home

Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance Bill

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 12:42:06 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sen. Arlen Specter has introduced a bill supposedly to require judicial oversight of NSA electronic surveillance applications. But, as Marty Lederman of Balkinization and Glenn Greenwald point out, it's anything but.

It is, of course, so disorientingly bizarre to hear about a proposed law requiring FISA warrants for eavesdropping because we already have a law in place which does exactly that. It's called FISA. That's the law the Administration has been deliberately breaking because they think they don't have to comply with it and that Congress has no power to make them. Reading this article about Specter's proposed legislation is somewhat like hearing that a life-long, chronic bank-robber got arrested for robbing a bank over the weekend and, in response, a Senator introduces legislation to make it a crime to rob banks.

Marty has a link (Word document format) to the draft legislation.

[Graphic created exclusively for TalkLeft by CL.]

< Inmates Seize Control of Afghan Prison Wing | Unpublished Photos of Civil Rights Movement Discovered >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance Bill | 24 comments (24 topical)
    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 03:05:07 PM EST
    I think it's time for a Truth in Legislation act.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    Specter is trying to curry favor from the Left without angering the Right. He will do neither. As this is his last term, it doesn't matter. The middle path has become the road less traveled. And given the epic size of the battle unfolding, perhaps it is best.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#3)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 05:54:26 PM EST
    without angering the Right. I quite agree. There are many people on the right like Bob Barr who are in favor of civil liberties including the right not to be spied upon by the government on the whim of a member of the executive branch and this kind of half-hearted approach will no doubt fail to quelch their concerns and lead them to conclude that Specter is just another brain-dead shill for Bushco.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 06:58:23 PM EST
    This bill needs to be Identified for what it is. "Ending the 4th Amendment". That's an Amendment that everyone opposed to this bill should Fillibuster to get included in the Bill's name. Dem's should also move to insert language that says "this act repeals the 4th Amendment". Then, let's have an "up or down vote" and hold everyone accountable.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 09:09:59 PM EST
    What a joke, bush is bizarre and down right evil. the fact is bush loves this bull and lives to see us all in the third world, like red china. "camps anyone"? that is the next move by bush and business, a camp system for all who don't like what the government is doing. and many in government of both paties would love to see just that big camp system for the enemy within!

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 10:03:37 PM EST
    House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner has this statement up on his web site. Was this requirement passed in the law? Was this requirement met by the National Intelligence Director? The National Intelligence Director is required ... "to appoint a Civil Liberties Protection Officer who would be responsible for ensuring that civil liberties and privacy protections are appropriately incorporated in intelligence policies and procedures. Moreover, other government agencies with anti-terrorism roles would have a similar requirement. The bill requires that government agency rulemaking take into consideration impacts on individual privacy." Who is responsible for seeing this requirement is actually done?

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#7)
    by bad Jim on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 11:39:27 PM EST
    In some sense it's encouraging to hear that the right wing is coming out of the closet and accusing the left of the crime of defending liberty.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 12:44:15 AM EST
    The thorn in my side with this matter is the concept of FISA itself. Courts benefit the public and society at-large when they operate, well, in the public eye. I say repeal FISA altogether.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#9)
    by john horse on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:47:25 AM EST
    A Specter is haunting America - the spectre of GOP legislators who put party ahead of country.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 04:07:19 AM EST
    Once you've been spied upon then do you realize that the law really doesn't matter as the power will do whatever is needed to spy. The system is riddled with people that'll will manipulate it for their own glory and success.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 05:09:42 AM EST
    Once again, there is no more evidence that the administration's domestic spying activities have been any more productive than their gitmo or abu ghraib activities. At this stage of the game, they're certainly going to have to do a lot better than "trust me."

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 05:23:40 AM EST
    charliedontsurf1 - And if they came out with a list, who would believe it? As for lists, can you provide us with a list of domestic spying incidents? Dark Avenger - I think Barr is more of a Libertarian than a Repub or an actual Right type guy, although he may lean right. But its hard to say on this issue because you get cross overs. et al - Of course the fact remains that if the administration has done what they describe, the law hasn't been broken. This is mostly a Left wing issue, stirred with misdirection and non-proven claims of domestic spying.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 05:42:07 AM EST
    "disorientingly bizarre" is putting it very mildly. More like a bad acid trip. Nice flowing colors, but a creepy sense of malevolent evil hiding behind the curtains. Specter's proposal is an insane response to an insane situation. I think poor Arlen fell down the rabbit hole.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:07:57 AM EST
    charliedontsurf1 - And if they came out with a list, who would believe it? As for lists, can you provide us with a list of domestic spying incidents?
    The poor dears. And who's fault might that be? Like the Hells Angels having their request to open a safe driving school/daycare center in the heart of the Historic Monterey, CA. Preservation District rejected by the City Fathers, the answer might just lie in the mirror. As for lists, since they've already admitted to it, why bother? And just because one calls it Easing the marital burden or some other such Orwellian nonsense doesn't mean it's not adultery.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#15)
    by Dark Avenger on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:22:27 AM EST
    Well, PPJ, Barr is not a libertarian, as much as you'd like to paint him as such. He is listed in every reference I can find as a Republican, and if you have a link to show that he's changed party affiliation, please don't be shy. From a recent WP article:
    "Are we losing our lodestar, which is the Bill of Rights?" Barr beseeched the several hundred conservatives at the Omni Shoreham in Woodley Park. "Are we in danger of putting allegiance to party ahead of allegiance to principle?" Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say yes." But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed him loudly. "I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say [Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.
    And:
    Barr wasn't going to get a lesson on patriotism from this young product of the Bush Justice Department. "That, folks, was a red herring," he announced. "This debate is very simple: It is a debate about whether or not we will remain a nation subject to and governed by the rule of law or the whim of men." He invoked Goldwater and Reagan and even said he would support Bush's program if it had congressional support. But Barr was a prophet without honor in his own land. "Why does the FISA law trump the Constitution?" one woman demanded of him. "Why should a non-elected, non-briefed judge be able to veto our national security?" Conservatives were sore that Barr put his disagreements with Bush in the pages of Time magazine. Another questioner scolded Barr for agreeing to introduce an Al Gore speech that was also sponsored by MoveOn.org. "I have nothing whatsoever to do with them," Barr pleaded. Still, the old prosecutor managed to elicit a crucial concession from Dinh: that the administration's case for its program comes down to saying "Trust me." "None of us can make a conclusive assessment as to the wisdom of that program and its legality," Dinh acknowledged, "without knowing the full operational details. I do trust the president when he asserts that he has reviewed it carefully and therefore is convinced that there is full legal authority." The crowd was against him, but Barr, leaving the event, claimed the clear conscience of a conservative. "I just told them what they need to know," he said.
    Link I think that many of us would agree with what Barr wrote last year: Anyone who questions the legality of the decision to wiretap thousands of Americans unlawfully is attacked, as either an enabler of terrorists or a bitter partisan trying to distract a president at war.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:31:56 AM EST
    Excuse my ignorance,is this the same person that promoted the "magic bullet" theory at the Warren Commision? If it is he sure has some history!

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#17)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 09:02:21 AM EST
    Dark Avenger - The fact that Barr is called a Republican proves nothing. Senator Hagel is called a Repub, but actually is a RINO. And even one of our own, Roger of Flordia wrote that he was a registered Repub for various reasons. The real question is the use of the word "illegally." Barr doesn't really specify his disagreements. Does he claim that we have wire taps on purfely domestic calls without warrants? If so, that is illegal. Or does he claim that wiretapping calls from/to international numbers that are known to be associated with terrorists is illegal? If so, he is wrong. And it makes no difference if he is a DINO, RINO, Demo, Repub or Whig. charliedontsurf1 writes:
    As for lists, since they've already admitted to it, why bother?
    Your sentence is unclear. Are you saying that Bush has admitted to wire tapping calls, without warrants, from/to international/domestic numbers associated with terrorists? If so, you are correct, and the majority of Americans, when the question is couched that way, approve of it and understand that it is necessary and legal. Are you saying that Bush has admitted to wiretapping domestic only calls without a warrant? He has not, and I have not seen or heard any proof that the administration has. Now, when the question is couched that way, the American people disapprove and would consider it illegal. So, again. Show us some proof of your claims. And a link to the source quotations is always helpful and lends credence to your argument. There are several sites that can help you with HTML commands.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 10:48:31 AM EST
    The fact that Barr is called a Republican proves nothing. No, PPJ, he calls himself a Republican and a conservative. Ranking of the 108th Senate from Liberal to Conservative Senator Hagel is called a Repub, but actually is a RINO. And even one of our own, Roger of Flordia wrote that he was a registered Repub for various reasons. Hagel is termed a moderate Repub, and if you compared his voting record in the Senate with that of Barrs' in the House, I'd bet garbage to doornails that they wouldn't be that close together on the social issues. Also, I don't think that Roger in Florida ran for office anywhere as a Republican, and your memory in this matter is most impressive.
    The real question is the use of the word "illegally."
    Yes, because if someone admits that they've done something illegal, they are usually expected to pay for having done so, no matter how noble or right they thought they were when they did it. Barr doesn't really specify his disagreements. Does he claim that we have wire taps on purfely domestic calls without warrants? You could use Google and find out, now that you've actually alluded to its' existance on this site last week. Also, can you name anyone who is a RINO who hasn't criticized your beloved Shrub? Or are there people like Rep. Walter Jones who have criticized the President and aren't RINOs? You have 60 minutes, don't look at anyone elses' work and hand your book to the TA when you're finished........

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#19)
    by wg on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    The draft is obviously very raw, here are some initial comments. There is very little desire in Congress and most other places to see Bush impeached or NSA personnel prosecuted for braking the law with that surveillance program of theirs*. So something needs to be done, otherwise the old perception of government being above the rule of law will continue to foul our democratic airs. The bill provides a semblance of ex post facto legalization of Bush program (practically speaking of course, legally laws do not apply retroactively) so it delivers exactly what is needed. Moreover and as expected, the bill permits for the first time DoJ to apply to FISA court for an order authorizing nonspecific surveillance of a large number of people. There will be no need anymore to name the target of surveillance. Sad as it is, it appears this rather tectonic change in surveillance standards is needed too. Note this will give the FISA court huge new and unprecedented powers for which this part-time court appears singularly unqualified at the present time. However, this is much better than Bush and NSA spying domestically willy nilly w/o any judicial oversight, nominal or otherwise. There are a number of problems though. For starters the draft appears to tacitly approve future un-approved surveillance, the only requirement is that sooner or later (not clear how soon!) the government goes to FISA court and admits that. No good, the statue should impose definite penalties if the executive conducts any un-approved surveillance in the future. Furthermore the draft appears to allow surveillance of not only "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" but also anybody who "had communicated" with an agent of foreign power. So if your mayor or anybody else in the city government talks to a German trade delegation they immediately qualify for 90 days of NSA surveillance which can be extended ad infinitum. Same with you talking to any foreign consular visa official. This is a bit too broad imo. I hope they don't try to rush this through, things of this significance need time to discuss. --------------- *There is no question that Bush and NSA people broke the law, both the spirit and letter of it, FISA cannot be be interpreted any other way. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your point of view, FISA is unique among US statues in that it explicitly provides definite penalties for anybody involved in illegal surveillance. With 5y/$10k a pop, and a large number of "pops" we are effectively talking life-time sentences and total bankrupcy for everybody involved, George included. I don't think Lederman is correct in asserting that they have "a pretty solid due process defense to prosecution".

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 05:21:47 PM EST
    Dark Avenger - You seem to think that I care whether or not some Repubs and Demos criticize the warrantless surveillance of international calls from/to domestic numbers. I don't. The NSA's actions were correct, proper and legal. Besides that they helped the war effort, improved security and confused our enemies. And my view of Barr is still that he is a Repub with a Libertarian slant. Hagel is still a RINO. And Specter is still trying to court the Left with his bill while trying to keep the Right happy. Won't work, but it doesn't matter as this will most likely be his last term.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#21)
    by jondee on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    "They helped security, blah blah". And you know this how Rush? I suggest you start practicing now in front of the mirror: Im-sorry-I-was-wrong- what-could-I-have-thinking? Wrong side of history and reality. Again.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 06:39:05 PM EST
    Great post wg. The only use I see for the FISA court is to review spying on a foreign national suspect communicating with a US national. That's it. Any spying on a US citizen...straight to a regular judge for a warrant. Anything less is too ripe for abuse and the rise of tyranny.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    You seem to think that I care whether or not some Repubs and Demos criticize the warrantless surveillance of international calls from/to domestic numbers. I haven't mentioned Democrats at all in this thread, so what you say I seem to think is wrong, for starters. I don't. The NSA's actions were correct, proper and legal. Besides that they helped the war effort, improved security and confused our enemies. I must say, they were probably confused by Shrubs' assertion that revelation of the program somehow helped the latter, but you have no empirical evidence for any of your other assertions. And my view of Barr is still that he is a Repub with a Libertarian slant. Hagel is still a RINO. Wasting JLs bandwidth repeating yourself doesn't change the fact that you've yet to tell us what makes anyone a RINO, and the lack of denial about the fact you usually define RINO as a Republican who is insufficiently obsequious to the pResident in your unhumble opinion is most telling. Anyway, perhaps in spite of yourself you might've earned a few Rove points today. YMMV.

    Re: Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 03:49:44 AM EST
    That's the law the Administration has been deliberately breaking because they think they don't have to comply with it and that Congress has no power to make them. Its not that congress has no power,if it was democrat controlled this wouldnt have happened.With a republican majority Bush thinks he can get away with it.Everytime someone tries to get an investigation going a republican in congress shoots it down.It just goes to show that the checks and balances get thrown out the window when 1 party controls all 3 branches.A fatal flaw if you think about it.

    Specter Introduces Misleading NSA Surveillance Bill | 24 comments (24 topical)