re: FISA---Reply from Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter

[teamster633]

Thank you for contacting me about your concern over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).



Since 1978, our intelligence agencies have been able to wiretap communications between foreign individuals and those in the US who are suspected of possible criminal activity. The law overseeing this process, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), permits the government to track these communications as long as it seeks a warrant, which is granted by a secret court. Because agencies are sometimes required to move quickly in emergency situations, they have three days to apply for a warrant after wiretapping has begun.



The most critical point is that the original FISA law is still fully in place. US intelligence agencies currently maintain the ability to intercept communications between people in the US and suspected terrorists abroad.



Over the past year, Congress has debated new legislation that would update FISA in order to take into account modern surveillance technology. It would also streamline the process of obtaining a warrant. Last summer, Congress passed temporary legislation to give it time to debate these issues.



The President supports a version of the legislation that would add two unrelated provisions. These are highly controversial and probably unconstitutional.



The first provision would take the power to grant wiretap approval away from the courts, and instead give it to the executive branch or to the intelligence agencies. This would make it possible for the government to spy on innocent Americans without court oversight. Currently intelligence agencies can spy on foreign conversations without any warrants. Proponents of this provision often imply that only foreigners can be spied upon, but this is disputed by many experts.



The second provision would give "retroactive immunity" to telecommunications companies who may have illegally given Americans' private information to spy agencies without a court order. If the companies are granted immunity, the congressional intelligence committees and the FISA court will never learn what happened and will never know who asked the companies to break the law. This would be like a defendant saying to a judge, "I can't tell you what I've done, but let me off the hook anyway."



Many members of Congress, including myself, believe that the FISA process should be updated. It is critical that we continue to provide our intelligence agencies the tools they need to intercept communications between suspected terrorists. But the President is wrong to combine legislation intended to address these security issues with unrelated and perhaps unconstitutional provisions. Furthermore, it is clearly wrong to take oversight authority from the courts and to give it to the President. And we should not provide "retroactive immunity" to telecommunications companies that may have engaged in illegal activity.



On February 14th, a few days before Representatives adjourned for a week of meetings and events in their districts, the House voted on a bill to extend the temporary update to FISA. The legislation would have provided more time to work with the President and the Senate to reach an agreement on a permanent new bill that would improve our national security while protecting the Constitutional rights of innocent Americans. I voted in favor of this bill.



In a strange reversal of roles, the President objected to a temporary extension of the legislation he himself had supported, and the bill was allowed to expire.



Regardless of the heated battle between the President, his supporters in the Senate, and the House of Representatives, it is critical to understand that all of the FISA safeguards remain in place until at least next summer. The underlying FISA legislation containing the most important provisions is permanent.



As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and as someone who is routinely briefed on terrorist activities, I am acutely aware of the dangers our nation faces. As a mother, I am deeply concerned about the safety of my family and yours. And as an American, I am fiercely proud and protective of our great nation. On September 11th, 2001, I was on the Beltway in Washington, DC, trapped in traffic. My husband was working in a building downtown, and I could not reach my children. It was a terrifying day, and I will never forget it.



Our task is not only to defend our shores, but to fight for the principles upon which our country is founded, especially our Constitution. Over two centuries, this document has inspired people around the world who seek freedom. We would fail all those who have fought and died for this country if we fail to defend the Constitution against attack. The government should not have the right to spy on American citizens without a warrant. No one should be above the law. As John Adams said, we are a "government of laws, not of men."

[ThomWV]

1. That' a wonderful narative, but I don't see where she states her position.

As in, I support/don't support the ?????

[teamster633]

2. Her last line:

"The government should not have the right to spy on American citizens without a warrant. No one should be above the law. As John Adams said, we are a "government of laws, not of men."


I'm taking that as her position. Am I reading it wrong?

[L. Coyote]

3. "congressional intelligence committees and the FISA court will never learn what happened"

This is most important, "congressional intelligence committees and the FISA court will never learn what happened..."

If even the Congressional Intelligence committees do not know what is happening, can we quit pretending this is a Democracy?

[Supersedeas]

7. the 4th Amendment

[zanne]

5. I think she states her position here...

http://shea-porter.house.gov/?sectionid=125&parentid=18§iontree=3,18,125&itemid=335

[winggirle]

4. Long Live our Dictators....

Amazing the same constitution that has the benefits for our
freedoms is the same constitution that has us locked within
their hands.  We can't do nothing without Congress and the
people are suffering from the actions some of these
congressmembers are making. Unfair is not the word, it's just
wrong.  
I don't know what the new president have in store for us to
hope in but it's surely not good. 

[zanne]

6. This makes me wonder about the president's plans to stay in power

Anyone with half a brain (and we have to assume that George Bush has half) can see that his new version of FISA puts into effect the law that gives more power to the president, whoever that may be. Even a Democrat. This type of thing has me stocking up on tinfoil, because the last thing George W. Bush wants to see is a Democratic president with that kind of power. WTF?