(strong)enclosed will be in bold font sytle(/strong)

-- bystander

Might want to use (b)bold(/b) for the same results with less effort. Just a suggestion.

has it right. Electing a new president will not change anyhting, as the executive will still have near dictatorial powers. The likelihood of Obama giving up such powers would be remote.

Bush and Cheney need to be impeached. The rule-of-law needs to be re-established so that future leaders understand that they too must adhere to those basic standards.

Without impeachment, the Congress, the Constitution, and the will of the people are dead.

Support Kucinich and his 35 articles of impeachment! There is nothing more important than to prosecute those who have committed so many crimes.

Clinton was impeached for perjury. It is pretty plain that Bush is also a perjurer. Pelosi needs to put impeachment on the table, or get out of the way so that some patriot can make it happen. The world is waiting. Do they have to start another illegal war with Iran for the people to act?

Thanks for your

GREAT

• avdise
• advice

(How great depends on how well the above came out :))

In fact, I just noticed that when you are composing your post there is a short list of acceptable HTML tags directly above the composition area. It reads...

(1000 word limit; allowed html: < i>, < b>,

, < ul>, < li> ; < a> tags not allowed)

Click on sig for a link to all the & codes for cool things like trademarks™ and ♥s...

I had noticed the indicators above the body of the message, but was unsure of how to use them, or what they did (As evidenced by what I did above)

Y'all can look forward to exciting new posts in vibrant 3-D from me, in the future...

There are two definitions, or maybe unspoken addendum, for the phrase:

Foreign-to-foreign communications, when such communications are available on U.S. networks, computers or information systems, should not require a warrant.

The first definition is the one I think you use and one I would agree with as policy.

Foreign-to-foreign communications, when such communications are available on U.S. networks, computers or information systems, should not require a warrant if the person or entity with legal access to those communications is willing to provide that information.

The second definition, the one written into the PAA FISA amendments that have expired (105B specifically), is the definition that the NYT's article and many in government are freaking out about.

Foreign-to-foreign communications, when such communications are available on U.S. networks, computers or information systems, should not require a warrant and a U.S. citizen with access to those communications can be searched and forced to provide access to their records, computers and networks, including the installation of government controlled software and hardware, WITHOUT A WARRANT. As icing on the cake, that U.S. person is sworn to secrecy and can be punished by a secret court.

Here is the the specific language in 105B:

----

`(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may direct a person to--

`(1) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such person is providing to the target; and

`(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such person wishes to maintain.

`(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to subsection (e).

`(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found.

------

The second definition accomplishes multiple goals besides being, I think, completely unconstitutional. It eliminates the "Quests" of the world and prevents competitors stepping into the market and providing communication services with privacy as the main selling point. Direct access to the communications infrastructure is one of the keys to massive data mining.

There has been a concerted effort by those who want the government to have the powers listed in 105B to avoid debate on the facts and the underlying text of the law and instead to try and frame the issue as "foreign-to-foreign communications shouldn't require a warrant."

When Rep. Peter Hoekstra outed himself as one of Joe Klein's sources during Time's FISA meltdown, he wrote an article in the National Review defending Klein and arguing for certain FISA changes. Hoekstra was quite candid when he wrote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVlNzk2YmQ4NGZjNjFhZjU4NmE0OGYyOTBhYjNiNDA=

----

Anyone who understands how FISA works in practice or how the bill is intended to work as a whole understands that a court order is necessary to compel the cooperation of third parties to actually conduct the surveillance and provide clear liability protection for assisting the government. Without such protection, third parties are unlikely to cooperate, especially after being subjected recently to baseless and unfair attacks. Such court orders are expressly provided for later in the bill.

The so-called “emergency” provision of the House Democrats’ bill includes no liability protection, rendering it practically meaningless, and would in any event ultimately require a subsequent court order. As a legal and practical matter, a court order would be required to conduct basket surveillance under the bill. I find it ironic that the same critics who have so vehemently opposed protecting third parties from liability are now arguing that a court order is not necessary.

----

Hoekstra is speaking about the second definition and gets right to the point. Without the "liability protection" (read as: 'forced cooperation' (read as: 'warrantless searches')) of U.S. citizens provided by the language in 105B, a court order would be required because U.S. citizens are being searched.

Why he thinks a federal law can eliminate the need for a warrant when searching a U.S. citizen for foreign-to-foreign communications is beyond me, but this language has already passed the House and Senate before.

There is a Kabuki dance going on with the "foreign-to-foreign communications" language because supporters of "liability protection" want to keep this sucker as as abstracted away from the key issues as possible.

Warrants will not be required when searching U.S. citizens for foreign-to-foreign communications and those searches will be secret and enforced by a secret court.

That is a pretty hard sell when you say out loud.