FISA news roundup

Last week the House voted on H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. It passed by wide margin. Here is the roll call so you can see how your Representative voted. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter voted Nay: thank you!

As FISA has been coming up in the Senate, there’s been a ton of writing on it. I use this blog in part as an “outboard brain” to help me organize information so I can find it easily later. So, here’s the roundup of Senate FISA news as it has come my way:

Dow Jones News reports on the nature of the compromise FISA bill and the significant differences from the bill earlier this year (Thu., June 19):

As a result of the deal, legislation will come forward Friday in the House and as soon as next week in the Senate to reauthorize the government’s surveillance program. The legislation will, in effect, replace the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, a law established in the 1970s to permit the government to engage in surveillance.

Democrats have insisted the judicial review included in the agreement is better than nothing, and does not equate to automatic legal immunity for the phone companies.

After House passage, the eminently reputable blog Crooks and Liars asks for Obama to speak out and speculates on his silence (Fri., June 20). Salon’s Glenn Greenwald indicates Obama’s support for the compromise House bill (Sat., June 21):

What really rubbed me the wrong way was how Obama in his statement says essentially trust me with these powers, I’ll use them responsibly.

Nope.

This week, Senator Russ Feingold was interviewed by Democracy Now (Tue., June 24). He describes his intent to resis the bill and then goes beyond this to expressing desire to censure the president. One site points to MAPLight’s information linking Verizon, Sprint and AT&T contributions to congressional Democrats who changed their votes.

Glenn Greenwald reports on the Senate FISA vote, including video of Senator Feingold’s speech. Blue Hampshire has video of Senator Dodd’s speech, with transcript here. From his remarks:

Warrantless spying threatens to undermine our democratic society, unless legislation brings it under control. In other words, the power to invade privacy must be used sparingly, guarded jealously, and shared equally between the branches of government.

Last but not least, Wired Magazine carries a blog entry that alleges the Senate FISA bill as redefining the term “Weapon of Mass Destruction.”  Apparently the new definition adds incendiary devices to the list, as well as being loose on the meaning of “a significant number of people.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is working against the compromise FISA bill (June 24).

Barack Obama is caught on video saying that serving justice to the illegal actions of telephone companies is less important than security needs. It’s all for your protection. The above Huffington Post link reports he has a nuanced position, as he “has expressed reservations with the compromise (and supports an amendment stripping immunity from its language), he nevertheless said he would support the bill.”

Blue Hampshire conjectures that fighting FISA can help restrain the administration and thus prevent war in Iran (Fri., June 27).

The original AT&T whistleblower has some things to say about FISA in this Wired article. He has good points buried in rhetorical language on coups and Nuremberg, but it’s good none the less.

McCain flip-flops on warrantless wiretapping

Doug Holtz-Eakin, senior policy adviser to John McCain, wrote in response to this Washington Post article to clarify McCain’s stance on warrantless wiretapping. There’s also coverage at BoingBoing and Wired.

The letter explains that John McCain will continue George Bush’s interpretation of Article II: in wartime, the executive always trumps the Bill of Rights. From the letter itself (emphasis mine):

Here is the bottom line: Senator McCain supports the FISA modernization bill passed by the Senate without qualification.  He believes no additional steps should be necessary to secure immunity for the telecoms; both the 109^th and 110^th Congresses have conducted extensive evaluation and examination of this topic and have satisfied the public’s need for appropriate oversight; hearings purportedly designed to ‘get to the bottom of things’ have already occurred; and neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.

Senator McCain has never stated, nor does he believe that telecoms should only receive retroactive immunity in exchange for congressional testimony about their actions.  We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

For decades telephone companies prided themselves on protecting the privacy of American phone calls. Eavesdropping operators would quickly find themselves fired. This pride flowed out of an expectation that “the right of the people to be secure in their…papers and effects” extended from postal mail to phone calls and later email and Internet traffic.

I believe that this basic right for security and privacy should be provided for by the Fourth Amendment. Not only do I believe that this is an issue of civil liberties, but it is an area for concern for Christians as well. Christians of many kinds expect the secrecy of the confessional to be morally absolute and further expect the confidentiality of conversations with their clergy. These expectations are rooted in the ministry of Jesus himself, who trusted his disciples with the secret of his true identity (Mark 3:12, 7:36, 8:30, 9:9) and with the secret interpretation of his parables (Mark 4:34).

For people who are both Christian and American, we have a world-view that private conversations should stay private. This is rooted in both Biblical testimony and the Bill of Rights. To see warrantless wiretapping and telecom immunity upheld offends this double sensitivity.

Perhaps it’s time to put a Stop the Spying banner back on this page.

US Senate fails to check executive abuses of privacy

This week the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended to grant telecom companies retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretapping. The Dodd-Feingold amendment would have removed this immunity, but was strongly voted down. The Washington Post carries the story:
Senate Authorizes Broad Expansion Of Surveillance Act.

Here’s the roll call of votes, which was strongly partisan. All 31 “yea” votes were Democratic with 18 “nay”-saying Democrats. Hillary Clinton did not show up for the vote.

The IEEE Computer Society has an excellent and simple description of technical aspect of how digital surveillance works. (PDF direct link) This is how the system will continue to work with the system firmly in place.

Because wiretapping without court oversight is illegal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The Dodd-Feingold amendment would have OK’d this move but its defeat lets AT&T (and other telecoms) off the hook for the illegal spying. The Senate and the Courts have so far declined to keep checks on executive authority. Hopefully the House might be able to

The President had this to say, according to AP:

In order to be able to discover enemy — the enemy’s plans, we need the cooperation of telecommunication companies. If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate; they won’t help us; they won’t help protect America. Liability protection is critical to securing the private sector’s cooperation with our intelligence efforts.

The listening itself isn’t illegal, but doing it without court oversight is. What happened to the 2006 Democratic surge that was supposed to end unchecked executive authority and start to restore civil liberties? Can the House stop the spying and protect the fourth amendment?