Official Thread # 1, Leahy Hearing, Warrentless Domestic Surveillance, cspan3:

[rodeodance]

cspan3 Link
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan3_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS3

09:30 AM EDT
2:30 (est.) LIVE
Senate Committee
Warrentless Domestic Surveillance
Judiciary
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 201160 - 09/25/2007 - 2:30 - No Sale


Leahy, Patrick J. U.S. Senator, D-VT

Members:

Patrick J. Leahy
CHAIRMAN, D-VERMONT

Edward M. Kennedy
D-MASSACHUSETTS

Arlen Specter
RANKING MEMBER, R-PENNSYLVANIA
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
D-DELAWARE

Orrin G. Hatch
R-UTAH
Herb Kohl
D-WISCONSIN

Charles E. Grassley
R-IOWA
Dianne Feinstein
D-CALIFORNIA

Jon Kyl
R-ARIZONA
Russell D. Feingold
D-WISCONSIN

Jeff Sessions
R-ALABAMA
Charles E. Schumer
D-NEW YORK

Lindsey Graham
R-SOUTH CAROLINA
Richard J. Durbin
D-ILLINOIS

John Cornyn
R-TEXAS
Benjamin L. Cardin
D-MARYLAND

Sam Brownback
R-KANSAS
Sheldon Whitehouse
D-RHODE ISLAND

Tom Coburn
R-OKLAHOMA

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1898762#1898762
1898762, Democrats question credibility, consistency of DNI McConnell
Posted by ck4829 on Tue Sep-25-07 06:41 AM

As spy chief Mike McConnell faces another round of grilling on the Hill Tuesday to defend the new White House-backed surveillance law, Democrats are homing in on some of his recent public statements that have appeared imprecise, incorrect or contradictory.


McConnell faces the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, following appearances last week before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees and the previous week before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. As director of national intelligence (DNI), he is leading the administration’s push to make permanent the temporary surveillance law that Congress hurriedly passed in early August.

Democrats on the Intelligence and Judiciary panels are working on an alternative bill that they plan to introduce in October.

The interim bill amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by authorizing the administration to conduct warrantless eavesdropping of foreign targets whether or not they were communicating with Americans, as long as the target is “reasonably believed” to be abroad. Under FISA, a secret court had to issue warrants if the communications involved anyone within U.S. borders, whereas the new law required that the DNI and the attorney general authorize the warrantless wiretapping. For its part, the FISA court may only conduct a procedural review after the fact. Democrats want to restore the court’s role as the exclusive authority in granting warrants for foreign-intelligence gathering inside U.S. borders.

McConnell, who had started his term this past winter with generally strong reviews, has seen some of his political capital erode in the wake of stumbles during recent testimony.

For example, McConnell told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Sept. 10 that the new law helped Germany disrupt a major terrorist plot on Sept. 2. After Democrats and others pointed out that the U.S.-German intelligence cooperation he was referring to occurred last year, well before the bill’s passage, he retracted that statement the next day.

His statements, taken together, have left open other gaps that Democrats have seized on. In an August interview with The El Paso Times and in subsequent testimony, he said that it took 200 man-hours on average for the FISA Court to issue a warrant for each application in 2006, as part of his argument that the traditional application process was cumbersome.

But that estimate was at odds with testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 18 by James Baker, former counsel to the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which oversees the FISA Court. Baker stated that the process could be as quick as minutes in “no-kidding” emergencies.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-question-credibility-consistency-of-dni-mcconnell-2007-09-25.html

[rodeodance]

1. Did they swear him in? ----I was a few minutes late.

[rodeodance]

2. Leahy is making an opening statement. (lots of gov. NOT having procedues to

to protect privacy of US citizens)

[rodeodance]

4. Can we have a few Recs please?

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

3. K&R

[rodeodance]

5. I like you tagline:-)

[rodeodance]

6. k

[rodeodance]

7. k

[rodeodance]

8. k

[rodeodance]

9. Specter saying Congress passed leg. last summer based basically on his

advice. need trust to do that. but specter seems to be questioning that trust.

[rodeodance]

10. specter talking of secrecy from WH

[rodeodance]

11. gawd---I wish Specter would just get it out!

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

13. LOL, Hear Hear!

[rodeodance]

17. I have to admit. Leahy is a slow talker also!!

[cali]

12. k&r and thanks n/t

[rodeodance]

27. you betcha---and thanks for your Morning Headlines

[rodeodance]

28. HO HO--Leahy getting him now re: his CONTRADICTORY Statements!!

[rodeodance]

14. Harman: Conservatives Falsely Hyped Terror Threat Against U.S. Capitol To Pass FISA Expansion

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/harman-terror-attack/

Harman: Conservatives Falsely Hyped Terror Threat Against U.S. Capitol To Pass FISA Expansion

On August 2, Roll Call issued a breaking news report, warning of a suspected terror threat against the U.S. Capitol:

Capitol Police officials have stepped up the department’s security presence on Capitol Hill in response to intelligence indicating the increased possibility of an al-Qaida terrorist attack on Congress sometime between now and Sept. 11.

Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) ratcheted up the rhetoric, “ominously” advising that “Congress needed to pass changes to terrorist surveillance laws before leaving for the August recess and warned that otherwise ‘the disaster could be on our doorstep.’”

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), speaking at a FISA event yesterday organized by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, stated that the terror claims were “part of a well-orchestrated campaign” by the administration to politicize the FISA debate. She referred to the efforts as part of the “Rovian strategy of using terrorism as a wedge political issue.” Harman asserted that the intelligence agencies “knew” the terror claims propagated by conservative lawmakers were false:

That specific intelligence claim, it turned out, was bogus; the intelligence agencies knew that –apparently had communicated to Congress or to relevant people that it was bogus, the source was unreliable. But that communication wasn’t in any published form until the day that the Senate passed the amendments to FISA.

Watch it:

[rodeodance]

15. guess mcC. talked to committee about possible legal consel

[rodeodance]

16. They better bring this up!!

[w8liftinglady]

18. man,I don't know if I've had enough caffeine yet...

[rodeodance]

22. McConnell will try to trick you/us up. Have a double shot

[bdamomma]

19. I will keep company with you guys.

apparently raisin brain is giving his speech at the UN soon.

[rodeodance]

21. hey Thanks and Welcome.

[rodeodance]

20. WHOW HO---LEAHY SWORE HIM IN!!

[bdamomma]

23. good beginning they swore him in.

just looking at members, ugh, Lindsay Graham, but Sheldon Whitehouse is there, looking forward to what he's going to say.

[rodeodance]

24. did you read the post from Rep. Harman ?(see above post)

[rodeodance]

25. k

[rodeodance]

26. mm drooling on -opening statement.

[bdamomma]

30. yes.

[Lasher]

29. Ha ha, Leahy is scolding him for referring to the 1979 law.

It's been amended many times. Leahy says he's being disingenuous.

[bdamomma]

31. Leahy is not taking any crap.

from MM.

[Lasher]

38. McConnell was talking about the 1978 bill as though it had not ever been amended.

He's doing this to dishonestly exaggerate any possible need to update FISA and that's what set Leahy off.

[rodeodance]

32. Good, Leahy is NOT accepting His explanations!

[rodeodance]

33. REPOST: of prev. articles:Bush Is Demanding Wiretapping Amnesty

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/washington/11nsa.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1186812802-478cPYt9FchAOxibbC3igA&oref=slogin
………….


Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Bush Is Demanding Wiretapping Amnesty
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1549428#1549428
1549428, Bush Is Demanding Wiretapping Amnesty
Posted by Buttercup McToots on Thu Aug-09-07 08:53 AM

Bush Is Demanding Wiretapping Amnesty
Scott Horton wrote a wonderful piece for Harpers.

It is called 'The Boot is Descending' and here is a quote from the article regarding Bush's signing statement:

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Here is a link to the story, just read it.

http://harpers.org /

Bush Is Demanding Wiretapping Amnesty

Glenn Greenwald said on CSPAN that W is demanding amnesty for the government and telcos for wiretapping Americans. Jane Hamsher picks up the story.

http://www.firedoglake.com /

This is the kind of thing that should have the Democrats screaming bloody murder. It's almost an admission of pervasive lawbreaking.

It also points out that the thing really bogging down the federal government has been its obsession with breaking law like FISA, destroying the DOJ, torture, and kiting all sorts of made up "executive privileges," then trying to hide its action and avoid investigation. As if the war weren't bad enough, it is this constant criminal activity that has really brought the government to a stop.

The question now is how many members of the Senate will rush to vote for this. Clearly Orrin Hatch, and Spectre, but how many Dems? This will be a combination of cowards, conspirators, and people who just want to see all these problems go away.

But as soon as amnesty is granted, we'll start getting hints of how bad things were. The Dems who are comlicit in all this will then shrug.

Here's what Bush wrote;

"When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Something happened last weekend with that vote...don't know what but something...
……..





Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Wiretap bill roils liberal base, turns focus to Sept.
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1541175#1541175
1541175, Wiretap bill roils liberal base, turns focus to Sept.
Posted by proud2Blib on Wed Aug-08-07 09:35 AM

By Elana Schor
August 08, 2007

Amid liberal anger over the Democrats’ eleventh-hour accession to the White House on expanded eavesdropping authority, civil liberties groups are pressing the majority to rectify the situation soon or face a political backlash.

The ire in the left-leaning blogosphere comes just days after Democratic presidential hopefuls courted the party’s “Netroots” at the YearlyKos convention. Whether the Democrats’ decision to allow a vote on broader wiretapping of suspected terrorists will significantly alienate their core supporters remains unclear, and may depend on whether the GOP-written fix to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is revised before its six-month sunset.

“We’re going to push very hard for Congress to fix this in the fall. We’re going to have high expectations for them to realize the damage they have inflicted,” Caroline Fredrickson, Washington director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said. “For the Democratic leadership, the fact of the matter is, this isn’t going to die.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has asked her Judiciary and Intelligence panel chairmen to produce a new FISA bill “as soon as possible,” signaling a renewed battle over surveillance in September. But liberal pundits and activists already are showing Democrats the political consequences of giving ground to the Bush administration.

“In one fell swoop, have capitulated to a grossly unpopular president, justified his talking point that national security is on the line and given Republicans leverage,” liberal radio host Cenk Uygur wrote on the Huffington Post blog, where Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) posted a like-minded lament.

“Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You are surrender monkeys,” a blogger known as “Meteor Blades” wrote on the website Daily Kos, whose founder hosted last week’s Netroots convention. In an ironic twist, House leaders canceled plans to address the gathering to complete work on the White House’s FISA bill.

One conservative-turned-libertarian, former Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), said he already has written to Democratic leaders asking for quick revision of the White House FISA bill.

[rodeodance]

35. Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1541387#1541387
1541387, Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’
Posted by babylonsister on Wed Aug-08-07 10:04 AM

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/08/sestak-on-fisa /


Rep. Sestak On FISA: ‘We Should Have Stood Up And Said No’

In an interview with ThinkProgress yesterday, Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) expressed his disappointment with the recent revisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Over the weekend, Congress capitulated to White House demands, and passed a FISA bill that unnecessarily expands the power of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Sestak, who was one of 183 representatives to vote against the bill, told us:

How could we have not have stood up for rights of civil liberties while ensuring the proper ability to go and listen, and just stayed during the recess if necessary. And I understand that our leadership in the caucus has to worry about how the public will perceive it, but I also know this, that ultimately, we have to, as Benjamin Franklin said, be concerned that those who give up…liberty in the name security, deserve neither liberty or security. This is a time that I strongly believe, we should have stood up and said no. Attorney General Gonzales, we’re not going to let you decide the guidelines upon which you’ll listen in on Americans.

Sestak noted that the administration had rejected a compromise bill worked out between Congressional leaders and Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell. “We made the three major changes that wanted,” said Sestak. “The issue here is they just don’t want to come to the FISA court. That’s enough to tell me we need them to.”

“We had voted for a bill the evening before that had actually brought together a proper balance of the civil liberties of our citizens,” said Sestak. “We should have brought that bill up Saturday, instead of the Senate bill…we could have gotten it the next morning under majority votes. And that would have meant probably that we had to stay in session this week, and that would have forced the Senate to come back and deal with it.”

Watch it/read transcript at link~

Referencing his 31-year career in the military, Sestak said he witnessed the need for surveillance when he headed the Navy’s anti-terrorism unit after 9/11. “But you know,” he said, “I also learned that press a little extra to get that information they need. And at times, constitutionally, they’ll go over the edge. That’s what Congress is to make sure, they don’t go over the edge.”
…………………………….

[rodeodance]

39. Matt Stoller: Response from the ACLU: Blame Pelosi

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject Matt Stoller: Response from the ACLU: Blame Pelosi
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1534773#1534773
1534773, Matt Stoller: Response from the ACLU: Blame Pelosi
Posted by babylonsister on Tue Aug-07-07 02:26 PM


http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=611

Response from the ACLU: Blame Pelosi
by: Matt Stoller
Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:05:21 AM EDT

This is an emailed response from Caroline Fredrickson, the Washington Director of the ACLU, to my post yesterday titled 'Why the Progressive Movement Couldn't Stop the FISA Bill'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1522395#1523399

Matt,

Much of your criticism is unwarranted: we worked FISA and hard (and have been since December 2005). We reached out to Democratic leaders -- we met with Pelosi and with Reid -- we spoke with the staff from every leadership office. They did not listen to us. It was dem leadership who scheduled the vote on these particular bills. Why be mad at us and not at them? We met with them. They rebuffed our arguments.

We weren't notified that the bill was moving until 6 days before when Rep. Harman let it slip on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. We gave it the full court press: with action alerts, meetings with Members of Congress and Senators and their staff.

Pelosi and friends spent the entire week negotiating with the DNI and cut out ALL the civil liberties groups - not just the ACLU. Senator Rockefeller led the effort on the Senate side (with McConnell). The bill only passed because a) 41 dems crossed the line in the house, after the "liberal leadership" could NOT muster up its own party to assert its 30 seat majority, and b) most importantly, Pelosi, our "liberal leader" scheduled the bill in the first place. She could have put any bill on the schedule and she chose the Administration's. We worked this hard, and somehow you blame the ACLU?

Here's the sad fact: Dems are scared to pieces about the issue of terrorism and feel that they desperately need to show "strength" - even when the cost is their principles, and our Constitution. Look for lots more of this in the Fall. (and of course "crime" has the same potential to soften spines).

We are trying to communicate to Americans what they lost. We need folks to keep the pressure on Congress -- as you know, this will be voted on again in six months.....It would be more helpful if you could explain to your readership what we lose when the Fourth Amendment gets turned on its head and Americans can be wiretapped without warrants than your fingerpointing at the ACLU. We lost, but we worked it hard.

One of the key problems for this battle was that Mike McConnell, the DNI, enjoys tremendous respect from the Democratic leadership. They believe everything he tells them. Why not attack them for that rather than attacking us? And what about buying into pressure from President Bush? Has there been a president who can be trusted as little on national security? Remember weapons of mass destruction? But still the Dems gave him what he wanted.

Then on Habeas:

Find Habeas is one small piece of a much broader campaign that has included a massive rally and lobby day, radio and print ads, in-district organizing, building coalitions both in DC and in the field, etc. (see below for the details)

And as to your comment on results (i.e., habeas hasn't been restored yet), we can say that the relevant committees in both the House and the Senate have held hearings over the past two months, and the House leadership is committed to moving a bipartisan habeas bill sponsored by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, and the Senate is ready to vote on the habeas issue when the Defense Department authorization bill gets back on the Senate floor this fall. So while we have not had results yet, we think we are turning the corner on restoring habeas rights.

more...
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=611
………

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject When Does the Sun Set on Warrantless Surveillance? (hint: Iceland)
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1533848#1533848
1533848, When Does the Sun Set on Warrantless Surveillance? (hint: Iceland)
Posted by ProSense on Tue Aug-07-07 12:38 PM

Tuesday, August 07, 2007
When Does the Sun Set on Warrantless Surveillance?
Marty Lederman
I happen to have been in Iceland this year right around the summer solstice, when the sun never sets. Twilight in the middle of the night was somewhat haunting, spooky even.

Well, as several of our commentors have noted, the so-called six-month sunset provision of the "Protect America Act of 2007" is a bit of a ruse, because it's not clear the sun ever sets on the unchecked electronic surveillance of the Bush Administration. Although section 6(c) provides that the operative provisions of the Act "shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act," i.e., on February 1, 2008, there is an express exception in section 6(d), which reads as follows:

[rodeodance]

41. CCR Condems FISA Modernization Law

CONTACT: Center For Constitutional Rights
David Lerner or Ateqah Khaki, Riptide Communications, 212.260.5000

CCR Condems FISA Modernization Law
Democrats Complicit in Broad Expansion of Warrant-less Spying on Americans


WASHINGTON - AUGUST 6 - The "FISA Modernization" bill that passed both houses and was signed into law by the President on Sunday night broadly expands the federal government’s power to conduct surveillance on Americans without a court warrant. The bill went beyond earlier reports that the new law would merely allow the government to listen in to communications between two overseas parties that just happen to route through a switching circuit located in the U.S. Under the new statute the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence may approve listening in on the conversations of Americans so long as the target of the surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be abroad, with no prior review by the courts.

“The Democratically controlled Congress has now joined forces with the Bush Administration in undermining the Constitution,” said CCR Executive Director, Vincent Warren. “Make no mistake, this law is not merely a technical fix, rather it enshrines in law the ability of the NSA to listen in to the conversations and read the emails of millions of Americans.”

This legislative development comes in the wake of recent media reports that a secret ruling by a federal judge who sits on the FISA court reversed a January 10th ruling from the same court that had allowed the administration to carry out the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program in almost exactly the same manner as before. This reversal is supposedly what prompted the Bush administration's current push for “emergency” legislation to expand its wiretapping powers and legitimate the NSA Program and let to the passage of the FISA Modernization Act, although the decision appears to have occurred in April, several months ago.

According to CCR attorney Shayana Kadidal, “This new act effectively deprives federal judges of their rightful role in the warrant process. As agents of accountability and oversight, judges ensure that law enforcement will do a more rigorous job and, in the long view, that makes us all more safe.”

The issue of the constitutionality of the original spy program is still wending its way through the Courts. On August 9th, CCR’s challenge to the program, CCR v. Bush, will be the subject of oral argument before a federal district court in San Francisco.
……

Forum Name Latest Breaking News
Topic subject Bush Signs Law Widening Reach for Wiretapping
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2943085#2943085
2943085, Bush Signs Law Widening Reach for Wiretapping
Posted by orleans on Sun Aug-05-07 09:28 PM

Source: New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1186374327-S/RC7wd3S9PwUp2rHm0ZJQ

By JAMES RISEN
Published: August 6, 2007

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 — President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

“This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered “electronic surveillance,” the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants — latching on to those giant switches — as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Sunday in an interview that the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas.

But he stressed that the objective of the new law is to give the government greater flexibility in focusing on foreign suspects overseas, not to go after Americans.

“It’s foreign, that’s the point,” Mr. Fratto said. “What you want to make sure is that you are getting the foreign target.”

The legislation to change the surveillance act was rushed through both the House and Senate in the last days before the August recess began.

The White House’s push for the change was driven in part by a still-classified ruling earlier this year by the special intelligence court, which said the government needed to seek court-approved warrants to monitor those international calls going through American switches.

The new law, which is intended as a stopgap and expires in six months, also represents a power shift in terms of the oversight and regulation of government surveillance.

The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1186374327-S/RC7wd3S9PwUp2rHm0ZJQ


The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

[bdamomma]

43. oh, what a sad bunch of repigs. I want to hear Whitehouse.

[bdamomma]

34. oh god, listen to Orrin Hatch whining or was that Specter?

whiny ass babies.

[rodeodance]

37. Repugs WHINE and Blame

[Inuca]

40. Hatch n/t

[rodeodance]

42. NOW Sessions is Whinning---te he Leahy told him he could have 20 rounds if he wanted!! ha

[OnceUponTimeOnTheNet]

36. MM said something about Reverse Targeting. ~What is that?

[rodeodance]

44. re-post: "Democrats caved in on a simple provision..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?hp

Forum Name General Discussion
Topic subject "Democrats caved in on a simple provision..."
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1522254#1522798
1522798, "Democrats caved in on a simple provision..."
Posted by ProSense on Sun Aug-05-07 09:15 PM

From Washington Monthly:

<...>

This is the problem that the competing FISA amendments were apparently trying to resolve, and both the Democratic bill (which failed) and the White House bill (which passed) addressed it by allowing surveillance of persons who are "reasonably believed" to be outside the U.S. The FISA court would determine if NSA's procedures are reasonable. Over at Obsidian Wings, Publius spells out the difference:

The Democratic bill...and this is critical...explicitly excluded (1) communications with a U.S. person inside the United States and (2) communications in which all participants are in the United States. Thus, the bill provided protections against domestic surveillance. For these types of calls, the government needed an old-fashioned warrant. (The Democratic bill's carve-out provisions are in Sec. 105B(c)(1)(A).)

The White House bill (pdf) — soon to be law — took a much different approach. It just flatly withdrew all of this surveillance from the FISA regime. More specifically, the bill (Sec. 105A) states that any "surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed" to be outside the United States is completely exempt from FISA (i.e., it's not considered "electronic surveillance"). (Marty) Lederman spells all this out very well and in more detail, but the upshot is virtually anything — including calls inside the United States or involving U.S. citizens — is fair game.

The White House bill not only fails to prohibit domestic surveillance, but opens a huge hole for just that purpose. It exempts from FISA scrutiny any communication that is "directed at" persons reasonably believed to be outside the U.S., and then leaves this phrase undefined and therefore wide open:

For surveillance to come within this exemption, there is no requirement that it be conducted outside the U.S.; no requirement that the person at whom it is "directed" be an agent of a foreign power or in any way connected to terrorism or other wrongdoing; and no requirement that the surveillance does not also encompass communications of U.S. persons. Indeed, if read literally, it would exclude from FISA any surveillance that is in some sense "directed" both at persons overseas and at persons in the U.S.

If this is right, it means that Democrats caved in on a simple provision meant to prohibit domestic surveillance without a warrant. Under the White House bill, the only oversight against abuse of the "directed at" clause is the Attorney General's say-so, and the FISA court is required to accept the AG's reasoning unless it's "clearly erroneous." This is about as toothless as oversight comes.

Democrats pretty clearly got steamrolled on this. Until Thursday they were negotiating productively with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and had reached agreement on the bill's language. Nobody was making a big deal out of it because things seemed to be going smoothly. Then, at the last second, the White House rejected the language its own DNI had accepted and suddenly all hell broke loose. Democrats weren't ready for it, and with Congress about to adjourn and no backup strategy in place, they broke ranks and caved in. The only concession they got was a six-month sunset in the bill.

Was this the White House's strategy all along? To lull Dems into a stupor and then hit them over the head at the last minute with brand new demands? Hard to say, but it sure looks deliberate. Democrats are going to have to learn to play in the big leagues if they want to keep up.


It is right. The "fix" (which some argue, one that wasn't needed) involved a single provision. The Dems got played by Bush, a truly embarrassing incident!

[rodeodance]

45. ......he retracted that statement the next day...:

.........For example, McConnell told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Sept. 10 that the new law helped Germany disrupt a major terrorist plot on Sept. 2. After Democrats and others pointed out that the U.S.-German intelligence cooperation he was referring to occurred last year, well before the bill’s passage, he retracted that statement the next day.

His statements, taken together, have left open other gaps that Democrats have seized on. In an August interview with The El Paso Times and in subsequent testimony, he said that it took 200 man-hours on average for the FISA Court to issue a warrant for each application in 2006, as part of his argument that the traditional application process was cumbersome.

But that estimate was at odds with testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on Sept. 18 by James Baker, former counsel to the Justice Department’s Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, which oversees the FISA Court. Baker stated that the process could be as quick as minutes in “no-kidding” emergencies.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-question-...

[rodeodance]

46. I have to leave for a bit-keep it up. Thanks in advance.

[rodeodance]

47. guess i will stay ----KENNEDY up

[rodeodance]

49. HA--if Carriers abide by the Law as you say-WHY do they need IMMUNITY?

[rodeodance]

51. seems it was NOT legal, now they are being sued and raise Issue of backrupcy!

[rodeodance]

52. OH MY GAWD: HATCh: DID you consider their responses as PATRIOTIC?

[rodeodance]

53. guess as long as it is PATRIOTIC--is does not matter if ILLEGAL!! per HATCH.

[Lasher]

48. Zzzzzzzzzz Is Specter finishied throwing softballs yet?

[Lasher]

50. Ha ha, The Lion of the Senate is good.

Kennedy is asking what carriers need retroactive immunity for if they have been obeying the law. What exactly is that they have been doing, from which they seek immunity?

Oh shit, here comes that asshole Hatch.

[rodeodance]

54. Hatch-----all is OK as long as you are a PaTRIOT!

[rodeodance]

55. hurt our people, kill our people.

[rodeodance]

59. Olbermann: Harman reveals bogus Capitol threat got new spy powers approved

Forum Name Political Videos
Topic subject Olbermann: Harman reveals bogus Capitol threat got new spy powers approved
Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x57294#57294
57294, Olbermann: Harman reveals bogus Capitol threat got new spy powers approved
Posted by DeepModem Mom on Tue Sep-25-07 01:52 AM

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

93. Can you please let me know if anyone brought this stunning admission up at the hearing? nt

[Lasher]

56. Hatch is leading McConnell bigtime.

Hatch is providing the testimony and McConnell is agreeing with what he says.

[rodeodance]

60. it was very sickening to Watch and hear a Senator do that:

[bdamomma]

57. they love to sell FEAR don't they?

what BS.

[Lasher]

58. What else have they got?

Fiscal accountability? Family values?

[rodeodance]

61. guns, war, death, blood

[bdamomma]

62. true, what a insult to us.

[Lasher]

92. They really don't even have terra to sell anymore,

Most people now trust Democrats more on defense.

[bdamomma]

63. I do not trust McConnell

what total bs, they continue to insult us all.

[bdamomma]

64. okay, he is under oath we heard him say that.

[rodeodance]

65. Tom Colborn-keeps repeating: If you are an American citizen, you need a warrent and

McC. agreed. over and over.

[rodeodance]

67. SESSIONS: PROTECT US PROTECT US---YOU ARE OUR PROTECTOR

[bdamomma]

66. Sessions ugh.

I am turning off my audio on this one. How many times was he going to say 9/11??

[rodeodance]

68. "WE SEEM TO FORGET 9/11" says punky boy!

[here_is_to_hope]

69. Oh joy, another hearing that will result

in a strongly worded letter that will go straight to the round file.
I have no faith in this 'circus'.

[rodeodance]

71. Hopefully, some of this info will be useful as FISA sunsetting in a few months.

[cali]

74. that meme is useless

I learn something from these hearings. The malfeasance is front and center for people to see. JC hearings have led to the resignation of Gonzo, Rove and others. These hearings elicit info that serves as a building block in a case against buscho.

The "strongly worded" letter meme is largely a myth.

I have a fuck of a lot more faith in Leahy, Kennedy, Feinggold and Whitehouse than I do in you.

[rodeodance]

70. Russ Feingold: Reverse targeting is against 4th amendment and MM says yes.

[bdamomma]

72. yea Whitehouse is up!!!

[rodeodance]

73. Whitehouse------stampede in last days of FISA laws.

[rodeodance]

75. talking of how the ATT. GEN was given power with last FISA bill.

[bdamomma]

76. Kyl, up, my audio turned off again.

[bdamomma]

77. kick

[rodeodance]

78. Leahy does NOT sound satisfied with many responses.

[rodeodance]

79. Leahy asking about Bush request for IMMUNITY for past transgressions of

telecommunications.

[rodeodance]

81. MM says go to WH for docs ("illegal wiretaps before NYT exposed WH)

[bdamomma]

80. we need to have some more fire in this hearing.

zzzzzzzzz.... oops I am awake.

[rodeodance]

82. I have not heard any Code Pinkers yet.

[bdamomma]

83. I wonder if any are there?

[rodeodance]

86. i am watching via the net-have not seen any wide stances. (he he. could not resist)

[rodeodance]

87. Susanne Spaulding just KNOCKED the SOCKS of the sleeping Committee.

[flyarm]

84. Feingold to take over for Leahy in next panel..eom

[rodeodance]

85. GREAT----both are great-yet Fiengold might but some life in this hearing

[rodeodance]

88. WHOW-specter just asked Suzanne S. to submit the language!! HO HO

[Lasher]

89. Care for a blank check, ma'am?

Those days are gone. Spectre still doesn't realize he no longer chairs the committee.

[AuntPatsy]

90. Thankfully.

[rodeodance]

91. Thread # 2 is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1900747&mesg_id=1900747