Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 406 Editor's Choice: 7
-
If suits were brought and
[Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]telecoms could show that they were acting in good faith these suits would be thrown out. I'm no big fan of corporations but honestly the responsible party would seem to be the federal government.
Also, appeals courts have already said that only individuals that could show that they were spied on could bring suit. Under those conditions, these lawsuits would be thrown out for that as well.
But someone suing the government could ask a court to have the telecoms examine their records to see if they were spied on. Giving the telecoms immunity would prevent them from claiming 5th amendment protections or protections from liability.
-
As I also stated
[Read the article: Betrayed by Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Constitutional protections in this case prevents the government from using evidence recovered illegally (in this case by a government agent) from being used against a defendant in a court of law.
I can't recall a single government agent prosecuted for acting in good faith.
-
I'm trying to get my brain around this uproar.
[Read the article: Interview with ACLU re: constitutional challenge to new FISA law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I listened to the podcast and I understand the ACLU's stand (I've been an on and off contributor when I can afford it, to the ACLU for decades.) Their position is the new law is too extreme and doesn't require the government to say who is the target, where the target is, and the manner of their surveillance.
You have to read the 1978 version of the law and the 2008 amended law to see where FISA stands today.
An application for electronic surveillance must have:
The identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance;
A statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power;
A statement of the proposed minimization procedures;
A detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance;
A certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate—
(A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information;
(B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information;
(C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and
(E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that—
(i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and
(ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;
(8) a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance;
(9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application;
(10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and
(11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device.
This seems to answer the who, what when and how of the target of surveillance.
It is important to me that the Constitution is not violated. My biggest concern with the way the Bush administration conducted surveillance was that there was no oversight. There was nothing that prevented the government from going after its political enemies.
But I also see the need to for law enforcment to be able to act quickly on intelligence.
To my mind, Bush violated the existing FISA law. He should be impeached. I'm no lawyer but from a common sense point of view the biggest difference between this law and the previous law is that it gives telecoms retroactive immunity.
We can eneact laws until the cows come home but if the President is determined to violate the law, what the hell good are they? Especially when Congress refuses to use its powers of impeachment.
But if our remedy is to prevent Obama from taking office because of this vote and handing the election to McCain, I have to say you people are cutting off your noses to spite your face.
-
Application for court orders
[Read the article: Interview with ACLU re: constitutional challenge to new FISA law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For clarity, I was reading section 104 of the 2008 amended law which amends 50 U.S.C. section 1804 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978)
-
Democrats woun't challenge this, its being chalenged by conservatives who don't want McCain
[Read the article: Legal expert says McCain may not be eligible for White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Also, many on the right are saying that the Republican party bylaws go further. Parties aren't covered by the Constituion and Republican party bylaws state that the nominee of the Republican party must be be born a citizen of a STATE within United States. A lot of their bylaws are unchanged since the McCarthy era.
So there are conservatives who will challenge his nomination in their rules committee.
-
Of course, they can easily just change their bylaws
[Read the article: Legal expert says McCain may not be eligible for White House]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and that would be the end of that, but its probably more symbolic than anything else.