My congressmen's reply regaurding the Protect America Act. Help me refute it

[Redmenace]

I e-mailed my congressmen via Downsize DC about the Protect America act, this is his response.


================================================== =

Dear [My Name]:



Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. It's good to hear from you.



Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Adm. Michael McConnell informed Congress that antiquated provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were forcing him to get court orders to monitor terrorist communications and preventing him from collecting a significant amount of intelligence on terrorist activities. The FISA law, originally passed in 1978, has forced our intelligence community to go through red tape in order to intercept electronic communications among foreign suspects who are outside the U.S.



On August 4, 2007 the House passed, with my support, an updated, bi-partisan version of the FISA legislation called the Protect America Act of 2007. In order to safeguard the civil liberties of Americans, this legislation contains a provision requiring FISA court approval in order to conduct any surveillance that would target an American. However, the House Democratic leadership in the House allowed these provisions to expire on February 16, 2008.



I'm disappointed that the House Democratic leadership are willing to compromise the security of American families for the sake of politics. The Senate, the President, House Republicans, and even some House Democrats were willing to come to the table and negotiate a bill to keep our country secure. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi decided to allow this vital provision to expire.

The Protect America Act brings the outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 into line with current technological capabilities while adding appropriate liability protections for patriotic third parties who have helped defend our country.

The House of Representatives must pass this critical legislation without delay to ensure that Americans are protected from those who want to do us harm. I will do everything I can to ensure that these important protections are reinstated.

[dannno]

bump

[FrankRep]

Who's your congressman?

[dannno]

bump

[SLSteven]

The government has repeatedly demonstrated that the more power it has the more mischief it seems to discover - whether accidental or purposeful. Should we really trust them with more and more power. Is it really a lack of power or knowledge that lead to the successful terrorist attacks? As Ron Paul said. We need "intelligent" people interpreting the intelligence.

[slacker921]

send him a copy of 1984 .. with a bookmark that says:
"The 9/11 terrorists tripped many security measures that were in place in 2001 - and yet no action was taken. More government surveillance will not stop terrorists. Read this book to find out what will happen if the government continues to get more surveillance powers over the people." ?

[TruthisTreason]

Odds are he is just voting the party line. Educate your neighbors, don't waste time on him. Vote his ass out!:cool:

[SLSteven]

Odds are he is just voting the party line. Educate your neighbors, don't waste time on him. Vote his ass out!:cool:

Good post!

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Your Congressman is either an idiot or a NWO shill.

[dirknb@hotmail.com]

Odds are he is just voting the party line. Educate your neighbors, don't waste time on him. Vote his ass out!:cool:

That settles it, he's an idiot! :D

[micahnelson]

1) The act makes it more, not less likely that Americans will be monitored without a warrant, as is Required by Law. Assuming that it does make us safer from terrorism (which is a major assumption), it makes us more vulnerable illegal surveillance and the subsequent loss of liberty associated with such a loss of privacy.

2) Historically, government monitoring programs have led to a net loss of civil liberty as the programs collect information on political opponents (See FDR, the FBI, and America First, the Alien and Sedition acts, or McCarthy and the Communist Party.)

3) When people have a rational fear of government monitoring or reprisal for speech or lawful actions, the words and spirit of the first amendment are violated.

4) The act makes third parties immune to criminal investigation if they are caught monitoring on behalf of the government. This restricts our right to seek restitution when the government oversteps its bounds, both our right to bring grievances and for equal justice under the law. The government cannot give out writs of marque and reprisal against its own citizens.

5) It has been said that all monitoring done with this act will be lawful, but the immunity from lawsuits are a needed protection. Yet, we as citizens are told that if we should not fear spying if we have nothing to hide. I say the same to anyone who accepts government contracts or assists the government with spying. If you are following the law, you have nothing to fear and thus do not need protection.


Protect America Act of 2007 - Amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) to state that nothing under its definition of "electronic surveillance" shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.

Allows the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the Attorney General (AG), for periods up to one year, to authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons outside the United States if the DNI and AG determine that: (1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that such acquisition concerns persons outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Court); (2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance; (3) the acquisition involves obtaining foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communication service provider or other person who has access to communications; (4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and (5) the minimization procedures (procedures to ensure the smallest level of privacy intrusion while obtaining such information) to be used meet the definition of minimization procedures under FISA. Requires such determination to be certified and submitted to the Court.

Requires the AG to report to: (1) the Court the procedures by which the government determines that such acquisitions do not constitute electronic surveillance; and (2) the congressional intelligence and judiciary committees semiannually concerning acquisitions made during the previous six-month period.

[james1844]

The "red tape" he is refering to, is a 200 year tradition of legal due processes. Due process is very important in two regards:

1) Appropriately determining guilt from innocence

2) Protecting the individual from abuse of state power.

In addition, the requirement that executive officials obtain a court order is an important part of the constitutional system of checks and balances.

In reponse I'd mail him a copy of the constitution.

Best,

James

[AisA1787]

4) The act makes third parties immune to criminal investigation if they are caught monitoring on behalf of the government. This restricts our right to seek restitution when the government oversteps its bounds, both our right to bring grievances and for equal justice under the law. The government cannot give out writs of marque and reprisal against its own citizens.

If this is true it concerns me. I didn't see this part before.


Playing devil's advocate, it is important to remember that not everything in the act is bad. As far as I can tell, the act still requires a warrant before targeting an American citizen for surveillance.

The main difference from the past would be that the government would be able to target foreign individuals for surveillance and intercept their communications in the United States, no matter where the signal originated or where it is going to. Whereas before, the government needed a warrant to intercept any communications in the United States, whether or not the communications originated out of country or were initiated by a non-U.S. citizen.

In my opinion, as long as the government still needs a warrant to target Americans for surveillance, I don't see any glaring problems. Except for the problem mentioned by micahnelson, above.

[micahnelson]

From the ACLU:

This new program grants the AG — not a court or independent body — the authority to issue year-long program warrants for surveillance of people reasonably believed to be outside of the United States. The secret intelligence court that has been overseeing such activities for the last thirty years is cut out of the process, leaving the executive branch unchecked.

Basically, your rights can be violated for up to a year before there is a legal limit to the warrant. If the AG issues the warrant without grounds, or a significant monitoring of US Citizens occurred along with the monitoring of foreign targets, the damage would have already been done.

This updates FISA for the 21st century like the car updates horse an buggy- it completely replaces it with something different all together. This in itself isn't the problem. The problem is we are trading court oversight for the will of a Presidential Appointments whim.

[AisA1787]

From the ACLU:


Basically, your rights can be violated for up to a year before there is a legal limit to the warrant. If the AG issues the warrant without grounds, or a significant monitoring of US Citizens occurred along with the monitoring of foreign targets, the damage would have already been done.

This updates FISA for the 21st century like the car updates horse an buggy- it completely replaces it with something different all together. This in itself isn't the problem. The problem is we are trading court oversight for the will of a Presidential Appointments whim.


"for people reasonably believed to be outside the United States"?

Do you know if this is referring to anyone who is geographically located outside the 50 states, whether or not they're a citizen? Or is it for non-citizens only?

[Carole]

Someone needs to tell this guy that the very real threat Americans are sensing is coming out of Washington, DC, not from any foreign nation.

BTW, remind him you are keeping track of all legislators who are voting for any legislation that usurps the Constitution and tramples our liberties.

[Knightskye]

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. It's good to hear from you.

Seems like he sent you an automated reply.


The FISA law, originally passed in 1978, has forced our intelligence community to go through red tape

Since when is the 4th Amendment "red tape"?


bi-partisan version

They're both the same party.


In order to safeguard the civil liberties of Americans, this legislation contains a provision requiring FISA court approval in order to conduct any surveillance that would target an American.

Though no court approval for calls coming into America from overseas.


However, the House Democratic leadership in the House allowed these provisions to expire on February 16, 2008.

That's a good thing.

[quote]I'm disappointed that the House Democratic leadership are willing to compromise the security of American families for the sake of politics.

I'm disappointed in people like you who are willing to sacrifice liberty on behalf of the American people for a false sense of security.


while adding appropriate liability protections for patriotic third parties who have helped defend our country.

If they were patriotic, they wouldn't have gone along with the government and violated the 4th Amendment.


I will do everything I can to ensure that these important protections are reinstated.

The only important protections are those in the Constitutiton.

Oh, and this letter's from Montana Congressman Dennis Rehberg. I googled part of it.

[micahnelson]

"for people reasonably believed to be outside the United States"?

Do you know if this is referring to anyone who is geographically located outside the 50 states, whether or not they're a citizen? Or is it for non-citizens only?

Its for anyone reasonably believed (By the administration's appointees) to be eligible for monitoring. Since there is no oversight by a court, it doesn't matter what criteria is used to determine eligibility. The best case scenario would involve the AG only spying on people who were non citizen suspects abroad- in which case there would be no need for telcom immunity or the circumvention of the court.

The worst case scenario is that the CIA, NSA, FBI, DoJ, DoHS gets to peek at you for a year until the FISA court finally gets to look at the circumstances. By then, evidence of willful spying on citizens would have gone cold and the illegally obtained evidence would be in play.

Yes, if you completely take them at their word, there is no reason to be afraid of this. The problem is that they can already do what they are asking to do, all they are adding is the right to do it with immunity and without oversight- which means they intend to do things a court would disagree with and don't want to get caught with their pants down. This "reform" gives them a year to do what they want before they have to report to any power other than themselves.

[micahnelson]

Also, it doesn't even bar the intelligence community from collecting data on citizens- it only bars them from targeting them.

"We were spying on Joe NonCitizen who just so happens to be friends with a citizen in the US that we want to monitor. Why were we spying on Joe Citizen? I'll tell you in a year"

[AJ Antimony]

You're lucky... my congressman doesn't respond to any of my DownsizeDC emails

[apropos]

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act. It's good to hear from you.

Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Adm. Michael McConnell informed Congress that antiquated provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were forcing him to get court orders to monitor terrorist communications and preventing him from collecting a significant amount of intelligence on terrorist activities. The FISA law, originally passed in 1978, has forced our intelligence community to go through red tape in order to intercept electronic communications among foreign suspects who are outside the U.S.

On August 4, 2007 the House passed, with my support, an updated, bi-partisan version of the FISA legislation called the Protect America Act of 2007. In order to safeguard the civil liberties of Americans, this legislation contains a provision requiring FISA court approval in order to conduct any surveillance that would target an American. However, the House Democratic leadership in the House allowed these provisions to expire on February 16, 2008.

I'm disappointed that the House Democratic leadership are willing to compromise the security of American families for the sake of politics. The Senate, the President, House Republicans, and even some House Democrats were willing to come to the table and negotiate a bill to keep our country secure. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi decided to allow this vital provision to expire.

The Protect America Act brings the outdated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 into line with current technological capabilities while adding appropriate liability protections for patriotic third parties who have helped defend our country.

The House of Representatives must pass this critical legislation without delay to ensure that Americans are protected from those who want to do us harm. I will do everything I can to ensure that these important protections are reinstated.

A few thoughts you might add in your reply...


These inefficiencies, which the congressman regards with contempt, are the price we pay for liberty. If 'efficiency' is our ultimate goal, should we not take steps to do away with our three branches of government - which by their nature are divided, disunited, and conflicted - and, in the interest of decisive action, combine them in the role of one strong leader? History is replete with examples of a state unencumbered by red tape, dissent, and safety measures in the fight against terrorism. Joseph Stalin has provided a most instructive example in liquidating declared enemies of the state. Of course, once we put into place the machinery to eavesdrop on our targeted enemies, can we guarantee the definition of these enemies will remain the same? Or that our current enemies will not adapt to the proposed legislation? If terrorists have proven anything, it is a talent for subverting the profile. Palestinians have had no problem recruiting suicide bombers with no prior links to terrorism and sending them past Israeli checkpoints. The Unabomber was a university professor. John Malvo and Tim McVeigh had no prior criminal record. To find these men before they act, we would have to do away with any semblance of privacy.