I recently Received this email from Dave Reichart, in which the congressmen attempts to justify his vote on FISA:
Dear Mr. Frazier,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding electronic surveillance of terrorists. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
In 1978, Congress enacted the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide a mechanism for the domestic collection of foreign intelligence information. The goal of FISA was to secure the integrity of the Fourth Amendment, a citizen's right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, while protecting the national security interests of the United States.
On December 16, 2005, based on a leak of classified information, the New York Times published a story regarding a terrorism surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency (NSA). The President subsequently acknowledged that he had authorized this program after 9/11 to intercept the international communications of individuals with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Detroit District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled on August 17, 2006, that the program is illegal under existing FISA statutes. In light of this court ruling, Congress decided to address granting additional and specific authorization to ensure that U.S. laws governing electronic surveillance are updated to reflect modern modes of communication. For example, under current law the government could not monitor two unknown terrorists if there was the possibility the communication went through the United States. I believe it is important that any new law protect the country from terrorist attacks and prevent violations of civil liberties.
On June 20, 2008, the House passed, with my support, H.R. 6304, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, by a vote of 293 - 129. This legislation will permit the initiation of new foreign surveillance without a court order when critical intelligence would be lost due to time constraints, while also ensuring the federal court review such surveillance after the fact. Additionally, the bill provides retroactive civil liability protection for telecommunications carriers who may have assisted the intelligence community in detecting and preventing terrorist attacks against the United States after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Specifically, telecommunications carriers would be protected from privacy lawsuits if they show a federal judge that they received written assurance from the Administration that their assistance was legal. Currently, H.R. 6304 has been referred to the Senate where it awaits consideration and I am hopeful for its rapid adoption.
Both the Director of National Intelligence, Michael McConnell, and the Attorney General, Michael B. Mukasey, sent a letter in support of the bill, arguing that H.R. 6304 provides the Intelligence Community with the tools it needs to collect foreign intelligence from terrorist suspects, protects Americans' civil liberties, and provides the necessary liability protections for communications providers who may have assisted the government in defending our nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.
As the senior Republican on the Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee, I believe intelligence is the first line of defense in the war on terror. General Michael Hayden, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on July 26, 2006, that "The National Security Agency intercepts communications and it does so for only one purpose: to protect the lives, the liberties and the well being of the citizens of the United States from those who would do us harm." This legislation responds to the urgent need to provide our nation's law enforcement and intelligence communities with 21st century tools they need to meet and defeat a 21st century threat. It is crucial to improving our national efforts to detect and disrupt acts of terrorism before they occur on American soil.
During my 33 years in law enforcement, I saw first hand the benefit of well conducted surveillance. I know that by reauthorizing this program we will be able to save American lives.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me. Your interest and input are valued and I hope to hear from you in the future regarding other matters of importance. I encourage you to visit my website and sign up for my monthly e-newsletter at http://reichert.house.gov to learn more about other issues impacting the 8th Congressional District and our nation.
Sincerely,
David G. Reichert
Member of Congress
I could go on and with a point by point, but all I really need to say is that Dave Reichert gave telecommunication companies who illegally tapped American’s phones immunity from prosecution. So for a law and order candidate he fails. What’s important for you to know is that in addition to granting immunity to the corporations who violated your rights as an American, Dave Reichert also gave power to the federal government to do more of the same.
But first some background on the original FISA Law. FISA was one of two significant legislations to come out in the wake of the Nixon Era, the other is the War Powers Act. While both laws are panned by some critics as unconstitutional, their purpose was to clarify and legislate vagaries which were being used to allow things like Wiretapping peoples phones, and occupying a country for over 10 years without ever having declared war on it. FISA, was a response to the argument (often made by this President) that wiretapping without review in a time of emergency was necessary and constitutional (under the article in the constitution dealing with the President’s role in national defense). So as a compromise to the Anti-Communists the congress rather then passing a law which would explicitly limit that power, sought instead to channel it, and so they created a set of secret courts capable and able to review highly sensitive data. These courts would be staffed by judges chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court (arch conservatives Rehnquist, and Roberts have appointed something in excess of 90% of the current judges on these courts). Further the government could tap anyone’s phone for 48 hours and not even have to submit any application or evidence to the FISA Courts. After that their chances of getting are pretty good, only 1 of the hundreds of applications to the FISA court have been turned down.
Moving forward, I will address the two key things that this law does. First, Immunity for Telecommunication companies; and second, the creation of larger loop holes in the FISA bill. Telecommunications companies were in sticky situation after 9-11, did they look patriotic, or did they stand up for the rights of their customers and fulfill their legal obligations? They chose to look patriotic. What exactly were their obligations? Telecommunication companies are in the status quo protected against litigation for turning over information to the federal government. Yes, that’s right they are protected, all they need is a piece of paper saying the government has a warrant. Not, that they have a warrant to spy on such, not that they are looking for this information, not even the warrant itself. Just a memo, saying we have a warrant for information. Once the companies have that, no one can sue them in any court. However, in the wake of 9-11 all of the major Telecommunications companies with the exception of Quest, turned over information without even that simple memo. That violated their customers rights, and most likely their terms of use contract, and well they are now being sued, mostly so we know what was given the federal government, and why. Ever since then they have been lobbying congress for immunity from their illegal actions. how many people who rob houses get to successfully lobby the congress to get retroactive immunity? Well as Mark Klein the AT&T whistle blower, who helped expose this program puts it, “Congress never invited me to testify, although I did go to Washington to lobby, but no committee has ever invited me to testify, which says something about Congress.”
Voting for immunity for Telecoms gives big business a pass on violating customer rights.
On my second point, about expanding the loop holes. The biggest being the expantion of the 48 day warrantless spying ability allready in the law to a 30 day window. This comes under the guise of keeping Americans safe from terror, or as Reichart puts it, “During my 33 years in law enforcement, I saw first hand the benefit of well conducted surveillance. I know that by reauthorizing this program we will be able to save American lives.” However, it wasn’t lack of surveillance that allowed the 9-11 attacks to happen. It was too much intelligence and too little analysts, and also some organizational problems, which have been fixed. We all ready have a back log of intelligence that needs to be analyzed, this bill in addition to widening the governments power to put a tap on every call or email coming in to or out of the U.S., including the calls and emails of innocent Americans with minimal to no oversight. So by voting for this bill if you ever travel overseas or talk to anyone overseas the government could be spying on you, legally.
So by voting for this bill Reichert has sold out the American people and the American constitution. In some respect you can count my complaining for what it is. I’m not going to vote for Riechert anyway, he wasn’t a particularly great sheriff, and he hasn’t been a particularly good legislature. But before you vote for Rinehart you should know where he stands on civil liberties. Reichert thinks its ok for the government to have its nose in you business, as long as its not big businesses business. I for one disagree, and when I have a candidate that’s shown the leadership Darcy Burner has in my camp, why even look at the other side.
