Email I sent to my Senators on FISA

[Eric J in MN]

Feel free to use my words to email your Senators:

Please vote against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

Section 803 prevents states from enforcing state privacy laws.
===============================================
`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.
============================================

[nilram]

1. great argument

I would have included it in my letter to my Democratic Congresswoman -- and I'll certainly include it when I write my Republican Senator ("State's Rights! State's Rights!"). I'll also be asking the Senator to join Arlen Specter in opposition... (The bizarreness amuses me, to ask anyone to emulate Arlen Specter.)

Below is my letter, also feel free to use it. My bf riffed on it as he called a half a dozen congresscritters this morning.


Please vote against HR 6304 and for civil liberties, constitutional protections, and the rule of law.

The US Government already has the flexibility it needs to conduct electronic surveillance in the existing FISA law.

FISA, as it exists, already allows surveillance of a foreign power without a court order (when the Attorney General certifies such under oath), and allows surveillance without a court order for up to 72 hours while a warrant is being procured. In the 30 years that FISA has been in place, only a handful of warrants have been refused.

HR 6304 permits mass surveillance of all communications coming into or out of the United States, without individual review, it allows minimal oversight, and, essentially, allows the executive branch "off the leash" of the Fourth Amendment for weeks or months until an appeal is complete.

FISA has stood the test of time in providing judicial oversight of government electronic surveillance. Please don't allow tampering with it -- please vote against HR 6304.

[progressoid]

2. State's Rights! State's Rights!

Good point.

I'll include that to my Rep. I doubt it will change his mind, but it's worth a try.

[nilram]

17. Here's what I sent to my republican senator

Use it, anybody...


Please join fellow Republican Senator Arlen Specter in opposing H.R. 6304, FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I agree with Senator Specter when he says, "It is totally insufficient to grant immunity for the telephone companies' prior conduct based merely on the written assurance from the administration that the spying was legal."

Additionally, section 803 of this bill would prevent Oregonians from enforcing Oregon state privacy laws. Please stand behind Oregon and Oregonians and vote no on H.R. 6304.


(And thanks to Eric for that last bit!)

[slipslidingaway]

3. Thanks K&R n/t

[Eric J in MN]

4. thanks for the kick NT

NT

[slipslidingaway]

8. You're welcome and thank you for highlighted this aspect. n/t

[EFerrari]

5. Great argument, Eric. n/t

[Eric J in MN]

9. Thank you. NT

NT

[Uncle Joe]

6. I don't know why anyone would believe a future administration would need to obey this law

if it passes?

They wouldn't need to change the law, just make it up as they go along and then get the corporatists approval after the fact.

If the Congress didn't approve of the new administration's breaking of the law, then according to Bond, the administration could give a government order to some corporation like Black Water to roundup the rebellious Congress members and declare martial law, so long as it's a government order, that's all he's concerned with.

Edit to add.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3496796

"I'm not here to say that the government is always right, but when the government tells you to do something, I'm sure you would all agree that I think you all recognize that is something you need to do," Bond said."

[EFerrari]

7. Maybe the House has to keep up the pretense that we need them to convene?

:shrug:

[Eric J in MN]

15. Yes, retroactive immunity promotes citizens acting like...

...pawns before king.

We're supposed to be a democracy, not a monarchy.

[Eric J in MN]

10. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

11. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

12. kick

kick

[nilram]

13. ditto -nt

[Eric J in MN]

14. Thanks for the kick. NT

NT

[Eric J in MN]

16. kick

kick