Harman On Need To Amend FISA: ‘Congress Is On Trial Here,’ We Have To Correct Our Mistake
Harman On Need To Amend FISA: ‘Congress Is On Trial Here,’ We Have To Correct Our Mistake
This morning, ThinkProgress interviewed Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), the chairwoman of the subcommittee on intelligence within the Homeland Security committee, regarding the Bush administration’s aggressive push for permanent expansive spying powers.
Harman, who has been critical of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said he is “devaluing [his] office by being so close to the White House and by carrying messages that in fact — like the German message — don’t comport with the facts.”
Harman said she is working hard to implement changes to the recently-passed FISA legislation, which she said provided a “blank check for the White House…without any effective review.” Harman said her goal is to “instill changes in the FISA law that would ensure a “legal framework applies and nothing can be done outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which provides for checks and balances.”
“I think [Congress] made a mistake,” Harman said of Congress’s passage of FISA changes shortly before the August recess. Highlighting the need to rein in the recent unchecked expansion of power, Harman issued a challenge to her colleagues in Congress:
Congress must act. Congress is on trial here. I think we did the wrong thing in August. We have to correct it this fall.
Watch it:
Harman urged the need to restore “the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents searches and seizures of Americans without probable cause.”
UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald warns there may be more capitulations by Congress on the horizon.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
59 Responses to “Harman On Need To Amend FISA: ‘Congress Is On Trial Here,’ We Have To Correct Our Mistake”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think we did the wrong thing in August. We have to correct it this fall. - - The American public did the wrong thing in November…. of 2004. We can’t correct that until next November.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pmThat’s funny, George wants to expand it and make it permanent!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pmOf course Congress made a mistake last August.
September 19th, 2007 at 2:56 pmIt was far easier to allow the bill to pass, thus allowing them to leave on vacation.
If Congress really wanted to show some muster and perform the civic responsiblities they have sworn to do, they would not have gone on vacation till their work was done.
At least someone is admitting a mistake.
Too late, Harmon. Bush is saving your lives, whether you like it or not.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
#
Would you support a complete repeal of the fourth amendment?
September 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pmPres. Bush is screwing the US Constitution, no matter if anyone in America cares at all.
The truth will set you free!
September 19th, 2007 at 2:58 pmIf we get rid of Habeas Corpus we might as well get rid of freedom of speech too. Also we should go back to our roots, only landowning men should be allowed to vote. That would really show those Islamo-Facistsâ„¢ who’s Boss
/sarcasm
September 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pmWould you support a complete repeal of the fourth amendment?
Comment by Chris L — September 19, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Huh? Fourth Amendment? What’s that?
signed, Jake D. the Republican posing as an Indepedent
September 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pmJake D.: And when the government calls someone a “terrorist” they are always right and deserve blind obediance, with no system of check and balances.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:09 pmYou’d make a good little brownshirt.
Jake D. sez:
And why shouldn’t they? After all, I’d consider evidence of being involved in a terror plot as “probable cause”…
Of course, you jackbooted thugs don’t want to deal with the inconvenience of gathering evidence and building a case, do you? Just lock up all the darkies, and fabricate a case, complete with evidence, after the fact. That’s much more comfortable for you, isn’t it.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pmAll who support the current FISA law should signify their support by posting their complete names, addresses and phone numbers here. After all, they’re not terrorists, right? What have they got to hide?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pmIf Congress would get off its collective ass and put the real criminals on trial, they wouldn’t have so much to fret about.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:13 pmjaked: Should Tim McVey have 4th Amendment rights?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmHow about Koresh? Another one of your terrorist heroes.
For the record, all citizens are guaranteed fourth ammendment rights, even those suspected of crimes. No one should be presumed a terrorist until after conviction in a court of law. What’s so hard to understand about that?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmJake D sez:
For the record, Shakey, you’re still wrong, your scrambling for qualifiers notwithstanding.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:14 pmThank god you’re right all the time, jake.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:15 pmNevar: No, it should be “Thank jake, you’re god all the time.”
September 19th, 2007 at 3:16 pmThere is a reason why the Congressional approval polls by the public rests around 25% job well done.
What might those numbers look like if the polls were answered by Corporations? 80%
Yes Jane, Congress is being watched.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:17 pmsomone namejacjed jake d, that cant be him…yeah jake - thats what the 4th amendment is FOR - to make sure only the bona fide criminals get ganked. idiot.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:18 pmWhile Bushies complained about Iraqis taking August off Bush did just that.
So did Congress.
They were in such a hurry they passed this FISA snafu.
This too, shall pass. The FISA law expires in January, 2008.
Bush expires in January, 2009.
Stay watchful, America. Just because one’s elected, it doesn’t mean they have America’s best interests in mind.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pmFor the record, only REAL bona fide terrorists should not have 4th Amendment rights. The government is NOT always right about that, or anything else, for that matter.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
#
That is my whole point. Just because you are arrested for bank robbery does not mean you are a bank robber. After you have had your day in court, and been convicted, THEN you are a bank robber. What if you are acquitted? That is why we have the judicial system. If you are talking with your Aunt Helga in Germany, the US government should not be allowed to eavesdrop on your conversation, “just in case” Aunt Helga might be a terrorist. We are talking about spying on Americans, and Americans (all of them) have rights. As a veteran, this is my main problem with the Republican party. I served in Iraq, my father served in Vietnam, his father served in WWII. All so that we could have things like Habeas Corpus, and the fourth amendment. Now the Republicans are perfectly willing to throw all that away.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:19 pmMax-1: Generic Congressional approval polls are meaningless, except to a few gop dead-enders. The question must be framed: “Do you approve of the job your congressperson is doing?” to have any empirical value.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:20 pm#2 Jake, exactly how many live does Harman have that Bush is saving?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:30 pmIs she a cat, cleverly disguised as a legislator?
For the record, only REAL bona fide terrorists should not have 4th Amendment rights. The government is NOT always right about that, or anything else, for that matter.
Comment by Jake D.
____________________
And who determines who a “REAL bona fide terrorist” is? Do we leave it up to the open-ended discretion of some slimey little partisan government bureaucrat like Gonzo? Or do we actually hold a trial, following the rules of criminal procedure, to determine if someone is a terrorist, based upon their acts, in which we apply the laws and safeguards guaranteed in our Constitution? Do we judge them first and string ‘em up like a mindless rabble in some lawless western town, or actually behave like a nation of laws?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:31 pmCynicon Implant sez:
This statement sums up the neocon chickenhawk mentality beautifully.
A course of action is required…not if it will save American lives, but if it might.
According to that logic, CI, everyone not in the administration should report immediately to their nearest government building to have their eyes burned out. After all, it’s damned difficult to perpetrate terrorist incidents when you and all your buddies are blind. Sure, it’s a sacrifice, but at least everyone’s still alive, right? As long as blinding everyone in the world might save us from the dreaded terrorists, it’s not only permissible…it’s a moral imperative.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:31 pmCynicon Implant sez:
Well, I do…and so did the Founding Fathers.
I’m more inclined to trust their judgment than yours.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:33 pmAgain, all of those who support spying on Americans please signify their support by posting their personal info here. Otherwise, you clearly don’t mean what you say.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:34 pmI wonder if stealing a soldier’s bio and claiming it’s your own makes one a bona fide terrorist>?
September 19th, 2007 at 3:35 pmTime to play, “You be the Judge”
Ok, who claims to be an independent, 75 yrs old, and a Korean War Vet and posted these today? Clock is ticking
Too late, Harmon. Bush is saving your lives, whether you like it or not.
RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!
Terrorists should not have 4th Amendment rights.
For the record, only REAL bona fide terrorists should not have 4th Amendment rights. The government is NOT always right about that, or anything else, for that matter.
GO JOHANNS!!!
GO WARNER AND MCCAIN!!!
56 votes is not a “narrow rejection†of any legislation — thank God at least 56 Senators realize we are fighting a war here.
Anyone else NOT on the “Ignore List�
It does only affect terrorists — if Hillary Clinton uses it against non-terrorists, then we’ll have a problem.
GO LIEBERMAN!!!
Another 9/11, or worse, S.D. is the risk.
For the record, if Mohammed Atta had been held before 9/11 without charging him with any crime, that certainly could have prevented at least ONE terrorist attack . . .
Plenty of legitimate habeas corpus petitions were filed this week in federal court. Only DEFEATOCRATS want to protect terrorists.
Is Webb still carrying a gun?
Isn’t EVERY Presidential Veto (including all of Clinton’s) vetoing a bill that passed a majority of both Houses, and also “an expression of the Congress†that basically said something the President disagreed with? Webb is an idiot
hank God Maryland’s highest court overturned a lower court’s ruling and rejected same sex marriage.
sarc/on
Oh, yeah, “Godâ€â€¦ **cough…cough** never, EVER, rained down sulfer to kill homosexuals either.
sarc/off
For the record, Hsu served in the same exact political office as Jack Abramoff.
Of course the Democrats will fold again. RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!
But that’s me as an individual Christian — you can’t have it both ways — either the U.S. is a Christian government, or not.
If you answered Jake D Fake you are 100% correct…
Does his posts look Independent?
Does his posts look like the work of a 75 yr old?
Does it seem he is more of a RNC troll, about 28-35?
You be the judge….
Buck Fush
September 19th, 2007 at 3:48 pmDoesn’t matter if the crime is terrorism, bank robbery or jay walking. You are still innocent until proven guilty and as such, are entitled to all of the protections afforded by the constitution.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pmacts dangerous to human life = posting such inane crap here as to make one spit coffee or tea out one’s nose…
appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; -
such as the posting community here…
or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, - well maybe not jakers but certainly the Bushits.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmComment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
And why are you quoting the old law, Shakey? You might want to quote the section of the PATRIOT Act (802) that expanded that definition and added the definition of “domestic terrorism”.
Under the current definition of “domestic terrorism”, one could be labeled an “enemy combatant” and stripped of all rights for demonstrating without the proper permit.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmJake D. sez:
…and you’re a confirmed liar.
September 19th, 2007 at 3:51 pmComment by Buckie Boy — September 19, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
And the beautiful thing is that due to user registration here at Think Progress (thanks!), Shakey Jake can’t employ his usual dodge of claiming he was ‘namejacked’ to wriggle out from under some of his more odious/idiotic posts. Shakey now has to accept full ownership for his comments, and like our administration, he’s remarkably uncomfortable with accountability. ^_^
September 19th, 2007 at 3:55 pmClearly the troll is a hypocrite - he says he supports the current FISA law, but won’t put his money where his mouth is by posting all of his personal information here. You can’t claim that the government is entitled to spy on you if you’re hiding behind a screen name!
September 19th, 2007 at 3:56 pmP.S. here’s the latest question I asked on the other thread: “you guys really think our F-18 pilots would REFUSE an order to shoot down a civilian airliner carrying American citizens?!â€
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Some would and some wouldn’t. What is your point Jake?
September 19th, 2007 at 4:00 pmThe key word here is consent. You do not consent, meaning you prefer to keep your private info private, meaning you do not want someone unknown to you to have private information about you. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:03 pmJake D. sez:
Clearly, you’re not much of a lawyer, Shakey. The above boilerplate does not prohibit one from posting their own personal information…it only prohibits one from posting the personal information of another, without their consent. Since it’s not really possible for you to post your own information without your consent, the clause you quoted does not apply.
Looks like TheToonGuy’s challenge stands.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:04 pmWeasel words. But let’s move on. A claim has been made that anyone accused of Terrorism should not be permitted protections under the fourth ammendment. Very well. I accuse Jake D. of being a terroist. I have no proof, but that doesn’t matter. Once accused (according to statements made on this thread) the accused is no longer allowed any privacy. Therefore, we are free to collect whatever we want about the accused. Still think that’s fair?
September 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmFor the record, when I signed up to post here, I agreed to not post any private information, period.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
How convenient. However, you could easily post the information somewhere else and simply link the information.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pmJake D. sez:
For the record, your argument against posting your own information by invoking TP’s Terms of Use lies in tatters at post #49.
If you signed a different agreement, which prohibits you from posting any personal information, be it of others or yourself, then we have a different problem:
Some time ago you posted a bio, ostensibly of yourself, which was later revealed to be a fake. However, you steadfastly claim that that bio was your own.
It would seem that you’ve then violated this alleged “alternate agreement” you signed when you signed up to post here.
Either you did sign this “alternate agreement”, and you’ve subsequently violated it, or you’ve simply made up the whole business of an “alternate agreement”. Either way, your argument is shredded (again).
Again, TheToonGuy’s challenge still stands.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pmYou agree to . . . [r]espect other Bloggers - please do not threaten, insult, abuse, intimidate or harass other Blog users.
Comment by Jake D. — September 19, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Like calling them “Defeatocrats”?
September 19th, 2007 at 4:12 pmOkay, I’m tired of this game. There’s no way to inject empathy into the troll. He doesn’t get it, he never will.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:13 pmJake D. sez:
According to this clause, you violate the TOS every time you post, Shakey.
Every time you try to float your ridiculous lies, you insult our intelligence, and you abuse our patience.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:14 pmIts a pretty good comparison Jake ,If you have nothing to hide share your personal information with strangers .My wife is German and I communicate regularly call overseas .If you approve of the government spying and collecting info on my family and I ,then put your money where your mouth is and trust us with YOUR name and address .
September 19th, 2007 at 4:18 pmAll the Dems need to do is revert the FISA back to a warrant-ful as opposed to warrant-less system. Period.
Hey, we’ll even throw in the old 72 hour grace period! For Free!
And if the Congress acts right now, we’ll even consider voting them back for another term in 08.. And we’ll pay the shipping and handling!
September 19th, 2007 at 4:19 pmForget it. My challenge was simply a means to get folks to realize that we all have stuff we’d rather not let other people know. And that until we are convicted in a court of law, we are all entitled to protections guaranteed under the constitution.
If the poster in question believed what he said, he would’ve found a way to meet the challenge and gladly done so. The fact that he did not, just goes to prove my point.
For the record, I don’t want the private information of anyone posting here. I wouldn’t know what to do with it if I had it.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:22 pmWoohoo!!! I’m on the ignore list! I’m so happy! In accepting this honor, I can only endeavor to return the favor. And work tirelessly until everybody is on the ignore list and the owner of said list is only talking with himself.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:25 pmHistory has shown there never was really any need for basic rights ,habeas corpus or the constitution,because we can trust power ?
September 19th, 2007 at 4:26 pmYour allright with my family being spied upon ,despite it’s being an obvious violation of my constitutionally guaranteed rights ,so why not trust all the posters at TP with your own personal information
I strongly suspect you have no problems as long as I’m the one being spied upon and it isn’t you .
Clearly freeman, some people have diffculty understanding the difference between suspected and convicted.
September 19th, 2007 at 4:27 pmCongratulations TheToonGuy - it is a badge of honor to be on the Ignore list.. 8-)
Buck Fush
September 19th, 2007 at 4:29 pmHey Jose
September 19th, 2007 at 4:32 pmFor the record Americans can have their rights tossed away if declared enemies of the state and if the charges are false ,NEVER GET THEIR DAY IN COURT !
This law applies to Americans as well as foreigners , it could apply to you and yours if the climate changes here or Hillary Clinton decides your a threat or just doesn’t carre for your politics .
No thanks, freeman — I’ll trust President Bush much more than I will those on the “Ignore List†: )
no jake you’ll be trusting every elected president and his or her appointees to homeland insecurity as long as this law remains viable !
September 19th, 2007 at 4:37 pmYou’ll trust your fate and your families to strangers in the government,are you that naive ?
Always have been, always will be a FREE MAN ,whatever scratches the lawyers make on paper !
September 19th, 2007 at 4:39 pmJaney, I am losing confidence in you.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:02 pmBushie pulled a fast one on you and your colleagues in 2002 and he has continued to make fools of you ever since.
Why are the rest of us out here in America wiser than you - is there something in the D.C. water that prevents your full brain to function?
We need representation in congress — we don’t need acquiescence to Bush&Co.
How many more times will you be played like a fiddle?
Do the job for which you are elected and paid.
Jake ,
September 19th, 2007 at 5:20 pmno I have never posted under another name at TP and you will trust your families basic rights entirely to elected officials now and in the future ,so why did we ever need a constitution and basic rights in the first place .If your actually going to make the case for that then I may as well ignore you anyway because you haven’t the intellect needed for a serious discussion of current events and thats the polite version.
We might as well have a dictator or a king if you believe that argument . Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ,which is the reason the constitution was written in the first place !
Might as well, freeman. Much better to talk to a brick wall than a troll. The only difference is that the brick wall doesn’t sound as stupid.
September 19th, 2007 at 5:24 pmIf a family member of yours is wrongly accused of a crime ,of which they had no part ,under the law, as it now stands ,they could be held without charges ,never be allowed an opportunity to face the accusations ,and tried on secret evidence . This has already been done to American citizens .
September 19th, 2007 at 5:26 pmHow about domestic terrorists ,like those Quakers the FBI spied on in Vermont and Florida or Anti war protesters or enviromentalists ,or bloggers ,is it allright to imprison them without a trial ,hold them without charges or try them on secret evidence outside our justice system ?
September 19th, 2007 at 5:43 pmWhat if the charges are false or trumped up ?
What if they’re Your family members ,Jake would you support that because this law makes that a very real possibility, in the future .What if the charges were leveled because your son or daughter spoke truth to the very powerful or accused them of war crimes or treason ?
Those who are willing to waive essential liberties for the sake of a little safety ,deserve neither . Ben franklin
The supreme court ,Jake, is made up of very fallible people .They have made very bad decisions before and reversed them later .The rights we are discussing are inalienable and bestowed upon all men and women by a higher authority than a courtroom of Lawyers .The privledged may want to remember that these rights have been worth dying for ,and that history shows despite every setback the march toward freedom is relentless .
September 19th, 2007 at 5:58 pm