simple question for Bush/GOP: What is wrong with the current FISA laws???

[LSK]

Have they EVER answered this except to say that its "old"???

[shraby]

1. Yup, they said there was too much paperwork

and it took too long, both bs reasons.

[Botany]

2. Because it does not protect Bush & Cheney from criminal prosecution

along w/ the telecom companies. ATT started spying in Feb 2001.

[atreides1]

3. Nothing

It's all about getting the telecoms immunity from law suits because they probably weren't tracking terrorists they were probably spying on administration adversaries and enemies.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

4. It's too restrictive in protecting basic constitutional rights and it says it's a felony,...

,...to violate it.

They want to engage in surveillance without legal limitations (e.g. unconstitutional and a crime under the "old" FISA) and they want protection from prosecution.

OH! You want to know what THEY say: "terror, terror, terrorist!!!"

[maddezmom]

5. nothing, it's all about giving the telecom's immunity

[TwilightGardener]

6. I don't think it's been adapted for modern electronic surveillance--

Even Feingold has acknowledged that FISA is way behind the times, and needs to be adapted to modern telecommunications.

[bryant69]

7. Totally disagree

It has been updated from time to time, and certainly could be updated again. But the sticking point is that any update of the FISA system is going to require oversight. It's the whole point to the bill!

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TwilightGardener]

8. I read somewhere on here that the new laws will deal with "systems"

of surveillance for the FISA court to oversee, rather than individual case-by-case oversight--would make it more efficient in handling increased volume, if true.

[bryant69]

9. Well than the new bill is rotten - which we already know

We need more oversight of Bush and the agencies under his control, not less!

Bryant

[LSK]

12. from the Glenn Greenwald article:

FISA was enacted in 1978 and updated multiple times since then to accommodate all the modern technologies Terrorists use, including cell phones and computers. It was even amended in October, 2001, when a Congress that was even more compliant than it is now gave the President every change he wanted to that law.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/14/fisa_101/index.html

[TwilightGardener]

13. Right, but updates don't equal an overhaul to the whole system--

Democrats on the Senate Intel Cmte aren't all for the immunity deal, and yet they've said it's very important for us to pass a new FISA bill--Dodd would agree with that too. Sorry, unless I hear trusted Dem Senators say that a new FISA bill is unnecessary, I have to assume it's necessary.

[LSK]

14. that could be the old "Democrats are chickenshits" syndrome

Afterall, 9/11 was preventable with existing laws and if someone was willing to give a fuck:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LSK/129

[Winterblues]

10. The old one required warrants but gave much leeway

The new one says they can do whatever they want with immunity.

[notadmblnd]

11. If I understand it corrcectly, thye have to get a warrent for each individual

they want to spy on either before or up to 15 days after the fact. The excuse "because the paperwork is time consuming" has been given. I guess they don't want to have to file paperwork for volume of people they want to spy on. Can you imagine them submitting warrants for over 300 million Americans plus all the others too?