Pelosi floor statement on FISA

[Enrique]

Run time: 05:44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe2qJQ1iD-o   Posted on YouTube: June 20, 2008 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: June 21, 2008 By DU Member: Enrique Views on DU: 2461

 
Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5EnA7CLRAY&feature=related


http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/June08/fisa.html

PELOSI -- Floor Statement on FISA
Friday, June 20, 2008

Contact:Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. -- Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor this morning on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. Below are her remarks:

“We take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. In that Preamble to that Constitution, we must provide for the common defense. Essential to honoring that commitment to protect the American people is to have the operational intelligence that will help us do that.

“When I first went on the Intelligence Committee, our focus was on force protection. Our troops in the field depend on timely and reliable intelligence to make the decisions necessary to keep them safe and to do their job. It is still a primary responsibility of our Intelligence Committee.

“In addition to that, we have the fight on the war on terrorism. The fight against terrorism wherever it may exist. Good intelligence is necessary for us to know the plans of the terrorist and to defeat those plans. So we can’t go without a bill. That’s just simply not an option. But to have a bill we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States and this bill does not.

“Some of the press has said that under this legislation, this bill would allow warrantless surveillance of Americans. That is not true. This bill does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans.

“In terms of the original FISA bill, it’s interesting to note that this bill is an improvement on that in three important ways.

“First, we all recognize the changes in technology necessitate a change in the legislation and this legislation today modernizes our intelligence gathering system by recognizing and responding to the technological developments that have occurred since the original FISA Act in 1978. In doing so, we can make our country safer in a more advanced, technological way.

“Second, and this is very important and this is some misunderstanding about this, this bill provides that Americans overseas receive the same FISA protections, including an individualized warrant based on probable cause, as Americans living within the country. This is a very important improvement on the original FISA Act.

“Third, this bill strengthens congressional oversight, and this is very important, the transparency. Transparency and intelligence don’t always go together. But accountability is central to intelligence. This strengthens congressional oversight by requiring the executive branch to provide more extensive information about the conduct of surveillance to both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees. This is new, this is better, the more we know, the better I think the law will be enforced.

“If this bill does not pass, we are almost certain to be left with the Senate bill. I think that’s clear. And this bill is an improvement over the Senate bill in the following ways, just to name a few.

“First of all, it reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive means of collecting foreign intelligence and makes absolutely clear that the enactment of an authorization for the use of force does not give the President, whoever he may be, any inherent authority to alter the requirements of FISA. This is important because President Bush believed, and this was what we were told, that he as President of the United States had inherent authority under the Constitution to do almost anything he wanted. And what this bill reaffirms is that the FISA law is the authority for collecting foreign intelligence. There is no inherent authority of the President to do whatever he wants. This is a democracy; it is not a monarchy.

“Secondly, an improvement over the Senate bill, and by the way, no offense to President Bush, I wouldn’t want any President, Democrat or Republican, to have that authority. It provides that except in rare circumstances, there will be pre-surveillance review by the FISA court. And when I say rare circumstances, I mean very rare.

“Third, unlike the Senate bill, this legislation retains FISA’s broad definition of ‘electronic surveillance’ and thus guarantees that the basic protections of FISA apply to all the new forms of collection authorized by the bill. There had been an attempt, and that’s why the Senate bill is inferior in this respect, to just narrow it to certain kinds of collection. And this says it applies to all collection electronic surveillance.

“Fourth, it contains specific protections against reverse targeting. This word targeting is very important to the civil liberties of the American people and I am satisfied by the specific provision against reverse targeting. It provides a full and independent review of the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program by the Inspectors General of the relevant agencies.

“Of course, there are aspects of the compromise bill that I do not like.

“I do not believe that Congress should be in the business of interfering with ongoing lawsuits and attempting to grant immunity to telecommunications companies that allegedly violated the law. Those companies have not lived up to the standards expected by the American people. I don’t think today is any cause of celebration for them. They come out of this with a taint.

“I do not believe that the pending lawsuits would have achieved what we would have liked them to do, which the Inspector General’s review would, which is to learn the truth about the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program and give us the information we need to make sure that never happens again.

“In addition, this legislation makes sure that in the future the telephone companies must comply fully with federal statutes.

“So again, a difficult decision for all of us. I respect every opinion that was expressed on this floor today. The knowledge, the sincerity, the passion, and the intellect of those who support and oppose this have been very valuable in making the bill better, if not good enough for some, but certainly preferable to the alternative that we have which is the Senate bill, which must be rejected.

“I’m not asking anyone to vote for this bill. I just wanted you to know why I was. Thank you, Madam Speaker.”

[KansDem]

1. This is horseshit!

In addition, this legislation makes sure that in the future the telephone companies must comply fully with federal statutes.

She admits that the telephone companies broke the law!

F**k corporatists who believe "in the future" whenever they'll caught breaking the law. They need to be held accountable now for their malfeasance in the past.

[rosesaylavee]

2. Thank you for posting.

After watching both segments of her speech, I think I have a better grasp of wby good legislators voted for this bill. They felt that if they didn't, the Senate bill would have become law. This bill was the lesser evil and has stronger language to protect our rights going forward over the Senate bill.

She did acknowledge that the telecoms had broken the law - and there is language in this bill addressing further illegal activity on their part will not be tolerated.

Not a good day for our side - but I can see why they chose this compromise.

[Peggy Day]

26. Wonder how much the telecoms "donated" to her? nt

[rosesaylavee]

27. And I wonder if you bothered to watch both videos. n/t

[Veronica.Franco]

3. Hell with you, NANCY ...

I cannot believe she is using the excuse of "timely intelligence" when NONE of what has occurred has been based on either timely or accurate intelligence ... she's just another sellout ... What do they have on YOU, NANCY? ... "Our troops in the field" are DYING and maimed from their "intelligence" ... You are a joke, Nancy ... a pathetic farce ...

[raystorm7]

4. Like Joe Lieberman, she's a Republican playing a Dem. Nuff said.

[Enrique]

10. Pelosi the same as Lieberman

you're ridiculous. :rofl:

[PassingFair]

5. They could have put it through without the immunity.

And let the chimperor veto it.

[rosesaylavee]

14. I think their concern in doing that would have been that

this bill would NOT have passed and that the Senate Bill, which had NONE of the protective wording and which was less concerned about our rights and which did not address the President's expansion of executive powers - would have become the law.

I watched both Part 1 and Part 2 of her speech as linked in the OP.

[PassingFair]

19. Then she shouldn't have allowed Hoyer to bring it out.

Face it, she WANTED to pass this immunity.

Congress is culpable for allowing the trashing
of our privacy rights.

It could have been held up.

[rosesaylavee]

23. Did you watch both parts of her speech? n/t

[Mist]

6. I noticed she tended to stumble and stammer a bit when mentioning

the Constitution. Guilty conscience?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[johnlal]

8. What a liar

Sure, she opposes Telecom immunity. Don't we have a majority in the House? Couldn't she have used her leadership to kill immunity. I don't believe a word she says.
And we didn't need to give up more of our freedom. The original FISA act was already enough.

Welcome to Soviet America.

[Enrique]

17. she doesn't claim she couldn't kill immunity

so how is she a liar?

[minnesota_liberal]

9. I thought the Fourth Amendment was part of the Constitution

Pelosi admits that she's heard of the Constitution, but apparently the Fourth Amendment doesn't count.

The House passed an awful bill that tramples on the Fourth, lets AT&T and Verizon off the hook for their crimes, gives the White House nearly everything it wanted, makes it far less likely that we'll ever know the extent and circumstances of BushCo's spying and doesn't make our country one bit safer.

Pelosi could have pulled this before the vote, but she didn't. Thanks a bunch, Nance.

How is this a compromise?

Why the big rush to pass something before the election?

Why were there so many spineless Dems willing to go along with the RepubliCons?

[Enrique]

12. the bill guarantees a thorough review

by the Inspectors General of national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward.

[minnesota_liberal]

20. Guarantees?

I'm guessing it will be alot like Dubya's 2004 guarantee, "Four more years and America will be safe and the world will be at peace."

Thanks, but I'd rather rely on the courts to sort it out.

[Enrique]

32. it's written into the law

[minnesota_liberal]

34. Laws are only as effective as their enforcement

Call me skeptical.

[Enrique]

37. she makes that point herself

I agree with both of you.

[stlsaxman]

51. you go, Enrique...

you and rosesaylavee are voices of reason.

thanks... :hi:

[Phred42]

11. The reason she did this that she and Reid are JUST as guilty

The reason this happened is that Pelosi and Reid are JUST as guilty of Torture, the War, the mortgage meltdown, the recession (soon to be depression) and all of the other illegal crap we blame the Reich for.

They didn't even have to bring this to a vote now - they could have let it slide until the next Congress - but chose to do it now -

WHILE THEY STILL HAD CONTROL. Waiting for the NEXT Congress would have been a crap shoot at best.

They did this to keep their own asses out of jail.

Republican / Democrat..... it becomes a distinction without a difference and we end up with the dirty little secret: Newt's permanent republican majority is in place - NOW. It's simply that many of them just use the D.

Unfortunately, there are VERY few Democrats left in Washington. Pelosi & Reid ain't among them.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. A better bill would have been no bill

The best bill of all would have been a bill of impeachment against Bush and Cheney.

May James Madison from High Heaven strike the beltway with a bolt of thunder for this foul deed.

[rosesaylavee]

16. But would having NO bill be the same as

allowing Bush/Cheney to continue as they were doing though? From what I understand, and I could be wrong, I think that was the concern here. Without this law (as the old one had expired right?), they could argue that they were acting as they saw fit to "protect" and "defend" us from the terrorists. This at least reigns them in and addresses their actions from here on out.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. Without this bill . . .

The powers given to our court-appointed leader would sunset and the telecoms would be sued out the yinyang. The old FISA safeguards would have been in place.

[rosesaylavee]

25. I don't want to be

divisive but how do you know that? If the powers that * has usurped were going to be done once he's gone, why has Obama pledged to review each one and elimate them if they go against the constitution.

And doesn't the Inspector General get to review this? I would suspect that the IG is appointed by * - but I don't think has played completely out yet. If Pelosi is culpable down the road and this does turn out to be a CYA, I would not be surprised as I am not a fan. However, her statement did give me some food for thought that perhaps there was more to this than the blogosphere is looking at. I don't think it was as a black and white as it would appear.

[Jack Rabbit]

28. Of course, no one can know in advance what laws Bush will violate

That's not an excuse to give him legal cover.

[rosesaylavee]

29. See, that's the thing tho

I don't think this IS giving him cover. Again, I may be wrong, but my understanding is that putting this House Bill on the books would limit his power. I think her concern was that by not passing this bill and having the Senate Bill become law - that many of the concerns about *'s FISA shenanigans would continue under the guise of fighting the terrorists - our rights be damned.

I thought her statement was very interesting and stopped me up short as I fully expected to NOT agree with her. Now I am not so sure she doesn't have some very valid concerns. I am wondering if anyone has been watching the vids posted or if everyone is just feeding off each others reaction.

I will try to find both bills on the net and read them.

[MNBrewer]

36. How could the Senate bill become law

Without also having passed the House?

[rosesaylavee]

42. Right. This was the House's answer to that bill.

This was the bill they felt could be passed into law and signed by the president.

The choices were: the Senate Bill with little to no provisions for civil rights and retroactive immunity; this House bill with some provisions for civil rights and immunity; or let it sit and give the republicans ammunition for the fall elections that Dems are weak on fighting the terrorists.

I am not saying I like the immunity - but if their goal was to get a new FISA on the books and curtail the President's power, this was their way of getting that done. It appears that this will be fillibustered so no doubt, the old FISA will remain in place for the time being.

I have looked for the text of this bill that everyone is so upset about on Thomas and am not finding it posted yet.

[MNBrewer]

45. There are far more than the 3 options you listed

How about a House bill with LOTS of provisions for civil rights, and NO immunity, for one?

[rosesaylavee]

46. Not if they want it signed into law by the president.

* has stated that if it doesn't have immunity attached, he won't sign it.

[MNBrewer]

47. Well then HE'S the one being "weak on terra"

Better a vetoed bill than a bad bill signed into law.

[rosesaylavee]

48. May very well be.

But we know that that is not how they and the MSM will spin it.

Don't get me wrong - I am just questioning that this is such a black and white "easy" decision and that it automatically signifies that all those who voted for it were cya. Pelosi is suspect on the Impeachment deal as far as I am concerned, but the video posted here brought me up short and to be fair, I thought perhaps I didn't know all the ins and outs that went into this decision.

[MNBrewer]

49. We never know all the ins and outs that go into any legislation

As far as the government is concerned, we're mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed bullshit).

[rosesaylavee]

50. Ha

I am feeling like that very much today.

[PassingFair]

30. What they were/are doing is AGAINST THE LAW.

That is the problem.

Pelosi is lying about having to
take up the Senate version.

Try googling: FISA LAW EXPIRATION

snip>Media Matters has documented numerous media outlets conflating the 1978 FISA law and the PAA, thereby advancing the false assertion -- promoted by supporters of the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying program and parroted by the media -- that since the PAA expired on February 15, the government no longer has the authority to spy on suspected terrorists. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted in a February 13 statement that "the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies." Further, a February 14 New York Times article reported:

The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.

P.S.: I DID listen to the whole thing and she LOST ME AT "TAINT".

[rosesaylavee]

31. Thank you

I will take a look at that. Do you happen to know if both bills are on the internet somewhere? I will google but thought I would ask too.

[lovuian]

15. Well now we know it wasn't just the Republican Congress

taking away our rights its the whole corrupt party system which has been corrupted

Its official

Pelosi is another Lieberman

[jespwrs]

21. Like so many other members of the Senate,

Miss Pelosi, in the words of the great Bill Hicks, every word you say is suspect and is now like a turd falling into my drink.

[NorthCarolina]

24. Ummm, with regard to FISA she is on the same page as Obama

based on his statements in support of the House bill.

[jespwrs]

41. Some of Obama's words

are turds too. He's got my vote, but I disagree with him on some issues.

[Enrique]

33. like so many other Speakers of the House...

Pelosi is not a member of the Senate.

[jespwrs]

40. You are correct sir.

brain fart.

[searchingforlight]

22. Yuck! I can't watch any more. n/t

[Supersedeas]

54. it is painful

[Zachstar]

35. Look at the lies flowing out of her like puke.

I'm wondering can we impeach a speaker of the house for violating her oath?

[Pastiche423]

39. I have seen that questions asked several times here

The answer has been, the only way to get rid of her, is to vote her out.

In November 2006 I was swelling w/pride that she had become the House Speaker. She has crushed that pride by her actions and non-actions since then.

As has been said many times by many sources, there is no reason to bring the FISA bill up AT ALL. It does not sunset. It remains on the books as it has since it was 1st enacted in 1978. The only reason it has been, is to cover the administration's ass (and her own) - an action she has done over and over again since she became speaker.

Had I only know in 1987...

[J R]

38. Time for the grassroots/bloggers of the Democratic Party to change focus...

Now it's all about cleaning house (pardon the pun) and reclaiming our own Party. I just checked into ActBlue and I'm considering a small donation. We must now change our focus to getting rid of all the criminals in our own Party and totally repopulating the Democratic Party with people who will stand up to corporations, Republicans, etc. As it stands now, the Democratic Party's elected officials are not worthy of holding office and deserve to be criminally investigated, at least.

[Veronica.Franco]

52. Welcome to the DU ...

Well stated ... :toast:

[rosesaylavee]

43. For those interested in reading the text of the bill:

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

H.R.6304
FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)

[Catherina]

44. What a total turd. n/t

[Veronica.Franco]

53. I love these free rollover minutes ... check out this cartoon! ...

http://caglecartoons.com/viewimage.asp?ID={3416148F-DE37-46EA-8F37-7E089F9F8DE6}