House introduces new FISA legislation.
House introduces new FISA legislation.
Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) introduced the RESTORE Act, the Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007. Here are the key provisions:
* Restores court oversight of intelligence by requiring that electronic surveillance programs be approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court
* Mandates that FISA warrants be obtained when the administration wants to undertake surveillance of persons in the US
* No retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration’s warrantless surveillance
* Does not require individual warrants when targets are reasonably believed to be abroad
* Ensures FISA is the exclusive means of electronic surveillance and that no modifications can be made without express legal authorization
A summary of the RESTORE Act can be found here. The bill also requires the Justice Department to reveal the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since 9/11.
UPDATE: Pontificator writes: “Yesterday’s New York Times article on the FISA bill had a misleading title and could easily be misinterpreted if it is not read closely. It implied that the House FISA bill, introduced today, is a capitulation. It is not. It is a strong bill that protects civil liberties and provides for oversight.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
* No retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the administration’s warrantless surveillance…
DAMN RIGHT!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:24 amI really liked that part too, Fan of Man
October 9th, 2007 at 10:26 amWow, you libs are so easily duped. The Dems renew the Patriot Act on a Sunday night, so that news of it evaporates by the time the Sunday talk shows can discuss it the following week, and now you act gleeful that the Dems now send up a bill they know will be vetoed without hope of over-ride?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:32 amThis will be signed into law, and immediately the signing statement will forbid the Justice Dept from giving those details.
There’s simply no way Justice ever hands these over. It’s evidence of a crime committed. They simply wont enforce this, or ignore it altogether.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:32 am“RESTORE Act” - - A severe acronym bludgeoning is what those Republicans deserve!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:32 amOoooo! The terrorists will kill us now!!!! Nuclear bombs will destroy our cities!!!! I just wet my pant!!!!
Right, Rory?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:34 amRory, you don’t even know why you support the threatened veto. You just mouth the words like a robotron, on command.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:36 am“RESTORE Act†- - A severe acronym bludgeoning is what those Republicans deserve!
Comment by Badmoodman — October 9, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Yes, Congress probably spent more time working on the acronym than the actual act itself.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:37 amAwesome. #5 is accurate, but I’m curious as to how the american public would see a veto of an act such as this. Especially the lack of retroactive immunity - that’s going to put the WH in a position.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:38 am#5 - “Good luck overriding that veto.” Comment by Rory — October 9, 2007 @ 10:32 am
Translation: I hate children AND childrens health!
Why do the so-called “pro-lifers” hate the children AFTER they’ve been born?
October 9th, 2007 at 10:41 amI see the Troll hates the Bill of Rights.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:42 am“Few of us can easily surrender our belief that society must somehow make sense. The thought that the state has lost its mind is intolerable, and so the evidence has to be internally denied.”
-Arthur Miller
The 29%-er syndrome.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:42 amRory shows disdain for the Constitution and rule of law, like a good little neocon POS.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:42 amRory had to leave the room to change his pants.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:47 amI do agree with Rory on this. There’s no way this is veto-proof. It’s not even filibuster-threat proof if the Senate were to vote on identical legislation.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:50 amBest case, I think, is that the anti-immunity part and the document turnover part are removed in committee. Maybe then it won’t be vetoed, but I will not be holding my breath.
Rory had to leave the room to change his pants.
Comment by VerbalKint — October 9, 2007 @ 10:47 am
Or to get his latest talking points. Things are getting rough for the NeoCon Chickenhawks lately. All their feces is starting to fester and smell.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:50 amOh, and Go Tribe!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:51 amNo “retroactive anything” for this gang of thugs! Their “heyday” is over and they will be tried for each and every violation of the law.
Now let’s overturn Bush’s signing statements, too! Restore habeas corpus and the rest of the constitution which has been wadded up and used as toilet paper.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:51 amsee ya, removebush… and take your negative vibes with you…
we don’t need that ANYwhere…
bye…
October 9th, 2007 at 10:52 am#10 - pro-lifers are NOT pro-life. they are just pro-birth, after that its fair game. if they were pro-life, they’d be screamin’ from the mountain tops the top health care for everyone, more funds for disease cures, no WAR…. pro-lifers? lol… pro-birthers….
October 9th, 2007 at 10:53 amRemoveBush: And if the spineless Dems bendover once again and include the retroactive immunity, then we will wipe any Dem (or goes without saying ALL Repukes) who votes for it! Simple as that.
The people must draw a line in the sand with this Congress. If they continue to fail us, they will be ousted. At this point, the only reason the congressional numbers are so low is because the Dems are failing to clean up the sicko Republicans.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:53 amIsn’t anyone who believes that war should always be a “last alternative” to other peaceful means a “pro-lifer”? It would seem to be the “essence of the issue”; that is, unless you’re a christofascist hypocrite.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:55 amRemoveBush: Adios! Pick one where you can speak the language - unlike some parts of this country.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:56 amI would love to see this legislation pass, but the pessimist in me says it’s not gonna happen. If it passes the House and the Senate (not likely), the Bush will either veto, or issue a signing statement. I just hope they bring back this same legislation January 21, 2009, when it can truly be implemented.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:02 amwanna bet more effort went into the acronym than will be expended in actually passing the friggin law.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:02 amCongress hasn’t the balls to pass it. Even if it did pass, Bush will veto, and call the Democrats “soft on terrorists”, after which they will whimper and overwhelmingly give Bush carte blanche.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:03 amWhen that happens, then America is lost.
Comment by RemoveBush
Only when you define your country by the government running it.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:03 amShouldn’t we all be comforted, secure in the knowledge that George W. Bush and his disciples are dedicated to preserving and defending our Constitution from attack? All you need to do is ignore a few inconvenient facts and you’ll soon feel better.
The following excerpt is from a Capitol Hill Blue article, written by Doug Thompson, dated December 5, 2005:
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t give a goddamn,†Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.â€
“Mr. President,†one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.â€
“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,†Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!â€
I’ve talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper.â€
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the “Constitution is an outdated document.â€
There now. Don’t you feel better already?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:08 am#32 - Wow, way to drag out the worn-out talking points, troll. Try reading next time.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:08 amDems want to comfort the enemy
Comment by Zionist-Crusader — October 9, 2007 @ 11:10 am
#
Republicans want to give away all the rights that so many veterans have died for.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:11 am#36, dems do comfort the enemy…. republicans.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:13 amRemoveBush,
October 9th, 2007 at 11:14 amWhat countries are you looking into immigrating to? And what do they have to offer. I am not looking to judge you, I am really curious. The thought has passed my family’s mind as well. If you are a professional, like we are, it shouldn’t be too hard to immigrate even to countries with strict policies. The only drawback, is llike Wilco said, you don’t define your country by your government. Governments can change, even in the one that might be worth immigrating to right now. I truely, truely understand your frustration.
hah! Very good, Fan of Man.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:14 amSo Bush will veto it? ANNND? So what?
First of all, what else are they going to do? They have to pursue their goals or don’t bother working at all.
Second, how bad do Bush and the meanies look vetoing things like healthcare for children? MAKE him veto oversight and MAKE congressional Republicans stand with the worst President in this country’s history.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:15 amDems want to comfort the enemy
October 9th, 2007 at 11:17 amWow that’s an original thought. At least put it in quotes and give a reference. Otherwise it’s just plagiarism. Pathetic.
#28 - Chris L. Perhaps you should read this article that was linked in the ThinkFast thread, before you make a wish. Anything decent in this bill will be eviscerated during conference with the Senate bill. Any decent changes that come out of the conference will be vetoed…and finally, the Congress will simply capitulate, again, to the Administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/ 2007/ 10/ 08/ washington/ 09cnd-nsa.html?hp
October 9th, 2007 at 11:19 amSo Bush will veto it? ANNND? So what?
First of all, what else are they going to do? They have to pursue their goals or don’t bother working at all.
Second, how bad do Bush and the meanies look vetoing things like healthcare for children? MAKE him veto oversight and MAKE congressional Republicans stand with the worst President in this country’s history.
Comment by lefty — October 9, 2007 @ 11:15 am
#
Damn good point. Thank you.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:21 amRemoveBush,
October 9th, 2007 at 11:25 amAustralia? Progressive? I must be missing the news. We were thinking Scaninavian countries like Norway (very high quality of life) or medically progressive Switzerland. Austria, Dennmark, etc. These countries at least have health care, good number of vacation days, etc.
I see the troll has created a sock puppet for support.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:28 amDems hate the military, that’s why they said GEN Betray Us.
And this has to do with FISA… how?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:30 am“Comment by katy — October 9, 2007 @ 10:52 amâ€
katy - I don’t know how old you are, but I am 60 and I totally agree with RemoveBush. It is truly difficult for me to witness the changes that have gone on to the detriment of this country. I do not understand why, when the majority of the American people want us out of Iraq, there are not the kind of protests that I witnessed and participated in during the Vietnam war.
Too many Americans are uneducated and complacent. How many of your friends truly pay as much attention as you apparently do?
The miltary-industrial complex and the wealthy are now firmly in control, just as Eisenhower feared.
I am glad that you are still optomistic and believe things can change. I am not, and I too will probably eventually leave, most definitely if another Republican is elected president.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:33 amDems would rather give terrorist the benefit of the doubt than hunt down America’s enemies.
Comment by Zionist-Crusader — October 9, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Like Bush hunted down the man responsible for the attack on 9-11?
Oh yeah, he gave him a pass….I forgot.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:35 am#58, 59 - Don’t bother responding to the troll. When they try to disrupt the thread in this manner, just report them. I suspect it’s only a sock puppet anyway and they intend to dispose of it soon.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:37 amSince I have lived here all my life, I am trying to research other countries.
Comment by RemoveBush — October 9, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Good for you! More people need to see what “something else” is. If not for purposes to move to, at least for perspective on what a different gov’t/society looks like. It’s all either “horrible terrorist states” and the dictators that run them or the US that have been shown here. (sometimes I wonder what really the distinciton is. Too close for comfort for me)
October 9th, 2007 at 11:37 amAfter all the constitution is just a “God damned piece of paper”.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:12 pmSpoken like a true tyrant.
8 years of death, destruction and disaster capitalism.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pmThey were in bed with the Saudis who rounded up the highjackers
for 911 with very long term goals in mind.
These ba@tards have known from the start that the idea would be
just too outrageous for most people to even consider.
They’ve banked on it, and it’s paying off for them.
62,
He was a better cheerleader.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pmPutz,
You have diarrhea of the finger. Constipation of the mind.
October 9th, 2007 at 12:23 pmre: Zionist-Crusader:
obviously this person is an 12-y/o troll. why is anyone wasting time on responding to them?
October 9th, 2007 at 12:25 pmThe bill also requires the Justice Department to reveal the details of all electronic surveillance conducted without court orders since 9/11.
My bet is on the fact that this will be a deal breaker for Bush. I hope that the Democrats stick to their guns and don’t give in on this again.
Also, that NYT article last night was very misleading. I wonder if they did that on purpose?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:27 pmGood luck overriding that veto.
Comment by Rory
That’s fine Jake. Because if Bush vetoes it, soon he will be right back where he started from when the current bill lapses.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pmMaybe then it won’t be vetoed, but I will not be holding my breath.
Comment by Wilco
It’s fine if he wants to veto it. He will only have another four months before the bill lapses. Then Bush will be right back where he started from with the illegality of what he is doing.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:34 pmkaty - I don’t know how old you are, but I am 60 and I totally agree with RemoveBush. It is truly difficult for me to witness the changes that have gone on to the detriment of this country. […]
Comment by Luca — October 9, 2007 @ 11:33 am
i am 54+… divorced… 2 grown, wonderful, genius kids…
pretty close to the grandchildren stage…
YOU THINK I’M GONNA RUN AWAY AND LEAVE THEM, ALONE,
WITH THIS MESS ???!!! HELL NO!!!
i am real sick and tired of dems whining and b!tching because
October 9th, 2007 at 5:32 pmthings haven’t turned around in 9 months…
after years of abuse and misuse…
.