paragraph (1)(C), as approved or modified by the Court, be followed;
`(B) if applicable, an electronic communication service provider to provide to the Government forthwith all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition authorized under such order in a manner that will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such electronic communication service provider is providing to the target of the acquisition;
`(C) if applicable, an electronic communication service provider to maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such electronic communication service provider wishes to maintain; and
`(D) if applicable, that the Government compensate, at the prevailing rate, such electronic communication service provider for providing such information, facilities, or assistance.
`(6) DURATION- An order approved under this subsection shall be effective for a period not to exceed 90 days and such order may be renewed for additional 90-day periods upon submission of renewal applications meeting the requirements of subsection (b).
`(7) COMPLIANCE- At or prior to the end of the period of time for which an acquisition is approved by an order or extension under this section, the judge may assess compliance with the minimization procedures referred to in paragraph (1)(C) by reviewing the circumstances under which information concerning United States persons was acquired, retained, or disseminated.
`(d) Emergency Authorization-
`(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
`(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order authorizing such acquisition can with due diligence be obtained, and
`(B) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subsection to approve such acquisition exists,
the Attorney General may authorize such acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) is informed by the Attorney General, or a designee of the Attorney General, at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.
`(2) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES- If the Attorney General authorizes an acquisition under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures referred to in subsection (c)(1)(C) for the issuance of a judicial order be followed.
`(3) TERMINATION OF EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- In the absence of a judicial order approving an acquisition under paragraph (1), such acquisition shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.
`(4) USE OF INFORMATION- If an application for approval submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) is denied, or in any other case where the acquisition is terminated and no order is issued approving the acquisition, no information obtained or evidence derived from such acquisition, except under circumstances in which the target of the acquisition is determined not to be a United States person, shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such acquisition shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
`(e) Release From Liability- No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with an order or request for emergency assistance issued pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), respectively.
`(f) Appeal-
`(1) APPEAL TO THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW- The Government may file a petition with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review for review of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c). The Court of Review shall have jurisdiction to consider such petition and shall provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for a decision under this paragraph.
`(2) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT- The Government may file a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of a decision of the Court of Review issued under paragraph (1). The record for such review shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.
`(g) Construction- Except as provided in this section, nothing in this Act shall be construed to require an application for a court order for an acquisition that is targeted in accordance with this section at a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
`SEC. 704. OTHER ACQUISITIONS TARGETING UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

`(a) Jurisdiction and Scope-
`(1) JURISDICTION- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to enter an order pursuant to subsection (c).
`(2) SCOPE- No element of the intelligence community may intentionally target, for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information, a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States under circumstances in which the targeted United States person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required if the acquisition were conducted inside the United States for law enforcement purposes, unless a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has entered an order with respect to such targeted United States person or the Attorney General has authorized an emergency acquisition pursuant to subsection (c) or (d), respectively, or any other provision of this Act.
`(3) LIMITATIONS-
`(A) MOVING OR MISIDENTIFIED TARGETS- If a United States person targeted under this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the United States during the effective period of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such United States person under this section shall cease unless the targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to be located outside the United States during the effective period of such order.
`(B) APPLICABILITY- If an acquisition for foreign intelligence purposes is to be conducted inside the United States and could be authorized under section 703, the acquisition may only be conducted if authorized under section 703 or in accordance with another provision of this Act other than this section.
`(C) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.
`(b) Application- Each application for an order under this section shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1). Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon the Attorney General's finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application as set forth in this section and shall include--
`(1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;
`(2) the identity, if known, or a description of the specific United States person who is the target of the acquisition;
`(3) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the applicant's belief that the United States person who is the target of the acquisition is--
`(A) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(B) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;
`(4) a statement of proposed minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate;
`(5) a certification made by the Attorney General, an official specified in section 104(a)(6), or the head of an element of the intelligence community that--
`(A) the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information; and
`(B) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
`(6) a statement of the facts concerning any previous applications that have been made to any judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court involving the United States person specified in the application and the action taken on each previous application; and
`(7) a statement of the period of time for which the acquisition is required to be maintained, provided that such period of time shall not exceed 90 days per application.
`(c) Order-
`(1) FINDINGS- Upon an application made pursuant to subsection (b), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified by the Court if the Court finds that--
`(A) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;
`(B) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant, for the United States person who is the target of the acquisition, there is probable cause to believe that the target is--
`(i) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and
`(ii) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;
`(C) the proposed minimization procedures, with respect to their dissemination provisions, meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate; and
`(D) the application that has been filed contains all statements and certifications required by subsection (b) and the certification provided under subsection (b)(5) is not clearly erroneous on the basis of the information furnished under subsection (b).
`(2) PROBABLE CAUSE- In determining whether or not probable cause exists for purposes of paragraph (1)(B), a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) may consider past activities of the target and facts and circumstances relating to current or future activities of the target. No United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
`(3) REVIEW-
`(A) LIMITATIONS ON REVIEW- Review by a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) shall be limited to that required to make the findings described in paragraph (1). The judge shall not have jurisdiction to review the means by which an acquisition under this section may be conducted.
`(B) REVIEW OF PROBABLE CAUSE- If the judge determines that the facts submitted under subsection (b) are insufficient to establish probable cause to issue an order under this subsection, the judge shall enter an order so stating and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for such determination. The Government may appeal an order under this subparagraph pursuant to subsection (e).
`(C) REVIEW OF MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES- If the judge determines that the minimization procedures applicable to dissemination of information obtained through an acquisition under this subsection do not meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate, the judge shall enter an order so stating and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for such determination. The Government may appeal an order under this subparagraph pursuant to subsection (e).
`(D) SCOPE OF REVIEW OF CERTIFICATION- If the judge determines that an application under subsection (b) does not contain all the required elements, or that the certification provided under subsection (b)(5) is clearly erroneous on the basis of the information furnished under subsection (b), the judge shall enter an order so stating and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for such determination. The Government may appeal an order under this subparagraph pursuant to subsection (e).
`(4) DURATION- An order under this paragraph shall be effective for a period not to exceed 90 days and such order may be renewed for additional 90-day periods upon submission of renewal applications meeting the requirements of subsection (b).
`(5) COMPLIANCE- At or prior to the end of the period of time for which an order or extension is granted under this section, the judge may assess compliance with the minimization procedures referred to in paragraph (1)(C) by reviewing the circumstances under which information concerning United States persons was disseminated, provided that the judge may not inquire into the circumstances relating to the conduct of the acquisition.
`(d) Emergency Authorization-
`(1) AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, if the Attorney General reasonably determines that--
`(A) an emergency situation exists with respect to the acquisition of foreign intelligence information for which an order may be obtained under subsection (c) before an order under that subsection can, with due diligence, be obtained, and
`(B) the factual basis for the issuance of an order under this section exists,
the Attorney General may authorize the emergency acquisition if a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) is informed by the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to conduct such acquisition and if an application in accordance with this section is made to a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as soon as practicable, but not more than 7 days after the Attorney General authorizes such acquisition.
`(2) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES- If the Attorney General authorizes an emergency acquisition under paragraph (1), the Attorney General shall require that the minimization procedures referred to in subsection (c)(1)(C) be followed.
`(3) TERMINATION OF EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION- In the absence of an order under subsection (c), an emergency acquisition under paragraph (1) shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, if the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 7 days from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest.
`(4) USE OF INFORMATION- If an application submitted to the Court pursuant to paragraph (1) is denied, or in any other case where the acquisition is terminated and no order with respect to the target of the acquisition is issued under subsection (c), no information obtained or evidence derived from such acquisition, except under circumstances in which the target of the acquisition is determined not to be a United States person, shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such acquisition shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.
`(e) Appeal-
`(1) APPEAL TO THE COURT OF REVIEW- The Government may file a petition with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review for review of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c). The Court of Review shall have jurisdiction to consider such petition and shall provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for a decision under this paragraph.
`(2) CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT- The Government may file a petition for a writ of certiorari for review of a decision of the Court of Review issued under paragraph (1). The record for such review shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.'
`SEC. 705. JOINT APPLICATIONS AND CONCURRENT AUTHORIZATIONS.

`(a) Joint Applications and Orders- If an acquisition targeting a United States person under section 703 or 704 is proposed to be conducted both inside and outside the United States, a judge having jurisdiction under section 703(a)(1) or 704(a)(1) may issue simultaneously, upon the request of the Government in a joint application complying with the requirements of sections 703(b) and 704(b), orders under sections 703(c) and 704(c), as appropriate.
`(b) Concurrent Authorization- If an order authorizing electronic surveillance or physical search has been obtained under section 105 or 304, the Attorney General may authorize, for the effective period of that order, without an order under section 703 or 704, the targeting of that United States person for the purpose of acquiring foreign intelligence information while such person is reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
`SEC. 706. USE OF INFORMATION ACQUIRED UNDER TITLE VII.

`(a) Information Acquired Under Section 702- Information acquired from an acquisition conducted under section 702 shall be deemed to be information acquired from an electronic surveillance pursuant to title I for purposes of section 106, except for the purposes of subsection (j) of such section.
`(b) Information Acquired Under Section 703- Information acquired from an acquisition conducted under section 703 shall be deemed to be information acquired from an electronic surveillance pursuant to title I for purposes of section 106.
`SEC. 707. CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT.

`(a) Semiannual Report- Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Attorney General shall fully inform, in a manner consistent with national security, the congressional intelligence committees and the Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives, consistent with the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution, concerning the implementation of this title.
`(b) Content- Each report under subsection (a) shall include--
`(1) with respect to section 702--
`(A) any certifications submitted in accordance with section 702(g) during the reporting period;
`(B) with respect to each determination under section 702(c)(2), the reasons for exercising the authority under such section;
`(C) any directives issued under section 702(h) during the reporting period;
`(D) a description of the judicial review during the reporting period of such certifications and targeting and minimization procedures adopted in accordance with subsections (d) and (e) of section 702 and utilized with respect to an acquisition under such section, including a copy of an order or pleading in connection with such review that contains a significant legal interpretation of the provisions of section 702;
`(E) any actions taken to challenge or enforce a directive under paragraph (4) or (5) of section 702(h);
`(F) any compliance reviews conducted by the Attorney General or the Director of National Intelligence of acquisitions authorized under section 702(a);
`(G) a description of any incidents of noncompliance--
`(i) with a directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under section 702(h), including incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to whom the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence issued a directive under section 702(h); and
`(ii) by an element of the intelligence community with procedures and guidelines adopted in accordance with subsections (d), (e), and (f) of section 702; and
`(H) any procedures implementing section 702;
`(2) with respect to section 703--
`(A) the total number of applications made for orders under section 703(b);
`(B) the total number of such orders--
`(i) granted;
`(ii) modified; and
`(iii) denied; and
`(C) the total number of emergency acquisitions authorized by the Attorney General under section 703(d) and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying such acquisitions; and
`(3) with respect to section 704--
`(A) the total number of applications made for orders under section 704(b);
`(B) the total number of such orders--
`(i) granted;
`(ii) modified; and
`(iii) denied; and
`(C) the total number of emergency acquisitions authorized by the Attorney General under section 704(d) and the total number of subsequent orders approving or denying such applications.
`SEC. 708. SAVINGS PROVISION.

`Nothing in this title shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.'.
(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to title VII;
(2) by striking the item relating to section 701; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`TITLE VII--ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES REGARDING CERTAIN PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

`Sec. 701. Definitions.
`Sec. 702. Procedures for targeting certain persons outside the United States other than United States persons.
`Sec. 703. Certain acquisitions inside the United States targeting United States persons outside the United States.
`Sec. 704. Other acquisitions targeting United States persons outside the United States.
`Sec. 705. Joint applications and concurrent authorizations.
`Sec. 706. Use of information acquired under title VII.
`Sec. 707. Congressional oversight.
`Sec. 708. Savings provision.'.
(c) Technical and Conformin

[1Hippiechick]

1. repeating BLANKET IMMUNITY snippet is tatamount to an Obama smear, isn't it?

right within our on DP....

people will not take the time and energy to investigate or LISTEN to what Obama says......big sigh here.....they just jump on a snippet like a vulture picking at a carcass, and then it's off to Rant Land.....

Thank you, berni mccoy!

[RoyGBiv]

53. No, it is not. n/t

[Mz Pip]

2. My understanding

is that it does not give the telecoms immunity from criminal prosecution. IF that is the case then I think people are wrongly upset over Obama's apparent willingness to vote for it.

The telecoms can still be held accoutable for criminal activity.

At least that's my take on it. :shrug:

[TheKentuckian]

8. If they cannot be sued

How are they held to account?

This also reminds me that we need to push for simplification of legislation. This one is nothing really as far as gobbledygook but I still believe as closely as possible all bills should be limited to what they are supposed to address. The piggybacking stuff stinks. Everyone can cite very legit reasons for voting for bills they are against and vice versa because of the way we allow riders and the like.

[berni_mccoy]

12. The Government is to be held accountable for using the Telecom companies.

That's what the Bill says.

[slipslidingaway]

27. John Dean Weighs In On His FISA Comment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6423637&mesg_id=6423637

Not sure if that came from the interview John Dean did with Keith Olbermann last week??? If so, he was contacted yesterday Jane Hamsher of FDL and she posted his comments here.

Direct link to FDL
http://firedoglake.com/2008/06/27/glenzilla-vs-olbermann-john-dean-weighs-in/


The immunity provision is just one aspect of the bill, for me I'll trust what Feingold has said about the bill in general.

:shrug:

[MrModerate]

3. Check this out. It translates to blanket immunity with . . .

A monomolecular veneer of judicial review. We been hosed, folks.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/22/calabresi/index.html

[Breeze54]

4. It gives the Telecoms RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY... THAT'S the issue!!! n/t

[merh]

6. It doesn't give them blanket immunity.

Give me the provisions regarding immunity - tell me how that works by citing the actual language from the act.

[Breeze54]

10. It means that they can't be prosecuted for illegal spying!! Total BS!!

:grr:

[berni_mccoy]

16. No it doesn't. It does not cover a telecom against breaking the law.

[Lord Helmet]

17. your hysterical response notwithstanding, it leaves room for criminal prosecution

[Breeze54]

46. You're ridiculous description of my anger is just that... ridiculous.

Get off your high horse there, Lord of BS!

[merh]

18. No it does not.

Find me the language in the legislation the OP posted that provides that.

[berni_mccoy]

13. No. It does not give them immunity from breaking the law.

[merh]

5. It doesn't give blanket immunity.

It provides for judicial review and Congressional oversight and review, and I think it is more specific in the definitions as to who is subject to monitoring under this act.

As I have asked others, is it better to have a law that governs our intelligence gathering (spying) activities or should there be no law with not standards and restrictions?

What do those who oppose this law suggest? How should it be rewritten?

And someone remind me, was the last person lawfully convicted of spying in our nation a US citizen or a foreigner?

[Patsy Stone]

7. Title VIII in the Amendments:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110KG3aGF:e100091:

SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

`(a) In General- No State shall have authority to--

`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

`(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

802 is good also. As you read, please note that in the Definitions at the top of the page, one of the definitions of a a Person is the telecoms.

[berni_mccoy]

15. I think you need to read that again. It does not define a person as a telecom.

Telecoms are defined as: ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER. And that term is used later to discuss immunity for civil suits.

[Patsy Stone]

19. ?

`(8) PERSON- The term `person' means--

`(A) an electronic communication service provider; or

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

`(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that...

`(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

`(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

`(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

`(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

`(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

`(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

`(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

`(i) authorized by the President; and

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or

`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.


So, that doesn't say that a telecom can't have a suit filed against it if the AG finds it falls within one of these categories -- not the least of those is that it's simply been "authorized by the president"?

Believe me, I'm no lawyer, and I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative, but it seems like this Amendment is the sticky widget.

[berni_mccoy]

21. The Text you are citing does not exist in the current form of the bill.

[Patsy Stone]

24. I believe it is.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6304:

There are 3 versions of Bill Number H.R.6304 for the 110th Congress

1 . FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)H.R.6304.EH
2 . FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)
3 . FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

When you click on the link for the one passed by the House, it takes you to a page where TITLE II, Sections 801, 802, 803 exist.

If you click on the version the Senate is considering, TITLE II and the sections I've cited are in there too.

Your OP didn't seem to include the Amendments. I think the problem is with this Amendment, not the body of the Bill.

[berni_mccoy]

26. Interesting. I'm siting the one that the Senate has been debating.

I'll take a look at the other two links.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Ok, I see the text. Interesting that there are differences, and I do not know why there are.

But in the version passed by the house there is that language.

However, it does not change any argument I have made in the OP. This bill does not grant BLANKET IMMUNITY to telecom. It prevents them from being sued in a civil case. Those who have been wrongly searched by this bill need to sue the U.S. Government, not the telecoms.

It also does not give immunity to *anyone* from breaking the law.

[Patsy Stone]

33. Correct

And I never thought, or said, it did. But it does grant them retroactive immunity under certain circumstances, which people might take as "blanket immunity" for past offenses. Going forward is a different story, where once again they must work under FISA.

[berni_mccoy]

34. Yep, I agree.

[RoyGBiv]

37. Yes, it does ...

It:

a) removes standing from cases currently pending intended to determine the legality of the current administration's past actions, and

b) redefines the law such that any order given to the telcos that the entity giving it "certifies" as legal is the only test necessary for the telco to be held not liable for any activities in which they engage.

OnEdit:

There are no differences currently. The PCS link is the one place on the calendar in the Senate. As already mentioned, if you start at the top, you have to click "Forward" a few times to see the whole text. Regardless, from the contents page, you can click directly on each of these sections.

[RoyGBiv]

55. Yes, it does ...

Various links have been provided.

Will you admit, now, that your understanding of the issue is based on a lack of facts?

You don't know what the text of the actual bill is, and you compose an argument based on that lack of knowledge. When someone points it out to you, you quibble nonsensically and then when faced with the fact your understanding of the bill's content was flawed has no bearing. Your argument still stands.

Well, no, it doesn't stand. How do you address the arguments made by real, bona fide legal scholars regarding this matter?

[Breeze54]

45. Corporations were given "personhood" by Bush! Did you forget about that? n/t

[Political Heretic]

81. Um...... what?

Corporations were not given "personhood" by bush.

The were given personhood in 1863.

Maybe I missed some sarcasm or something.

[midnight]

9. Senator Feingold sums it up best when he says........

“This is a deeply flawed bill, which does nothing more than offer retroactive immunity by another name. http://rawstory.com/news08/2008/06/24/feingold-dodd-planning-filibuster-of-wiretap-bill/

[Breeze54]

11. Thank You!!!

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

14. Maybe Feingold's analysis is deeply flawed. He's been wrong before. Not often, but it does happen.

[Cha]

20. Thanks for your work on this,

bernie.

[PeaceNikki]

22. Read his statement. Immunity is far from the only concern.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/06/20080625f.htm

Mr. President, the immunity provision is a key reason for that. It is a key reason for my opposition to this legislation and for that of so many of my colleagues and so many Americans. No one should be fooled about the effect of this bill. Under its terms, the companies that allegedly participated in the illegal wiretapping program will walk away from these lawsuits with immunity. There is simply no question about it, and anyone who says that this bill preserves a meaningful role for the courts to play in deciding these cases is wrong.

But I’m concerned that the focus on immunity has diverted attention away from the other very important issues at stake in this legislation. In the long run, I don’t believe this will be remembered as the ‘immunity’ bill. This legislation is going to be remembered as the legislation in which Congress granted the executive branch the power to sweep up all of our international communications with very few controls or oversight.

Mr. President, I’m talking about Title I of the bill, the title that makes substantive changes to the FISA statute. I’d like to explain why I am so concerned about the new surveillance powers granted in this part of the bill, and why the modest improvements made to this part of the bill don’t go far enough.

...

But Mr. President, let me now turn to the grant of retroactive immunity that is contained in this bill because on that issue there is no question that any differences between this bill and the Senate bill are only cosmetic. Make no mistake: This bill will result in immunity.

Under the terms of this bill, a federal district court would evaluate whether there is substantial evidence that a company received “a written request or directive … from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community … indicating that the activity was authorized by the President and determined to be lawful.”

More at link

[berni_mccoy]

23. His issues are a concern, but they are addressed by FISA court review, as they always have been.

I agree, I too am concerned about 'bulk monitoring' as he calls it. They cast a net that covers every international conversation. I believe this is wrong. But at least the new Bill provides for accountability, something the current Administration has not had to live up to.

Even Feingold admits that Immunity (from CIVIL SUIT) is not the issue.

[PeaceNikki]

25. Oh, he knows it's an issue, just not the biggest concern.

He's never ever said it's NOT an issue.

[rodeodance]

28. NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON FISA BILL, H.R. 6304

and more for many to read and think about.

Forum Name General Discussion: Presidential
Topic subject NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON FISA BILL, H.R. 6304
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6422561#6422561
6422561, NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON FISA BILL, H.R. 6304
Posted by Phred42 on Sat Jun-28-08 11:27 AM

edit - sorry this ended up in th wrong place - it didn't ask me where

Ok - a little late, but I just found this.

The final vote will be in July. Maybe it's not too late


NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE BILL, H.R. 6304 <
http://nlg.org/news/index.php?entry=entry080624-090840[br /> Tuesday, June 24, 2008, 09:08 AM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 24, 2008

Contact: Contact: Marjorie Cohn, NLG President, [e-mail] ; 619-374-6923
Heidi Boghosian, NLG Executive Director, [e-mail] ; 212-679-5100,

NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD CALLS ON SENATE TO VOTE “NO” ON ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE BILL, H.R. 6304

New York. The National Lawyers Guild condemns the passage by the House of Representatives of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) bill, H.R. 6304, and calls upon the Senate to stand up for the Fourth Amendment and vote “No” when the measure comes before that body for approval this week.

“Senator Feingold has said it well,” said Marjorie Cohn, President of the National Lawyers Guild. “This is not a compromise measure; this is a total capitulation to the White House.”

The FISA bill passed by the House last week authorizes sweeping, untargeted surveillance of all electronic communications to and from this country. It also gives virtually complete immunity to the telephone companies who cooperate with the government and turn over personal telephone records for their customers without any notice to the consumer.

Under the House proposal, any member of Congress who is not on the Judiciary or Intelligence Committees will not have access to reports on the FISA surveillance. At the same time, the House bill wipes out any meaningful judicial review of the warrants issued to conduct the surveillance, creating an “exigent” circumstances exception that guts the Fourth Amendment. The special FISA court, which approves these warrants, will officially now be nothing but a rubber-stamp for the White House under the proposed measure.

Just two weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled against the administration for the third time in the Guantanamo detainee cases, reminding the nation that the so-called “War on Terror” is not a blank check for the President to eviscerate the Fourth Amendment. With this bill, the House of Representatives has handed the White House another blank check.

“The nation wants change. That is the message of this election. Let’s start meaningful change by ending secret government spying on Americans,” said Cohn.

Founded in 1937 as an alternative to the American Bar Association, which did not admit people of color, the National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization in the United States. Its headquarters are in New York and it has chapters in every state.

[berni_mccoy]

31. Look, I'm not defending the Bill. I'm just saying people are making it into something that it isn't

And that is just as wrong. This bill does not protect anyone who breaks the law. Did the Bush Administration and the Telecoms break the law? Absolutely. Are they protected from criminal prosecution with this bill? NO.

[merh]

39. You are not mistaken

Even with the amended language, there is NO BLANKET immunity.

Even if the wiretaps/surveillance was authorized by the president it would have to be for purposes of tracking terrorists or preventing terrorist attacks and, it could not be illegal - it could not be against the law. The immunity does not provide for violations of the law and does not give immunity to those that did, even if ordered by the president.

‘SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

‘(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

‘(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

‘(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

‘(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

‘(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

‘(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

‘(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

‘(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

‘(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

‘(i) authorized by the President; and

‘(ii) determined to be lawful; or

‘(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

‘(b) Judicial Review-

‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

‘(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

‘(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

‘(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

‘(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court’s written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

‘(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

‘(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

‘(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

‘(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

‘(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

[harun]

100. They may not be protected by this bill but the court cases in

progress right now will all be null and void and there will be no other cases. So while not protected, they no longer will be investigated. Which in essence is protecting them. There will be no other way to prosecute them because they have this bill to retroactively make their actions legal.

[merh]

109. That is not true

‘(b) Judicial Review-

‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

[harun]

112. It is true

That is just saying they need to show the Executive asked them to do it. Which the Executive did, so game over. It is a review of the permission given not a review of if permission should be granted.

I don't care if the telecoms get off, no else does either. The issue is that the Executive could have easily taken care of this in a number of ways that didn't break the law. They didn't because they think they don't have to follow the law and can get away with telling others they don't have to follow the law either.

Those sections you cited basically say we are going to have judicial review of the Executive giving permission to break the law. Then if they find they gave permission say, OK. Which the Executive has no right to do. That is why this bill is being pushed, to protect the Imperial Presidency.

[merh]

117. LOL, you are so wrong.

FISA was written and adopted to prevent the behavior you mistakenly believe this FISA law authorizes. Without a law such as FISA, the executive branch has ordered targeting of citizens both in and outside of the USA under the umbrella of "national security" - FISA provides steps that must be taken, consider the "certification" to be like an affidavit required by the courts when LEO seeks a search warrant. The affidavit means nothing until the FISA court reviews it, under the provisions required and in order to protect the 4th amendment rights of US citizens targeted, and if the court finds that the certificate meets the standards it then issues the court order authorizing the surveillance.

[Name removed]

124. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[merh]

125. For what? Actually discussing the legislation and understanding it?

For not running around all kooky misinterpreting the law? Wow, amazing - true debate in your eyes is bad - overreacting to the truth is okie dokie, believing wedge issues which are not legitimate and that make the dem nominee look bad is good?

Edit, the reason the FISA laws now is being revised is not because it is bad it is because it is expiring and needs to be tweaked. The NSA is what was the bad policy of this admin that did what you are so angry about - the admin that controlled and perverted the DOJ, that wouldn't let the FBI and the DOJ do their jobs, that provided no oversight to the intel agencies, that is what went wrong and what elected Obama will help to correct.

[NorthCarolina]

38. But just suppose Feingold is right (which is likely)...does it bother you in the least then?

eom

[rodeodance]

30. Russ has been closely following the FISA bills since the beginning. I trust his

thinking on this issue.
Thanks

[crankychatter]

32. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[RoyGBiv]

35. That's *not* the full text ...

That's the first page.

Please note that there's a "Forward" link on the LOC page. Click it a few times, and you get to these sections:

What you seem not to understand here is that the pending bill amends a prior FISA law and redefines how the FISA court functions. This bill *removes* certain restrictions of the prior FISA court by requiring only periodic review of the process rather than the specifics of the intelligence gathering.

Further, it removes liability from those assisting in the collection of electronic communications, e.g. telecommunications companies, by requiring them only to show that they were given an order either by the court or the President, the Attorney General, or the "head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) ..." Note the language that more specifically requires only that they be *informed* they were being given a legal order, e.g. President Bush hands them an order, says it is legal, and the telecommunications company is thus free from liability regardless of whether the order actually was legal.

This language has the effect of dismissing *every* pending case and preventing future cases as long as someone up there in the government says it is okay for them conduct the surveillance.

With the loophole provided by the "exigent circumstances" clause that allows the AG or intelligence director to engage in collecting surveillance for seven (7) days prior to submitting to the court, surveillance can essentially go on indefinitely as new "exigent circumstances" arise. That part, in effect, would make what Bush was doing in circumventing the court in the first place perfectly legal.

Thus, immunity for the telcos.

SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

`(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that--

`(1) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to an order of the court established under section 103(a) directing such assistance;

`(2) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a certification in writing under section 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) or 2709(b) of title 18, United States Code;

`(3) any assistance by that person was provided pursuant to a directive under section 102(a)(4), 105B(e), as added by section 2 of the Protect America Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-55), or 702(h) directing such assistance;

`(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

`(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

`(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

`(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

`(i) authorized by the President; and

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or

`(5) the person did not provide the alleged assistance.

`(b) Judicial Review-

`(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

`(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

`(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

`(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

`(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

`(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court's written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

`(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

`(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

`(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

`(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

`(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

`SEC. 803. PREEMPTION.

`(a) In General- No State shall have authority to--

`(1) conduct an investigation into an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(2) require through regulation or any other means the disclosure of information about an electronic communication service provider's alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community;

`(3) impose any administrative sanction on an electronic communication service provider for assistance to an element of the intelligence community; or

`(4) commence or maintain a civil action or other proceeding to enforce a requirement that an electronic communication service provider disclose information concerning alleged assistance to an element of the intelligence community.

`(b) Suits by the United States- The United States may bring suit to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(c) Jurisdiction- The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction over any civil action brought by the United States to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(d) Application- This section shall apply to any investigation, action, or proceeding that is pending on or commenced after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

`SEC. 804. REPORTING.

`(a) Semiannual Report- Not less frequently than once every 6 months, the Attorney General shall, in a manner consistent with national security, the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Standing Rules of the Senate, and Senate Resolution 400 of the 94th Congress or any successor Senate resolution, fully inform the congressional intelligence committees, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives concerning the implementation of this title.

`(b) Content- Each report made under subsection (a) shall include--

`(1) any certifications made under section 802;

`(2) a description of the judicial review of the certifications made under section 802; and

`(3) any actions taken to enforce the provisions of section 803.'.

[Mass]

36. So Obama was wrong? Because he said he would fight and support an amendment which gets rid of

immunity.

Sorry, I trust him, Feingold, and others better more I trust you when it comes to laws.

[Breeze54]

48. Yes.... the telecoms broke the law,

Obama wrong. Feingold right.

[RoyGBiv]

54. Thank god ...

I'm glad someone on this thread has some sense.

[ileus]

40. I still don't think we'll hit the lawsuit lottery on this issue....sorry Imm doesn't matter.

Now if there's a chance we could all get rich off this count me in.

[hokies4ever]

41. Who are we going to believe? The words on the bill or the media pundits?

:rofl:

[RoyGBiv]

42. Personally ...

I'll take the word of actual civil rights oriented lawyers, e.g. Jonathan Turley, lawyers for the ACLU, the National Lawyer's Guild, the Harvard Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, etc.

[hokies4ever]

49. Q. Where does the buck stop?

A. President Obama's desk. He has enough wiggle room to pursue the telecom companies if he wants.

[RoyGBiv]

51. This is not about Obama ...

This is about the power of the Executive. No thinking person should agree to the Executive having this kind of unchecked power because, as you may well know, the Executive changes from time to time.

I refuse to address the nonsense argument of "but our guy won't abuse the law" as in any way logical.

[hokies4ever]

59. Hate to break it to you, but nothing has changed

We're still dependent upon the next President exercising restraint. As long as signing statements are legal, we will always have this problem.

[RoyGBiv]

62. Oh, that's a good tactic ...

No argument on merit, so we bring in something unrelated.

Good move.

[hokies4ever]

64. All I did was speak the truth

Only an idiot would assume that my statement was an argument against them. I'm making the case that as long as signing statements are legal, the President essentially has line-item veto authority when it comes to regulation of the power of the President. It's the truth, and I think that something needs to be done about it. We can't just depend on the word of nominees that they will not abuse the power of the presidency.

[Duder]

43. FISA Hissy Fits...

'Telecoms are already exempt from having to second-guess the legality of a government request. From Feingold's Wednesday floor speech: "If the proper documentation is submitted, the company must cooperate with the request and will be immune from liability."'

http://stephencrosehome.blogspot.com/2008/06/are-fisa-hissy-fits-premature.html

[RoyGBiv]

44. Amazing ...

I cannot believe my eyes.

[merh]

47. And that is what this law provides.

there is no blanket immunity.

[RoyGBiv]

50. You are wrong n/t

[merh]

56. Really?

Provide me with the language from the bill.

[RoyGBiv]

57. Already done it ...

Repeatedly.

[merh]

58. You've never provided it to me.

I haven't a clue what you are referring to, I don't track your previous posts so what you have posted in the past means very little to this discussion.

[hokies4ever]

60. It's just easier for him to claim that he's right and you're wrong

instead of providing language from the bill. :rofl:

[RoyGBiv]

61. Roll over all you want ...

This is rich.

The OP, that has enrapture all those of you who want to explain away these provisions, excised a full two-thirds of the bill.

In *this* thread I posted the portion of the bill in question, with commentary, and in another post I offered a link to the actual full text of the bill.

And I'm the one that supposedly isn't providing language from the bill.

Beautiful.

[hokies4ever]

63. Yawn!

Wake me up when you have something intelligent to add to this debate. :rofl:

[merh]

71. and apparently they can't comprehend what they read

:shrug:

[dailykoff]

67. It's in posts # 19 and #37 above, links here:

#19: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6423384&mesg_id=6423575

#37: http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6423384&mesg_id=6423898

Roy's comment:

"It:

a) removes standing from cases currently pending intended to determine the legality of the current administration's past actions, and

b) redefines the law such that any order given to the telcos that the entity giving it "certifies" as legal is the only test necessary for the telco to be held not liable for any activities in which they engage."

[merh]

70. certification is SUBJECT TO REVIEW

‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

‘(c) Limitations on Disclosure- If the Attorney General files a declaration under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, that disclosure of a certification made pursuant to subsection (a) or the supplemental materials provided pursuant to subsection (b) or (d) would harm the national security of the United States, the court shall--

‘(1) review such certification and the supplemental materials in camera and ex parte; and

‘(2) limit any public disclosure concerning such certification and the supplemental materials, including any public order following such in camera and ex parte review, to a statement as to whether the case is dismissed and a description of the legal standards that govern the order, without disclosing the paragraph of subsection (a) that is the basis for the certification.

‘(d) Role of the Parties- Any plaintiff or defendant in a civil action may submit any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive to the district court referred to in subsection (a) for review and shall be permitted to participate in the briefing or argument of any legal issue in a judicial proceeding conducted pursuant to this section, but only to the extent that such participation does not require the disclosure of classified information to such party. To the extent that classified information is relevant to the proceeding or would be revealed in the determination of an issue, the court shall review such information in camera and ex parte, and shall issue any part of the court’s written order that would reveal classified information in camera and ex parte and maintain such part under seal.

‘(e) Nondelegation- The authority and duties of the Attorney General under this section shall be performed by the Attorney General (or Acting Attorney General) or the Deputy Attorney General.

‘(f) Appeal- The courts of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts of the United States granting or denying a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under this section.

‘(g) Removal- A civil action against a person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community that is brought in a State court shall be deemed to arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States and shall be removable under section 1441 of title 28, United States Code.

‘(h) Relationship to Other Laws- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any otherwise available immunity, privilege, or defense under any other provision of law.

‘(i) Applicability- This section shall apply to a civil action pending on or filed after the date of the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

[dailykoff]

73. Right, the certification is. Not the spying, not the targets, just the certificate.

Worthless rubberstamp.

[merh]

74. No it is not, despite your desire to be free, there has to be

rules of law for society to function and survive. These processes have been going on for decades without review, without governance, without oversight - at least now there is oversight and if I read the law correctly, these will be reviewed on a more regular basis by more than just one set of eyes - folks miss out on the language "intentional" - you can't order wiretapping of all communications and claim unintentional wiretapping of US citizens - there has to be specifics and can't be the generalities that exist now.

[dailykoff]

68. Money shot: "a civil action . . . shall be promptly dismissed"

"SEC. 802. PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTING STATUTORY DEFENSES.

(a) Requirement for Certification- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a civil action may not lie or be maintained in a Federal or State court against any person for providing assistance to an element of the intelligence community, and shall be promptly dismissed, if the Attorney General certifies to the district court of the United States in which such action is pending that..."

[merh]

69. Read further on - the certification is subject to appeal and review

and if the surveillance violates the law and/or was not for the purpose of terrorism then it fails.

If there was no review I could see how this would be a concern.

[dailykoff]

72. The court reviews the certificate, not the action or the target.

Nothing but a figleaf.

[merh]

75. LOL - how do folks now know they were tapped? They don't

and it has been happening for decades with no review, with no required certification, with no rules governing the applications. Riddle me this, who was the last person convicted of spying in the USofA - was it a foreigner or a US citizen? Was his illegal behavior potentionally harmful to the US security?

[dailykoff]

76. It's been happening since 2000 without oversight, and this would make that permanent.

FISA itself is a piece of shit. We don't need it. This just turns it into an even more irrelevant figleaf and also makes the crimes of Buscho legal.

[merh]

77. It has been happening long before that, what are you some type

of pollyanna? The reason Congress passed FISA in 1978 was to provide restrictions, to prevent an overzealous intelligence agency and/or executive from spying on US citizens in the name of "national security".

This law does not provide blanket immunity, it allows for review of the issued orders allowing the surveillances and/or search warrants, it provides for review of the action and civil suits if the actions do not comport with the law and if they violate civil liberties. IT DOES NOT absolve anyone of any criminal act.

[dailykoff]

78. It provides de facto blanket immunity for the telecoms

and makes their crimes legal. It also makes Bushco crimes legal and stops just short of giving them full immunity. I'm sure that's coming in future legislation. It also reduces judicial oversight to the most laughable of figleaves.

[merh]

79. No it does not.

There is no blanket immunity, there is still judicial oversight and congressional oversight.

[dailykoff]

80. There is de facto blanket immunity. If a cert shows up, no case.

As for the farcical oversight, read section 707 example, on Congressional oversight, which basically calls for an annual report from the AG describing how many "certificates" were issued and details -- of the ones that were DENIED.

:rofl:

[merh]

82. You are wrong, it does not.

Please provide me the language that you claim sets this out.

[dailykoff]

83. Sections 802 (telecom immunity) and 707 (Congressional oversight).

If you're not going to read it fine, but don't try to claim you know what's in it until you do.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoyGBiv]

52. Okay, fine ...

This banality is getting the attention, so I'll post a link to it here.

Repeat: this is not the full text of the bill. You're argument is based on a lack of understanding of the various sections of the law and how they interrelate. And every legal scholar I can find who isn't married to an ideologically right-wing think-tank of some sort disagrees with your assertion. Personally, I'll take an expert legal opinion over this any day.

Your mileage may vary.

Link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3536736&mesg_id=3536736

[Two Americas]

65. these people disagree with you

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Arab-America Anti-Discrimination Committee

Association of Research Libraries

Bill of Rights Defense Committee

Center for American Progress Action Fund

Center for Democracy & Technology

Center for National Security Studies

Congressman Bob Barr, Liberty Strategies

Defending Dissent Foundation

Doug Bandow, Vice President for Policy, Citizen Outreach Project

DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Fairfax County Privacy Council

Friends Committee on National Legislation

League of Women Voters of the United States

Liberty Coalition

MAS Freedom

OMB Watch

Open Society Policy Center

OpenTheGovernment.org

People For the American Way

Privacy Lives

Republican Liberty Caucus

The Multiracial Activist

United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

Why does Obama keep coming up on these threads? What does this have to do with Obama?

Can we not defend the Bill of Rights without the presumption that we are therefore taking a "love him" or a "hate him" stand on some politician?

[RoyGBiv]

66. It has nothing to do with him ...

Thank you for pointing that out.

And thank you for providing that list.

Although, I'm certain some home-grown legal scholars who haven't quite worked out how to use loc.gov will presume their knowledge of the issue is greater.

[berni_mccoy]

84. Show me one place where it give "blanket" immunity. You can't, and I'm not saying the Bill is good.

I'm saying if we go overboard calling it what it isn't then no one will take us seriously about what is wrong with it.

[Two Americas]

86. oh

I guess I don't know what you are talking about. I don't see what Obama has to do with this, nor what the significance of the word "blanket" is exactly.

I promise I will never say anything about Obama and never use the word "blanket." Would that solve the problem?

[berni_mccoy]

90. I don't see what Obama has to do with this either. You brought him up.

[BuyingThyme]

88. So, you're pretending that we've been talking about some other blanket?

(3) RELEASE FROM LIABILITY- No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).

ON EDIT: Individuals cannot sue the government in regards to activities which were conducted in secret.

What needs to be understood is that telecom immunity prevents discovery. The Bushes are not protecting telecoms from financial responsibility; they (with the assistance of people like Obama) are protecting themselves by obstructing discovery.

It's a huge government conspiracy to obstruct justice.

We still don't even know what the fuck they did to us, and the current bill was designed to keep us from ever finding out.

That's as blanket as it gets.

[merh]

89. You need to go back to (1) and realize that it has always

been the law that persons that are following orders and/or acting under the color of the law are free from liability - you cannot now sue the federal government or its agents if they are acting within the scope of their employment and are following the law. (Go read the Federal Torts Act and cases regarding sovereign immunity.) In addition, this legislation specifically provides that the law must be followed, no crimes be committed and the 4th amendment be complied with.

Paragraph 1 sets out what the agency must do, what must be completed for the directive to conduct the surveillance under the law and in accordance with the 4th. You can't grab paragraph 3 and say "this is blanket immunity" without reviewing and understanding the rest of the legislation. It doesn't work that way. You are wrong in your understanding of this legislation.

(3) RELEASE FROM LIABILITY- No cause of action shall lie in any court against any electronic communication service provider for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive issued pursuant to paragraph (1).

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall have jurisdiction to review an application and to enter an order approving the targeting of a United States person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information, if the acquisition constitutes electronic surveillance or the acquisition of stored electronic communications or stored electronic data that requires an order under this Act, and such acquisition is conducted within the United States.

‘(2) LIMITATION- If a United States person targeted under this subsection is reasonably believed to be located in the United States during the effective period of an order issued pursuant to subsection (c), an acquisition targeting such United States person under this section shall cease unless the targeted United States person is again reasonably believed to be located outside the United States while an order issued pursuant to subsection (c) is in effect. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of the Government to seek an order or authorization under, or otherwise engage in any activity that is authorized under, any other title of this Act.

‘(b) Application-

‘(1) IN GENERAL- Each application for an order under this section shall be made by a Federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation to a judge having jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1). Each application shall require the approval of the Attorney General based upon the Attorney General’s finding that it satisfies the criteria and requirements of such application, as set forth in this section, and shall include--

‘(A) the identity of the Federal officer making the application;

‘(B) the identity, if known, or a description of the United States person who is the target of the acquisition;

‘(C) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon to justify the applicant’s belief that the United States person who is the target of the acquisition is--

‘(i) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

‘(ii) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;

‘(D) a statement of proposed minimization procedures that meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate;

‘(E) a description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to acquisition;

‘(F) a certification made by the Attorney General or an official specified in section 104(a)(6) that--

‘(i) the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;

‘(ii) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information;

‘(iii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

‘(iv) designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 101(e); and

‘(v) includes a statement of the basis for the certification that--

‘(I) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and

‘(II) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

‘(G) a summary statement of the means by which the acquisition will be conducted and whether physical entry is required to effect the acquisition;

‘(H) the identity of any electronic communication service provider necessary to effect the acquisition, provided that the application is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition authorized under this section will be directed or conducted;

‘(I) a statement of the facts concerning any previous applications that have been made to any judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court involving the United States person specified in the application and the action taken on each previous application; and

‘(J) a statement of the period of time for which the acquisition is required to be maintained, provided that such period of time shall not exceed 90 days per application.

‘(2) OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL- The Attorney General may require any other affidavit or certification from any other officer in connection with the application.

‘(3) OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE JUDGE- The judge may require the applicant to furnish such other information as may be necessary to make the findings required by subsection (c)(1).

‘(c) Order-

‘(1) FINDINGS- Upon an application made pursuant to subsection (b), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court shall enter an ex parte order as requested or as modified by the Court approving the acquisition if the Court finds that--

‘(A) the application has been made by a Federal officer and approved by the Attorney General;

‘(B) on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant, for the United States person who is the target of the acquisition, there is probable cause to believe that the target is--

‘(i) a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

‘(ii) a foreign power, an agent of a foreign power, or an officer or employee of a foreign power;

‘(C) the proposed minimization procedures meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h) or 301(4), as appropriate; and

‘(D) the application that has been filed contains all statements and certifications required by subsection (b) and the certification or certifications are not clearly erroneous on the basis of the statement made under subsection (b)(1)(F)(v) and any other information furnished under subsection (b)(3).

[BuyingThyme]

92. The illegal spying was not done

"under the color of the law." That's what made it illegal.

[merh]

93. Then there is no blankety immunity

god help us, read the legislation.

You need to read the legislation and try to understand it and stop letting alarmists get you all up in arms - the fears with this admin is no justice department to pursue those favorable to the the admin or members of the admin that violate the law - you have to get a DOJ that will do their job - it is not the law that is the issue with this admin IT IS THE ADMIN.

Why can't you folks figure it out, the ADMIN NOW OWNS THE POLICE AND THE PROSECUTION.

[BuyingThyme]

97. There is blanket immunity and it is absolute.

But you're starting to understand.

This will bring you over the to side of the people who do understand:

You are correct in understanding that the corruption of the Justice Department (and Congress for that matter) has prevented the prosecutions of the people responsible for spying on Americans without warrant.

And you are correct that a change in administrations could theoretically change that.

But what you're not understanding is that the current legislation is doing two things: First, it is making legal what was once illegal. Second, it is doing so retroactively, in effect providing amnesty for both the administration officials and the telecoms who committed the crimes.

Thus, the question you should be asking yourself is, "How can a change in administrations lead to the enforcement of laws that will no longer exist?"

[merh]

98. There is no blanket immunity - you can claim there is all you want

but that doesn't make you right. God help us, you don't even understand the legislation or how to properly read a statute so therefore it is a given you don't know legal precedence regarding the 4th amendment rights of US citizens (no statute can be passed which infringes or takes away those rights). And what is truly sad is that you fail to notice or appreciate that the legislation itself specifically states that the 4th amendment will be adhered to, that nothing contained in the statute can or will violate the 4th amendment.

[BuyingThyme]

101. No matter how many times you say "God help us,"

the facts won't change.

The Fourth Amendment is moot if there's no way of finding out what actually happened. Nobody will have the legal standing to find out what happened.

And how is it that you came to believe that you're the only person in the country who understands this legislation while at the same time you're among the very few who don't?

[merh]

107. The 4th amendment is not moot and never will be.

This statute recognizes it and provides that the provisions must comply with it.

[Eric J in MN]

91. The federal district court will toss lawsuits...

...based on the Attorney General or another official having requested the information.

The court won't get to consider if there was a warrant.

===================================================
H.R.6304
FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)
SECTION 802a

`(4) in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was--

`(A) in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was--

`(i) authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; and

`(ii) designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and

`(B) the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was--

`(i) authorized by the President; and

`(ii) determined to be lawful; or
===================================================

[merh]

94. Here you go - this is the catch that you all seem to miss

"(ii) determined to be lawful;"

Not to mention the specific requirement that the 4th amendment NOT be violated.

Shame you guys cannot understand what you read, damn good thing you ain't making your living trying to do so.

[Eric J in MN]

95. "written request...indicating that the activity was...determined to be lawful"

The Attorney General needs to certify that the Bush Admininstration claimed that warrantless-wiretapping is legal for the lawsuit to be tossed.

The federal district court doesn't get to determine if the Attorney General is telling the truth, or if the Bush Administration was right or wrong to claim that warrantless-wiretapping is legal.

[merh]

96. Wrong - the certifications can be reviewed and are subject

to Judicial review - why it is you don't understand that is beyond me.

When it comes to US citizens and the 4th amendment rights, there is legal precedence and the Court follows that precedence, no statute passed can take away the constitutional rights of a US Citizen and even this legislation provides that.

As I said, the legislation does not provide the blanket immunity you all claim it does - the AG can certify all he wants but that certification is subject to the review of the FISA Courts and even the district courts.

If a court narrowly interpretates this law and cuts off a citizen's 4th amendment rights (seizure without probable cause) then the bill will not withstand legal scrutiny nor will the court's narrow view.

[dailykoff]

99. The AG determines the legality, the court and congress check the certificates.

If the certificates were issued, based on the determination of the AG and the AG alone, everything's fine. If the AG denies certification, he has to explain why, and his denial can be challenged in the FISA court.

In other words, the AG alone has the power to determine the legality of a certificate, and only if he DENIES a certificate does the appeal process kick in.

[merh]

104. You are wrong

God help us, do you folks not know how to read to understand?

Go read the judicial review portion again.

[merh]

106. I don't believe you are correct.

I think your mistake stems from your confusion related to the "target" - you are confusing "none citizens outside of the USA and/or none citizens" with US citizens.

Please go to section 703, read it, and notice that this provides for the specifics as to US citizens outside the USA and US citizens inside the USA. Again, it provides that the FISA court must consider a host of specifics before approving the application. My only issue with this provision is the emergency provision that allows up to 7 days before the FISA court must review the emergency application.

[dailykoff]

110. I know, you believe the 4th amendment would never permit such a travesty.

Well, you're wrong. The constitution does not have an army and it's up to US, YOU and ME, to make sure our elected representatives honor it. Clearly, we've fallen down on the job and this farcical legislation is the tragic result.

[merh]

111. You have YET to provide me any provision of this bill that

allows blanket immunity or the AG to act alone, that is without judicial review and in violation of the 4th. It is not a perfect bill but it is not the bill that you claim it is.

[dailykoff]

114. The immunity section is 802 and it's been provided repeatedly.

You'd like to believe it doesn't say what it says, and I'll admit, it's not written to be 100% transparent, but the practical effect of this legislation is that the AG gets to determine what's legal in the future AND in the past and to dismiss legal cases against actions that were "certified" by himself.

Now go ahead and claim the 4th amendment would never permit such a thing. :crazy:

[merh]

118. AND the immunity provision allows for judicial review

that is the court must review the certificate (which requires specifics) and can review all "protected" information in camera to determine that the certification is appropriate.

[dailykoff]

119. Only if certifcation is denied which it won't be.

Now eat your supper or you won't get any pudding. :hi:

[merh]

121. You need to eat your pudding instead of playing in it.

Go read the provision again.

Then go research the Federal Tort Claims Act - like this provision, a lawsuit can be brought and the AG can certify that the targeting is appropriopriate. A federal tort requires that the feds give permission to sue, that the actions of the federal agency were outside the law and the illegal or inappropriate act caused the tort. Even if that finding is had, the finding is subject to review by the courts. Just as the certification must consist of more than just the AG saying "its good - go away" - it requires a showing by the AG that the targeting was in compliance with the targeting provisions and the 4th amendment.

As I have said over and over again, no statute can be written that will infringe upon the constitutional rights of US citizens (see the latest gun case from SCOTUS - the law was for the public good but it infringed upon constitutional rights so it was struck down). This legislation specifically provides that the 4th amendment rights of the US citizens will be protected and cannot be infringed by any certification.

[harun]

103. Not explicitly, but implicitly it does by killing all the cases now in the

courts.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/06/howto-analyze-immunity-provisions-fisa-legislation

Does the court get to rule on whether the telecoms broke the law? If the court doesn't rule on that, it's still immunity.

[merh]

105. Where does it say the court's cannot rule on that?

provide me the language.

[merh]

108. Keep reading

you seem to be missing the obvious

‘(b) Judicial Review-

‘(1) REVIEW OF CERTIFICATIONS- A certification under subsection (a) shall be given effect unless the court finds that such certification is not supported by substantial evidence provided to the court pursuant to this section.

‘(2) SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS- In its review of a certification under subsection (a), the court may examine the court order, certification, written request, or directive described in subsection (a) and any relevant court order, certification, written request, or directive submitted pursuant to subsection (d).

The problem with folks not familiar with legislative construction is they tend to grab language out of context and not follow the flow of the language and the purpose of the bill when trying to understand the legislation.

[dailykoff]

113. The court gets involved only if the AG denies certification. Otherwise,

it's totally within his purview to determine whether to issue a certificate, and once he does, that's it -- it's 100% legal by decree of this idiotic bill you so completely misunderstand.

[merh]

115. And the certification means nothing without the court order

Unless it is an emergency and then the court order/review must be obtained within 7 days.

Think of the certification as an affidavit that must be submitted to the court by LEO prior to a search warrant. The certfication means nothing without the court order authorizing the "targeting".

[dailykoff]

116. Wrong, the AG issues the certificates, and the court adjudicates denials.

Yes, it's ridiculous, and no, I'm not going to keep correcting your deliberate misperceptions, so good bye. :hi:

[merh]

120. Wrong again

‘(2) REVIEW- The Court shall review the following:

‘(A) CERTIFICATION- A certification submitted in accordance with subsection (g) to determine whether the certification contains all the required elements.

‘(B) TARGETING PROCEDURES- The targeting procedures adopted in accordance with subsection (d) to assess whether the procedures are reasonably designed to--

‘(i) ensure that an acquisition authorized under subsection (a) is limited to targeting persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States; and

‘(ii) prevent the intentional acquisition of any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States.

[dailykoff]

122. People are easily deceived when they want to be. (n/t)

[merh]

123. You prove that with every post.

:hi:

BTW - nice rebuttal to a valid point made - guess you got nothing.

[JuniperLea]

102. Bullshit. We never needed a new FISA bill in the first place...

There were no warrants. This is where the problem lies.

The US government was able to wiretap already. Remember the 72-hour notification period? This is something we reamed BushCo with! Now it's ok and we're all just going to swallow this crap?

Bullshit.