OK, I read thru the "summary" of the FISA Amendment Act of 2008

[johnaries]

at Track Gov, and honestly I don't see a problem.

Please don't quote Greenwald at me - he's already been debunked. As much as I love his other work and Salon in general, he's been proven wrong in this particular case.

And as much as I love the ACLU, I think that they are also overstating the case, as well.

Many have stated here that this law "SHREDS" the 4th Amendment, but in the very first section (Section 101) the bill specifically says that the 4th Amendment overrides this bill.

I'll admit that I haven't read the enitire bill, since much of it refers back to the original FISA bill andit would take a fine tooth comb to find all the possible loopholes. I've only read the summaries.

But aside from the extension of "emergency" survellience to 7 days, I really don't see a problem with what I have read. If anything, it limits the Bush Administration and destroys their rationale for domestic spying. Compared to the previous bill, it is far and away better (why didn't more people cry about it then?).

From what I have read, the bill as passed does seem to do what Obama wished it to do outside of the "immunity" clause. However, the immunity clause has a major loophole, in that the companies had to have some written reassurance from the government that what they were doing was "legal"

Folks, this is (dare I?) HUGH!!111!!11

It puts the blame squarely on the Bush Administration, not the Telecoms. It does NOT excuse Telecoms from future action. It is saying "OK, we know that you were forced into doing something you didn't want to do and you were told at the time it was perfectly legal, so we're going after the guys who lied to you in the first place."

Yes, I want accountability. Qwest refused, and they were puniched. My hat's off to Qwest. The Bush Admin also did everything they could to drive Qwest out of business.

The other companies submitted to "corporate waterboarding." Can you blame them?

Sorry for the rant, but fuck Greenwald, can you read the final bill itself and still day it was a "giveaway"? Matbe I'm wrong, but I don't see it. Please enlighten me. Preferably someone with an actual Law Degree. No just some kneee-jerk reaction.

[TheWraith]

1. You're bang on target. The people pumping hysteria don't understand what the bill actually does.

There is NO call for this level of nuttery.

[wtmusic]

13. Yep Russ Feingold is without a clue

:eyes:

[enlightenment]

2. You are entitled to your opinion, which you admit

is summary (didn't read the whole bill) and largely uninformed (you do not practice law).

I don't have a law degree, so I won't "enlighten" you . . .

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. Ummm...I think someone at the ACLU has a law degree and..

might disagree.

[TheWraith]

12. They ACLU is a fine organization, but one well known for indulging in a bit of hyperbole. nt

[madfloridian]

21. Talk to me about these 27 other groups that oppose it. Hyperbole much?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2333

[ananda]

4. Here's the problem.

With this so-called bill.. which effectively subverts the intent of the Constitution to protect the right to privacy and free speech.. the problem is in the potential for abuse without consequences for the abusers.

So far, Bush and his admin have committed treasonous acts, condoned torture, acted pre-emptively against an innocent country, and have actively subverted free speech and dissent.. without consequences. That is not going to change with or without Constitutional protections as long as there is no teeth in the enforcement.

Rights and protections are only as good or strong as the will to enforce them or to keep protecting them. If we want free speech and a free speech, we have to act as watchdogs and agents of change in our role as responsible citizens. That is certainly what Glen Greenwald has been doing, and now Chris Hedges who is joining with journalists and the ACLU to challenge the bill.

[Elidor]

5. Greenwald has been debunked? I must have missed that.

Hey, I know someone who has a law degree...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald

A link to said debunking would be helpful.

[readmoreoften]

6. Yeah fuck the ACLU and the People for the American Way! Someone on a forum read it!

What fucking hubris.

[depakid]

7. So, you don't see retoractive immunity for torts committed against citizens

to be a problem- both in terms of corporate accountability or under the US Constitutions.

i.e. the 5th and 14th Amendments prohibit taking property (and vested rights of action for harms done are property) without compensation.

This in addition to the 4th Amendment arguments....

[bean fidhleir]

8. Unless the telcos can produce a forged evesdropping warrant that would hold up

under scrutiny, they were accomplices not victims.

That's the basic deal with a search warrant (and an evesdropping warrant is a species of search warrant): it has to be made out in detail and signed by a judge who has jurisdiction, and a copy must be supplied to the person who controls the premises to be searched.

No warrant, no legality.

The telcos are accomplices.

[wtmusic]

9. The 4th Amendment overrides this bill? There's a relief

The Constitution "overrides" any other law of the land. So verbage to that effect is naught but a pacifier to stick in the mouths of the American public (and I don't even have a law degree).

Do you have a link to the summary?

[Fumesucker]

10. For me it's not FISA strictly speaking as much as it is telecom immunity..

Telecom immunity is the real goal of the politicians here, since it basically firewalls the only remaining avenue of discovery in regards to the illegal spying over which Ashcroft and other right wing whackos actually threatened to resign it was so horrendous.

Now we will never know, which really was the entire purpose of the FISA bill anyway, the rest was just smoke and mirrors to keep us distracted from immunity.

[Breeze54]

11. Would a lawyer that was also a Rhodes Scholar convince you that you're wrong?

Russ Feingold

After graduating from Joseph A. Craig High School, Feingold attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison and graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree with honors in 1975, a member of the Phi Beta Kappa honor society. He went to Magdalen College at the University of Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship in 1977, where he earned another Bachelor of Arts degree. Upon returning to the U.S., he attended Harvard Law School, receiving his J.D. with honors in 1979.

----------

Take a look at excerpts from Russ Feingold's speech:

"...it could not be clearer that this program broke the law, and this President broke the law. Not only that, but this administration affirmatively misled Congress and the American people about it for years before it finally became public."

...

"If Congress short-circuits these lawsuits, we will have lost a prime opportunity to finally achieve accountability for these years of law-breaking. That's why the administration has been fighting so hard for this immunity. It knows that the cases that have been brought directly against the government face much more difficult procedural barriers, and are unlikely to result in rulings on the merits."

...

"I sit on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, and I am one of the few members of this body who has been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program. And, based on what I know, I can promise that if more information is declassified about the program in the future, as is likely to happen either due to the Inspector General report, the election of a new President, or simply the passage of time, members of this body will regret that we passed this legislation. I am also familiar with the collection activities that have been conducted under the Protect America Act and will continue under this bill. I invite any of my colleagues who wish to know more about those activities to come speak to me in a classified setting. Publicly, all I can say is that I have serious concerns about how those activities may have impacted the civil liberties of Americans.

If we grant these new powers to the government and the effects become known to the American people, we will realize what a mistake it was, of that I am sure."

More at Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3598966

[MasonJar]

14. Constitutional lawyer and professor of law at George Washington U,

Jonathan Turley, said on Countdown that this legislation eviscerates the 4th Amendment. (Paraphrase/my words) He was very disappointed that Obama voted for it. I greatly admire Turley and have found that he speaks with reason when he is a guest on Countdown and other shows. I am delighted the ACLU and others are taking this travesty on. My main worry now is that with the loading of the federal courts with Bush-league and in-league-with-Bush judges that the courts will not uphold the Constitution either. 8 years of Bush has been the cornerstone for the downfall of all that the USA stands for. Even his own father and his father's friends know what a loser he is. He and Reagan should be entombed together!

[MasonJar]

15. P.S. Do you mean "huge"?

[wtmusic]

16. tongue-in-cheek

reference to freepers (who have misspelled it that way), along with the typing '1's for exclamatiion marks.

[madfloridian]

17. Oh my goodness...you should tell these 28 groups they are wrong.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2333

27 listed plus DFA which makes at least 28 plus Greenwald who has NOT been debunked. Plus the coalitions of bloggers.

[Breeze54]

18. Greenwald has already been debunked? - LINK, Please !!! n/t

[old guy]

19. * was more than happy to sign this bill.

He doesn't have a problem with it either Gave him everything he wanted.

[madfloridian]

20. Would you like to read the bio of Greenwald, a constitutional lawyer

"Glenn Greenwald is a Constitutional law attorney, and author of the political blog, "Unclaimed Territory." Greenwald has written for American Conservative magazine and appeared on a variety of television and radio programs, including C-Span's "Washington Journal," Air America's "Majority Report" and Public Radio International's "To the Point." His reporting and analysis have been credited in The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Salon, Slate and a variety of other print and online publications. "

[ThomWV]

22. May I point out a couple of flaws in your review?

I'm not trying to climb up your butt, just noting things.

First and foremost "It is saying "OK, we know that you were forced into doing something you didn't want to do" is patently incorrect. You may recall that at least one phone company refused the order. The Administration had no authority to 'force' any of the companies to do anything and their hundreds of lawyers on staff certainly knew that.

Next: "in that the companies had to have some written reassurance" is simply not acceptable - it was not sufficient for them to just have something in writing, they had to have quite specific documents which have never been produced to show that indeed they were presented.

It is just patently absurd to say that the 4th Amendment prevails and then write a law directly under it that says the 4th Amendment can eat shit and die - any dam fool can see right on the face of it that even the 7-day waiting period for a warrant is unconstitutional - hell, why not make it 7 seconds or 7 years? If you don't have a warrant you don't have a warrant and the Constitution demands a warrant - who how in hell is this legal.

Stop making excuses for treason, treason committed by very close to half of the Democrats in the Senate.