Let me see if I understand this new Democrat FISA law thing clearly.....?

Question

Further elaboration welcome:

From my previous question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070805163122AAV53t7&r=w
I have learned:

1. The new FISA law was "was hastily passed out of fear"....
--- I guess the republicans scared them. BOOO!!

2. ...or it was passed because "Bush threatened to veto anything less"......
--- Can't Veto an empty desk

3. ...or "The White House was using scare tactics and accusing the Democrats of leaving the country defenseless in the face of possible terrorist attacks. Those kinds of tactics actually work."....
--- So the republicans DID scare them. BOOO again - LOL!!

4. ...or "the Democrats were afraid that if we got attacked again, it would be blamed on them if they didn't pass this bill. "....
--- boo, Boo, Boo, BOOO!!! ...so they believed it was wrong but were not willing to stake their public reputation on that belief? They chose appearances over doing what they believed was right?

-

- or could it be BUSH WAS RIGHT?? ...that we need the power to listen in on terrorists in "real time", which CANNOT be done if we have to wait hours for the idiot in the robe?

Will they be able say they voted against it before they voted for it?
-

I Luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv it!!

I mean I love it!!!!!!!

Typical ambulance-chaser. $1000 answer for a $1 question. The question was: Why did the hypocrites pass if it is bad? They just passed it and now they are screaming like stuck pigs about how bad it is.

Answer 1

The only redeeming thing about this is that they will be debating it again in 6 months. Next time the Dems better stand up and be counted or be counted out.

Answer 2

See, the thing is this: Under FISA (existing FISA), Bush and Friends CAN listen real-time - the court order from FISA is a retroactive mechanism (start listening, file with FISA within, I think 72 hours, if FISA court says yes then keep listening and if not just toss the tapes).

So why is Bush against FISA? He doesn't want any accountability - that should be obvious even to you (you probably agree with him that he doesn't work for the citizenry).

To answer you Q, I think it's a combo of your numbers 1, 3, and 4 (2 is just silly, though it's the one the media focused on).

Laugh all you want. I for one am bitterly disappointed in the Dems for this.

Answer 3

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.

All of the above.

5. No. Because the current law already allowed taps up to one year without a warrant for foreign targets. (50 USC 1802). And taps up to 72 hours for other cases if the AG declares it to be necesssary (50 USC 1805).

And I'm sorry that the "idiot in a robe" requirement of the 4th Amendment bothers you. But you're always welcome to go live in a country that has different laws.

Besides, Bush violated the law for years without blinking -- and suddenly considers it absolutely urgent that the law be changed? Have you even read the new law?

What was so urgent, because aside from the "clarification" in section of the foreign target definition, the rest of the change pertains only to intelligence gathering that "does not constitute electronic surveillance".

~~~~~~~
EDIT: If the "ambulance chaser" comment was directed at me, sorry, I don't do personal injury claims.

But I did answer the question. All four of the reasons you listed. Congress passed it because of public relations concerns, because some of them believe Bush, and because some of them are easily intimidated. In short, because they are more concerned with looking good than with doing their jobs. Which is the same reason they are now complaining.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT to TruthIsBack -- yes, you are correct. I misspoke. It deals with surveillance of "foreign powers" as defined in 50 USC 1801, even if they are located on the same continent. Corrected above.

And I have read the entire statute, actually the whole section, as well as most of the published cases that discuss its interpretation. My analysis comes from what the courts have said. You're welcome to disagree.

Answer 4

cory is wrong, the current law places no restrictions on monitoring of overseas targets.

It specifically addresses communications within the US and 4 specific, enumerated types of communications between the US and a foreign country, and the communications being monitored by the NSA under the program that has received so much press did not fit any of those enumerated fact patterns.

Cory is not reading the whole statute. A statute defines its terms and its application is limited by those definitions. In other words if a new statute first defined "pie" to mean only cherry, apple, blueberry or mince, and then stated that the NSA needed a warrant before it could bake a pie, the statute would not put in place a warrant requirement to bake a shoo fly pie.