The New FISA

[G_j]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-new-fisa_b_59383.html


Geoffrey R. Stone

The New FISA
Posted August 7, 2007 | 01:36 AM (EST)
-----

What is at stake in the legislation, signed into law last weekend by President Bush, amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)? To answer this question, it's necessary to review how we came to this point.


The Fourth Amendment generally forbids the government to engage in wiretaps or other forms of electronic surveillance of private communications without a prior judicial determination that there is probable cause to believe that unlawful conduct is afoot.

<snip>
The president and his defenders responded that the NSA program was lawful because (a) Congress had implicitly empowered the president to ignore FISA when it authorized the use of military force after 9/11, and/or (b) FISA is unconstitutional insofar as it limits the President's inherent constitutional authority to act in the nation's best interests in his role as "commander in chief" of the armed forces.

Both of these arguments have been dismissed as groundless by most constitutional scholars, a federal court rejected both arguments and held the president's secret surveillance program unlawful and unconstitutional, and last January the president agreed to have the program overseen by the FISA court, although it was unclear precisely what that court was to do with program.

<snip>

What does the amendment authorize? Until last weekend, FISA prohibited the government from intercepting any international telephone call or email communication involving persons in the United States without a warrant from the FISA court based upon probable cause. The amendment authorizes the government to wiretap or intercept any international communication, even if one of the participants is an American citizen on American soil, as long as the intercept is undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes and is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

..more..

[leftchick]

1. I disagree with his conclusion

they were not stampeded, just like the Iraq War vote, they knew what they were giving him. The term is complicity. And I for one am not fooled.

<snip>

That Republicans in Congress supported this legislation is unfortunate. That some Democrats supported it, and thus made its passage possible, is nothing short of disgraceful. Just as they were stampeded by trumped up hysteria into authorizing the invasion of Iraq, once again they have been stampeded into granting the president a power he should never have been granted.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

[leftchick]

2. one of the most important points

<snip>

The president and his defenders responded that the NSA program was lawful because (a) Congress had implicitly empowered the president to ignore FISA when it authorized the use of military force after 9/11, and/or (b) FISA is unconstitutional insofar as it limits the President's inherent constitutional authority to act in the nation's best interests in his role as "commander in chief" of the armed forces.

Both of these arguments have been dismissed as groundless by most constitutional scholars, a federal court rejected both arguments and held the president's secret surveillance program unlawful and unconstitutional, and last January the president agreed to have the program overseen by the FISA court, although it was unclear precisely what that court was to do with program.

Recently, the FISA court apparently ruled that it could not lawfully approve at least some of the president's requests to engage in electronic surveillance of international communications because such surveillance was not authorized by FISA. This led to demands by the Bush administration that Congress amend FISA immediately to enable it to carry out this surveillance.


ENABLERS! every fucking one! :argh: