If the telecom companies have broken no laws or assisted in violating The Constitution, then there is no need for retroactive immunity. On the other hand if there has been some sort of crime here and the
Whitehouse is at the center of it, then let the chips fall where they may. I don't believe anyone should
pay the price of the freedom grant to them by the constitution, because a small minority of the people
that voted this guy into office, still can't take responsibilty for that vote. If there is nothing for the American
citizens to worry about, and civil liberties and protected, then allow the law makers that are called on to pass the law to view all of the documents produced from this program ot verify that no domestic spying has
taken place.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »
Fear and False Claims
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Defense of Democracies TV Ad: "Midnight"
Narrator: Midnight. February 16th. The law that lets intelligence agencies intercept al-Qaeda communications expires.
Senate Democrats and Republicans vote overwhelmingly to extend terrorist surveillance.
But the House refuses to vote and instead goes on vacation.
So new surveillance against terrorists is crippled.
Tell the House of Representatives to do its job and pass the Senate's terror surveillance bill… to keep us all safe. Osama bin Calling ...
Cue the scary music, black background and misleading statement:
Narrator: Midnight. February 16. The law that lets intelligence agencies intercept al-Qaeda communications expires.
This is simply not true. First, if government eavesdroppers want to listen in on communications between two suspected terrorists who are outside the U.S., they can. That would likely include a lot of al-Qaeda-related chats. No warrant is necessary as long as the communication isn't intercepted over a wire in the U.S.
Second, even if one of the parties targeted for tapping is in the U.S., the government still can rely on the granddaddy of laws that deal with wiretapping as a foreign sleuthing tool, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Under FISA, intelligence-gatherers must apply to a special court for a warrant to tap the communications of a person in the U.S. The process can be cumbersome, although officials have said that court approval sometimes takes only minutes. And if there's an emergency and the government has strong evidence, the wiretap can proceed before an order is sought; authorities have up to 72 hours to get their application to the FISA court, which seldom swats the government down. Of the 2,181 applications made to the FISA court for authority to conduct electronic surveillance or physical searches in 2006, just one was denied, and only in part, according to the Justice Department's annual report on the statute.
What the ad's narrator really means is that a law updating and expanding FISA to make the government's work easier, which was passed last August, has expired. The Protect America Act was given a life of only six months because lawmakers wanted to put something in place while continuing to debate its civil liberties and national security implications before deciding whether to make it permanent. That's the law that vaporized on Feb. 16, with disagreements between the House and Senate still unresolved.
The Protect America Act, among other things, expanded the range of situations in which the government could operate without a FISA warrant. Controversy arose because the wording of the law could have allowed the government to wiretap the conversations and e-mails of Americans without a court order when targeting a foreigner abroad.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next Page »









Discuss