Fear and False Claims

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

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.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution
Al Gore's Climate-Change Evolution

Using emotion to convince people to change.

Heaven Can Wait
Heaven Can Wait

A new book promises proof of eternal life.

The World's Biggest Foods
The World's Biggest Foods

Monster edibles from around America.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: mymand @ 03/04/2008 6:17:55 PM








    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.

  • Posted By: mymand @ 03/04/2008 6:01:13 PM

    jimbo and jackt both seem to ignore the simple fact that, if the telecom companies have followed the laws,
    then they need no immunity. If they have not broken the law or violated the Constitution, then why would
    there be a need for it? Our goverment is responsible, to the citizens, to protect our civil rights as granted
    by the Constitution. Any effort the skirt that should by actionable and anyone involved should be called to account.

  • Posted By: bstender @ 03/01/2008 12:37:37 PM

    jimbo, this is about domestic spying, your fearless leader has been scooping up domestic calls without a warrant. and without any link to terrorists. you really are fine with that? what if it was a money-chasing democrat doing it, would that also be fine?
    and btw, focusing on snooping on everybody is like the Iraq invasion, a further waste of precious resources making the real job less effective...
    he started this 7 mos prior to 9-11, maybe if he had been focusing on the real enemy, the whole thing could have been stopped. (and again, he spent more time blocking the 9-11 investigation than he spent on this current attempt to bury his mistakes.)

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse

My Take

Customize the NEWSWEEK homepage
to feature your favorite columnists.

Customize Now