A more frequent publishing of Rich Galen's take on politics, culture and general modern annoyances. This is in addition to MULLINGS which is published Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays at

Thursday, November 15, 2007

FISA Football

Subscription Renewal Month Continues

November is MULLINGS Subscription Renewal Month.

It is going very well. Very well indeed. But I need everyone - this includes you - to pitch in. MULLINGS gives you info, opinion, and occasionally humor three times a week.

Please take a moment and go to the Subscription Renewal Page.


From Arlington, VA

Atlanta, GA

Kansas City, MO

Atlanta, GA

Pensacola, FL

It was that kind of a day

  • The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - FISA - is set to expire early next year and the Democrats in Congress are feverishly looking for ways to weaken it to try and score political points among its wing.

  • FISA was first adopted in 1978 and was updated as part of the Patriot Act of 2001. It was originally passed as a reaction to the misuse of intelligence services during the whole Watergate business.

  • According to a 2003 US Navy Memo
    FISA is the statute which authorizes federal agents to conduct electronic surveillance, as part of a foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigation, without obtaining a traditional, probable-cause search warrant.

  • The major change in FISA following the 9/11 attacks, again according the Navy memo, is called "roving authority."
    Prior to the amendment, the law required the FISA court to specify the location of the surveillance and to name any third parties whose cooperation would be required, such as a telephone company or an internet service provider. If the target of the surveillance changed telephone companies, the government would have to return to the FISA court and request a supplemental order naming the new third party.

    With the change, the FISA court can now issue a generic order that can be served on any third party needed to assist with the surveillance.

  • It is that "third party" issue which was at the heart of Senate Judiciary Committee action yesterday. On two separate votes, the panel first voted to grant immunity from law suits to "third parties" such as telephone, cable, and other common carriers which provide data to the government. Then the Committee voted NOT to grant such immunity.

  • They were for it before they were against it.

  • If you are on the fence about whether phone companies should be able to provide traffic info to the government, consider the following which was issued after the second vote:
    "We are ecstatic that the Democrats were able to strip this measure out of the Judiciary Bill."

  • That was issued by the American Civil Liberties Union. Here's a pretty good rule of thumb: Anything which makes the ACLU "ecstatic" when it comes to dealing with terrorists needs to be examined very, very carefully.

  • The House, meanwhile, went ahead and passed a version of the bill which does not provide immunity to phone companies which means phone companies won't comply with requests from intelligence services to provide information on phone calls made to and from suspected terrorists outside the United States.

  • Good idea, huh?

  • More importantly, the House version stripped a provision which it passed only this past August which, according to Reuters
    Authorized the National Security Agency to intercept without a court order communications between people in the United States and foreign targets overseas.

  • The bill adopted last night requires the government to get FISA Court authority to intercept communications from terrorists who might be plotting with a sleeper cell in the US.

  • It also forbids one agency from sharing intel with another agency if it comes across potential terrorist activity "inadvertently."

  • Good ideas, huh?

  • The President will veto a bill with the provisions the Democrats adopted yesterday. There will be another face-down in February, the President will win because the Democrats - having given MoveOn and the ACLU all the ammunition they need to fund raise from hard-core Liberals - will put aside political ambition and vote to protect America.

  • That would be a good idea.

  • On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: Links to the Associated Press and Reuters coverage of yesterday's Congressional action and a link to that US Navy memo which is a pretty good primer on the whole FISA issue. Also a Mullfoto and a Catchy Caption of the Day.


    Chuck said...

    You said "Democrats... will put aside political ambition and vote to protect America."

    Aren't you being a tad optimistic? The Pelosi/Reid faction has made something like 40 attempts to force a troop withdrawal from Iraq. Even though those attempts have failed, I don't see Dems putting aside political ambition. Dems have no other standard other than political ambition, and that, to them, trumps even protecting America.


    November 16, 2007 6:47 AM  
    Anonymous said...

    Having served as a state prosecutor for over 30 years, I can comfortably say that it doesn't really matter what the law is, intelligence agencies and law enforcement will find a way around it, which the courts will approve. Cynical? Yes, unfortunately so.

    November 25, 2007 3:57 PM  

    Post a Comment

    << Home