I just received an Email from my Rep about his vote on the FISA Bill. I was going to post his whole email but it's to long for the intro. My responses will be below the fold.
Ok so lets take a look at this for a moment.
While far from perfect,...
You got that right. Not even close.
First and foremost it will keep us safe. According to a National Intelligence Estimate, al Qaeda has reconstituted itself, and is continuing to plot against Americans. In recent months, fighting in Afghanistan has intensified. While I am frustrated that the Administration chose to divert troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, the threat is real and we must do what we can to protect Americans.
First off, I no longer trust the NIE. Anyone who disagreed with the "party line" was outed, ignored, minimized or fired. Lets see what the world community thinks is going on. Second, I do agree that the occupation of Iraq has lead to increased activity in Afghanistan, but lets also be realistic. A part of the increased combat is from entering new areas of Afghanistan. . Ok now I can forgive the War funding you voted for since it did have the GI bill. But we still need to GET OUT OF IRAQ!
At the same time, the act requires that, in gathering intelligence, President Bush and future Presidents, will need to seek warrants to conduct surveillance on Americans. The law allows an exception for certain emergency situations, provided the Attorney General notifies a specialized FISA court that surveillance is beginning, and the Attorney General applies for a warrant within 7 days.
Wait.. didn't they already NEED warrants? Didn't they already have a 3 day period to get a warrant after they had already started the surveillance? And please tell me just how many warrants has the FISA court turned down since 9/11? If I recall .... 2? Out of thousands. Oh thats right the President said he didn't need to go to FISA because he had inherent powers to spy. Instead now he just will have to have his FISA court rubber stamp it.
In addition, the act will ensure that any past surveillance abuses by the Bush Administration will be fully investigated. The bill requires the inspectors general of the Justice Department, and all agencies authorized to conduct foreign surveillance, to report to Congress on all federal government programs involving warrantless surveillance conducted since September 11, 2001. The bill requires a preliminary report within 60 days of enactment, and specifically requires that the final report include a detailed description of what President Bush referred to as the "NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program," as well as any program conducted by or at the direction of any part of the federal government that involved domestic electronic surveillance of Americans or did not, in any way, fully comply with federal law.
Investigated by the same Justice Department that has ok'd torture, er interrogation techniques, has refused to act on Congressional subpoenas and fired federal attorneys for not playing partisan politics on who they pursue? Forgive me for being a little skeptical about that turn out.
I was extremely disappointed earlier this year when, in the middle of negotiations about a new FISA bill, the President abruptly ended negotiations, and allowed temporary FISA amendments to lapse because of his insistence that Congress immediately grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies who may have violated their customers' privacy rights.I believed then, as now, that courts, not Congress, should make such determinations, based upon evidence.
Correct, so lets let the current court cases play out and see what has been done, by whom and under who's authority.
H.R. 6304 requires just that. Instead of granting retroactive immunity, the bill requires courts to make individualized determinations and only dismiss suits against telecommunications companies upon proof, by substantial evidence, that the assistance they provided to the Administration was part of a program to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, was specifically authorized by the President, and that they had been told by a high level intelligence official that such cooperation had been determined to be lawful.
In other words. If the President, who is known to lie his ass off when ever it suits him, and an intelligence officer, who knows his job is on the line if he doesn't agree, is in an agency that has also doctored and or fabricated reports to suit the Pres, say this is legal then by golly gee I guess its legal!
I am greatly disappointed in this outcome. All this makes me wonder. Why this great push for immunity. Maybe Bush knows he got his hand caught in the cookie jar and has half a dozen Telecom's screaming at him saying "You said we could do this!" And just how many in the Government knew this was going on. It just seems to me just how many people actually mean this when they say ...
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"