Senator Whitehouse Responds to FISA Letter

[Joseph Hart]

Letter response from Rep. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse(D, RI) regarding FISA vote decision.

Dear Mr. Hart:

Thank you for contacting me about my vote on the FISA bill. I appreciate hearing from you.

The Bush Administration’s warrantless surveillance program was clearly illegal — and I opposed granting blanket retroactive immunity to any telecommunication companies that may have facilitated it. Not only did I support an amendment to strip the immunity provision, I supported a number of other efforts to change the provision. Indeed, I offered my own amendment that would have required the phone companies to prove, at a minimum, that they acted with a good faith, reasonable belief that compliance was lawful before they could be granted immunity, and if they were, the government would have been substituted as the proper defendant in the litigation. Unfortunately, this and other similar amendments failed.

I would note that, while I deeply objected on principle to the intrusion of Congress into judicial cases, as a life-long litigator I felt as a practical matter that the litigation against the telecommunications companies was unlikely to lead to liability, or get to the bottom of the Bush Administration’s misconduct, given the state secrets privilege limits on that litigation. In my view, the Inspector General reports we provide for are a more reliable vehicle for getting to the bottom of what the Bush Administration did.

I and other Democrats worked equally hard on other parts of the bill, and with considerable success. Between amendments passed in the Intelligence Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Senate floor, and during negotiations between congressional Democrats and the Administration, Democrats had a significant impact on the bill. As a result, the bill includes important new protections for our civil liberties, which is why I ultimately decided to support the bill. Just by way of example, I helped negotiate a provision that, for the first time, requires by law that the government seek a warrant to conduct surveillance on Americans abroad. That means that military personnel, students, and businesspeople abroad will, for the first time, be protected by law from warrantless surveillance. The bill also requires the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence agencies to conduct an investigation into President Bush’s illegal spying program. This will provide an important measure of accountability for people who broke the law. Further, an amendment I proposed on the Senate floor, and got accepted, recognizes that the FISA court has all the inherent powers of an Article III court under the Constitution, giving it wide-ranging authority to enforce its orders and investigate to assure compliance by the executive branch. Finally, the bill reinforced the provision making FISA the exclusive mechanism for electronic surveillance activities to collect foreign intelligence, clamping down further on the executive branch.

While I disagree with the immunity provisions, there are many excellent and hard-fought new provisions in this bill. It takes a real step towards protecting our civil liberties. I have enclosed two recent speeches on FISA that I delivered on the Senate floor and that sum up my position on the bill. I very much appreciate and respect your views on this difficult issue. Thanks again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Sheldon

My response...

Rep. Whitehouse,
If you were in favor of protecting Civil Liberties then why did you allow immunity to Telecom companies and the Government by allowing Telecom companies to spy on American citizens? The Constitution clearly defines, under Article 1 Section 9 - Limits on Congress, In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase:


1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Please call me at [401]xxx-xxxx if you are interested in attending a public meeting to review the United States Constitution with several concerned Rhode Islanders.

Thank you for responding! - Joseph Hart

 

[Joseph Hart]

bump?

 

[jkeehn1]

The Reply from my Senator

Dear Mr. Keehn:

Thank you for contacting me regarding foreign intelligence surveillance. I appreciate hearing from you and would like to respond to your concerns.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 provided the U.S. intelligence community with a framework to regulate the collection of electronic surveillance on foreign intelligence targets, while protecting the Constitutional civil liberties of U.S. citizens. FISA was written to distinguish between the collection of information on a physical wire versus collection of signals broadcast in the open air. In 1978, almost all U.S. domestic calls were on a wire and almost all international communications were transmitted via satellites through the air. Therefore, FISA required all U.S. intelligence agencies to obtain a court order to intercept a wire-to-wire communication or any communication transmitted domestically. FISA, however, did not require court orders to intercept and collect wireless communications outside the United States.

On July 9, 2008, Congress presented the President with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304) which modernizes our collection of foreign intelligence. This measure clarifies that FISA’s requirement of prior court approval does not apply to surveillance that is targeted at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States in accordance with the bill’s procedures. H. R. 6304 would allow the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year. H.R. 6304 in addition requires prior court approval for surveillance of U.S. citizens who are overseas. H.R. 6304 will provide, upon a certification by the Attorney General, retroactive immunity to carriers that allegedly participated in the President’s Terrorist Surveillance Program. It also provides prospective immunity to participating telecommunications carriers for certain assistance.

Throughout the history of our republic, we have always been concerned about the proper balance between security and freedom. Those who are generally concerned about the power of government to trample on the rights of free citizens when necessity dictates are right to insist on maintaining the individual civil liberties afforded by our Constitution, especially in times of crisis. Keeping our homeland safe from foreign threats is my number one priority as an elected official, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides intelligence professionals with the legal authority to intercept communications from foreign terrorist to individuals within our borders. H.R. 6304 represents a balanced approach to target terrorist planning attacks while carefully respecting civil liberties. It is important to understand that the phone records are not used to spy on the lives of innocent Americans, and instead focus on tracking terrorist who want to harm the American people.


We must remember we are at war with a ruthless enemy that has no regard for human life and exploits the openness of our society to harm us at home and abroad. I am committed to defeating terrorist and their actions that would lead to harm and devastation towards our country. I believe H.R. 6304 is a necessary update to FISA in order for us to continue to protect ourselves from these threats. However, having experienced life under a totalitarian regime, I value our Constitutional civil liberties, and I will continue to protect these rights as your Senator.

Thank you very much for sharing your concerns. Do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions or comments you may have. For more information about issues and activities important to Florida, please sign up for my weekly newsletter at http://martinez.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Mel Martinez
United States Senator

 

[Joseph Hart]

Check this bullshit I found on Whitehouse's website...

Whether by launching an illegal domestic spying program, firing United States Attorneys for political reasons, approving legal memos that justified the use of torture, or issuing an unprecedented number of Presidential "signing statements," this Administration has made clear its view that the President stands above the law and may disregard our time-tested system of a government of checks and balances, and our treasured American liberties.

http://whitehouse.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=1EB012AD-9664-4A90-A3D7-D113A3689C2A

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Check this bullshit I found on Whitehouse's website...


http://whitehouse.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=1EB012AD-9664-4A90-A3D7-D113A3689C2A

hmm. Above the law? Nation of laws, not men? what the...hell