Fear and False Claims
While it is true that a court decision last year applied FISA to some foreign-to-foreign communications – those that are routed through wires in the U.S., as sometimes happens – it is not true that all legal authority to intercept al Qaeda communications has expired as this ad implied. Furthermore, civil libertarians argued that the Protect America Act's attempt to address that decision didn't provide sufficient protection to Americans who might have been communicating with persons targeted abroad. The House bill would take care of the problem of foreign-to-foreign communications that travel through U.S.-based switches with explicit language saying no warrant would be needed to eavesdrop on them.
We take no position on either House or Senate legislation, and it remains to be seen what will emerge from the negotiations between the two bodies, let along whether the president will sign it or not. Our point is that the House did not "refuse to vote" as the ad claimed.
We wish to make clear that we neither support or oppose Defense of Democracies' position. What we object to are the use of appeals to fear, false claims and twisted facts in support of this or any other legislation.
Reprinted with permission from factcheck.org
Sources
Meyer, Josh. "White House backtracks on claims of lost intelligence." Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb. 2008.
Riechmann, Deb. "Bush pushes House to pass intelligence bill, says Democrats side with trial lawyers." Associated Press Financial Wire, 23 Feb. 2008.
Lichtblau, Eric. "More sharp words traded over lapsed wiretap law." The New York Times, 23 Feb. 2008.
Risen, James and Eric Lichtblau. "Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts." The New York Times, 16 Dec. 2005.
Mukasey, Michael and J.M. McConnell. Letter to The Hon. Silvestre Reyes, 22 Feb. 208.
Roberts, Chris. "Transcript: Debate on the foreign intelligence Surveillance Act." El Paso Times, 22 Aug. 2007.
Bazan, Elizabeth. "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: A Brief Overview of Selected Issues." CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service, updated 14 Dec. 2007.
Rockefeller, Jay and Patrick Leahy, Silvestre Reyes and John Conyers. "Scare Tactics and Our Surveillance Bill." Washington Post, 25 Feb. 2008.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: mymand @ 03/04/2008 6:17:55 PM
Comment:
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
Comment: 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
Comment: 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.)