Letters to the Editor
karrsic
Published Letters: 446 Editor's Choice: 6
-
bad news, good news, bad news
[Read the article: Joe Klein's defense of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The bad news about moving from NorCal to SoCal is trading Barbara Lee for Brian Bilbray. The good news is that my letters to Congress go to someone who needs guidance. The bad news is it'll be a cold day in hell before I'll change anyone's thinking...
I have to give Mr. Bilbray credit for at least responding on topic, which is more than I can say for Feinstein. Bilbray ignored my telecom immunity comments and uses language that sounds similar to Klein's, i.e., they likely come from the same talking point memo.
Text of response:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding homeland security. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This law was designed to enable our intelligence agencies to gather data on foreign targets in foreign countries without obtaining prior court approval. The law restricted the types of electronic surveillance that could be employed without a warrant. These restrictions included satellite and radio communications. However, over the past 30 years we have seen momentous change in the state of the world. Furthermore, aside from a vastly different global dynamic, the efficacy of FISA has been significantly eroded because the largely static law could not keep pace with the steady and sometimes revolutionary change in technology.
As the internet and other digital forms of communication evolve, intelligence targets increasingly use them to thwart law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Unfortunately, technological developments such as the internet were entirely unforeseen and therefore not exempted from the electronic surveillance portion of FISA. Without the exemption, the best efforts of our intelligence agencies would be obstructed and court orders would be required in order to achieve the same level of intelligence surveillance as intended when FISA was originally implemented. As 9-11 and the Global War on Terror have shown us, accurate and timely intelligence is not just important, it is vital to our homeland security and for saving American lives.
To ensure we have the best intelligence to combat terrorism at home and abroad, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced the Protect America Act. This bill was signed into law on August 5, 2007 (Public Law 110-55) to restore the original intent of FISA by exempting previously unconsidered forms of electronic communication. A critical aspect of FISA is that it only applies to foreigners in a foreign nation. For every person pursued as an intelligence target under FISA, it must be reasonably proven they are not a U.S. citizen and not in the United States . While information transmitted from an intelligence target into the U.S. can be intercepted without a court order, one would be required to intercept a transmission from the U.S. to an intelligence target in a foreign nation.
The Protect America Act modernizes FISA by bringing it into the twenty-first century to give our intelligence community the ability to efficiently investigate foreign threats to the United States . Currently, the Protect America Act is set to expire 180 days after its enactment. It will be extremely important to revisit this issue and reauthorize the provisions of the Protect America Act so we do not deprive our intelligence agencies of this critical tool to defend America and her citizens.
Response articulation welcome.
This argument has perhaps been ongoing from the start, but the last several days I've heard more clearly the belief among right wing politicos the belief that it's their duty to secure US citizens first, protect the Constitution second. It seems rather paradoxical to me, since w/o the latter there is no former. Does the US population agree?
-
re: a question
[Read the article: Joe Klein's defense of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My question is simply this. Do we agree that we should send him such a bill anyway? What is the best result Congress can acheive in the current environment?
Has the amnesty portion even been debated publicly? So far reps' responses to questions regarding the bill have avoided this clause. Bush's explanation for the provision defies common sense.
"must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multi-billion dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 atacks."
I'm not arguing a "debate" will change anything, but the longer this gets played out the better, IMHO.
-
@Frankly
[Read the article: The Beltway Establishment's contempt for the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any prosecution would have to be brought by the Justice Department and they're the ones who authorized it in the first place.
Dumb questions, but why is the Justice dept the only valid prosecutor? Couldn't state laws have been violated?
-
@Frankly
[Read the article: The Beltway Establishment's contempt for the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the thoughts.
In the first place, it would likely tie up all his/her resources for an indefinite time.
Though the tobacco litigation isn't a perfect comparison, would the resource constraints be similar?
I can't imagine a state's attorney willing to undertake a prosecution against a telecom giant.
If anyone would do it, it's Jerry Brown. (Not that I'm counting on it.)
Or how about revoking their license to do business in the state? That one's right up there on the plausibility scale... ;)
-
rule of law
[Read the article: Telecom amnesty would forever foreclose investigation of vital issues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“Many Senators claim that their deal renews respect for the Rule of Law. Let me respond to that absurd statement by stating clearly, you cannot simultaneously tear down and rebuild one of our Constitutional principles. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The price for amnesty is the sacrifice of the Rule of Law. Each one of these Senators should wear a scarlet letter “A” for amnesty.”
- Rep. Steve King (R-IA) on Immigration bill