We were young once, and free....
Remember civil liberties? Your children won't.
If I'm reading this right, and I certainly may not be as this is a summary and not the legislation itself, there is no oversight of who is being tapped and why. There's no finding of probable cause beyond the executive's whim, and, despite the imposition of a 45-day "limit," that limit is perpetually renewable and therefore meaningless.
Oh, and according to other reports, it also makes previous administration actions retroactively legal.
The fact that the administration is so terrified of this program going before the courts should send a chill down the spine of everyone reading this. We don't know the details, but there's a reason, some excessive infringement in this program, that makes the administration terrified of letting its details be known.
RELATED: The Department of Justice's Inspector General has opened a pretty wide ranging investigation into FBI wiretapping abuses, misuse of National Security Letters, and the indefinite detention of 21 people as material witnesses.
Under normal circumstances, this would be the huge banner headline today. But with the warrantless NSA program being allowed by the Republican Congress and the PATRIOT Act extension, pretty much unchanged, being signed, the FBI wiretapping and detaining 21 people without cause is just a minor story.
Think it's a coincidence this DOJ investigation was announced today?
WASHINGTON, March 8 — The plan by Senate Republicans to step up oversight of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program would also give legislative sanction for the first time to long-term eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant, legal experts said on Wednesday. ....
The Republican proposal would give Congressional approval to the eavesdropping program much as it was secretly authorized by Mr. Bush after the 2001 terrorist attacks, with limited notification to a handful of Congressional leaders. The N.S.A. would be permitted to intercept the international phone calls and e-mail messages of people in the United States if there was "probable cause to believe that one party to the communication is a member, affiliate, or working in support of a terrorist group or organization," according to a written summary of the proposal issued by its Republican sponsors. The finding of probable cause would not be reviewed by any court.
But after 45 days, the attorney general would be required to drop the eavesdropping on that target, seek a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or explain under oath to two new Congressional oversight subcommittees why he could not seek a warrant.....
The Republican proposal would permit eavesdropping with no warrant for 45-day periods, with no limit on how many times they could be renewed.
If I'm reading this right, and I certainly may not be as this is a summary and not the legislation itself, there is no oversight of who is being tapped and why. There's no finding of probable cause beyond the executive's whim, and, despite the imposition of a 45-day "limit," that limit is perpetually renewable and therefore meaningless.
Oh, and according to other reports, it also makes previous administration actions retroactively legal.
The fact that the administration is so terrified of this program going before the courts should send a chill down the spine of everyone reading this. We don't know the details, but there's a reason, some excessive infringement in this program, that makes the administration terrified of letting its details be known.
RELATED: The Department of Justice's Inspector General has opened a pretty wide ranging investigation into FBI wiretapping abuses, misuse of National Security Letters, and the indefinite detention of 21 people as material witnesses.
Under normal circumstances, this would be the huge banner headline today. But with the warrantless NSA program being allowed by the Republican Congress and the PATRIOT Act extension, pretty much unchanged, being signed, the FBI wiretapping and detaining 21 people without cause is just a minor story.
Think it's a coincidence this DOJ investigation was announced today?
2 Comments:
Isn't a post de facto law unconstitutional?
By Lew Scannon, at 5:16 PM
I know that it's unconstitutional to make past actions a crime by later legislation, but I think it is legal to make previously illegal acts non prosecutable.
Sort of like amnesties....
I'm not an expert, but I think that's the case.
Mike
By mikevotes, at 6:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home