Jim Webb: Spy Bill Too Complicated For Some Bloggers

The Seminal:

The following exchange took place on the eve of the FISA vote, July 8th, between myself and Virginia Senator James Webb.

Josh Nelson: You mentioned the role the blogosphere played in your Senate campaign. I was wondering if you could elaborate on that a little bit. And also tell us what type of role you would like to see them play in legislative fights in the future.

Jim Webb: The blogs... the good news and bad news about blogs. First the bad news. The bad news is anybody can say anything about someone and they don't even have to put their name on it. In fact, the anonymity encourages irresponsibility. And it is pretty frustrating, I'll be honest with you, that's why I just stopped reading this stuff a long time ago.

...

Josh Nelson: Are you talking about FISA?

Jim Webb: Specifically I'm thinking about FISA since I have to vote on it tomorrow afternoon.

(laughter)

That's a very complicated issue and I've looked at it from every single angle that it can be looked at. Having had the black clearances that we were talking about, and at the same time I'm very strong on privacy rights. It's not an issue that is easy to boil down in the way a lot of the blogging community has boiled it down.

Read the whole story: The Seminal

Comments

[AlexVonHussein]

Part I

My simple understanding of the Bill.

If the government ..suspects someone is planning to attack American, it will go to the telecommunications company and order then to listen on that person. ....The telecoms should not say No because what ever they do in this capacity they are following the Order from Above. In so doing ...by chance the person being watched ..finds the telecoms are spying on him, he goes to court and sues the telecom in the civil courts. The telecoms will have immunity right cause they took orders from the Government. ...

The Telecom has to proof they go the orders from the government. ..! if they do they are immune if they dont and it shows they are maliciously spying on Journalists and activist for instance , the telecoms face criminal charges, and in this case they have no Immunity right?

[plainsman]

Gee. You didn't mention the data-mining and warrantless surveillance of all international phone calls and emails. This bill allows the gov't to pry into everything, and if they find anything useful, attain a warrant for it after the fact.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}}}}
You didn't mention the data-mining and warrantless surveillance of all international phone calls and emails
}}}}}}}}}

The FISA act of 1978 already allows all that...

The problem is that these days, there isn't any way to tell what International and what's Domestic without analyzing the signal itself... Gone are the days when there were BRITISH Lines and AMERICAN Lines and GERMAN Lines etc etc etc.

Michale.....

[sydney01]

Actually, if they want to spy on a citizens, they have to go through the FISA court.

The bill re-establishes court oversight that the Bush Administration tried to destroy.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Only for individualized content -- not for mass data mining.

[bgregs]

Of course, since the ORIGINAL law (which was in existence until they passed this crap!) ALSO required the FISA court, for EVERY time that they wanted to spy! This new one allows them to spy all that they want, and only get warrants in job lots, without any info to the judge, and only if they are not unsure at all that the person being spied upon is an American!

[Grunty1]

The Telecoms wouldn't have found between a Raq and a lawsuit if they got the proof they needed in the first place: a FISA issued warrant.

[RRK70]

It is my understanding that the government does not go to the telecomms. The various intelligence outfits have a "pipeline" that runs straight into the telecomm's systems. The telecomms do little more than provide a room in their building where the government has a direct connection into their servers. There was a whistleblower who came out about this "pipleline" well over a year ago. It's up to the intelligence agencies involved to "limit" themselves as to what they monitor. What's scar is whether any private contractors to any intelligence agencies have this access. Recall all the press about government employees viewing celebrities passports? Imagine a private contractor with access to everyone's emails! It's not that far fetched, Intelligence community outsources about 1/2 their operation these days.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Bingo.

[AlexVonHussein]

Part II

Who monitors the government and do they get permission from the court to watch someone before they pass the order to the Telecoms? whom are they answerable to?

In other terms the goverment used to spy on People, they could park a dark wagen on your side road. Now they dont, they have out sourced the Job to the telecoms and the Airlines who collect all of our informations., and pass it to the goverment when they demand.

, Other way round, If the government has reasonable evidence about some people and suspects they are terrorist, and hears them at 11.45 plotting to bomb at noon , they should run to the courts of law and get allowance to stop them and bring them to court. or what should the goverment do. what have they been doing since time memorial , the FBI, bugging phones or following people.? which is the bes

am I right can any one correct me..did I understand it as Webb did..or is it more complicated as this

[EvoMan]

Given that the original FISA law allows the government to start a wire-tap immediately and get court approval within 72 hours, I'm not sure the courts would impede surveillance in your scenario under the old law.

[RRK70]

The whole "Ticking Time Bomb" scenario you present is inapplicable just as it is with torture. If authorities are CONVINCED there is going to be some event of DIRE consequence, they can take action. If they are found to have done good, they can, if nothing else, be pardoned by the President.
But in legalizing surveillance, and torture, you are actively encouraging it. You are taking the position that it is better to broach the rights of hundreds, thousands, millions of others than it is to permit something to happen. It is a forgone conclusion in my opinion, that government will always abuse the powers it has. It is the nature of power and the nature of government. We need to ask ourselves, as Americans, which we value, our security or our liberty. The politicians of this country are sworn to uphold the Constitution, not our safety. Over the past 230 years this country has always tended to choose liberty over security. During the Cold War this nation lived under constant threat of nuclear annihilation and yet such threats to our liberty were not even considered. I don't see how terrorism poses any greater danger. There have been times, like now, that fear was used to usurp power, the Red Scare, McCarthyism, the Patriot Act, but liberty has always tended to win out in the end. Liberty and democracy will always ensure a level of security, but security by no means guarantees liberty.

[Doofus]

It would be useful if Sen Webb were to say more about the
matter. I for one would probably agree with him, but it's not
so helpful to say 'most don't get it' without going into some
detail.

For the record, how NSA operated was 'legal' from its
founding after WW2 until about 1978, then 'constrained'
until 9/11/2001, when interpretation reverted back.

It's not sufficient to insist that the ends justify the means,
but there remain indeed serious, arguably 'technical' questions
about whether this is truly a constitutional issue.

Anyway, Sen Webb, please explain further.

[CoolerHeads]

You know, this bill isn't just about "privacy." It's about the Bush administration breaking the law, spying on American citizens without warrants, trampling on the Constitution and establishing unprecedented Presidential powers. It's about the Congress failing to check or balance this power and abandoning their responsibility to defend the Constitution and provide oversight. These things are a much greater threat to our nation than terrorists, because Al Qaeda may or may not be around in a hundred years, but if we don't have a Constitution, America will surely cease to exist. That piece of paper is all we've got to keep us whole and free. So, no, I don't mind per se if the NSA reads my email, but, you see, a lot more is at stake than privacy.

[vinny]

Webb (2007): "There is near uniform, bipartisan agreement on the need to reform FISA to reflect modern telecommunications and information technology. We must do so in a way that safeguards basic civil and constitutional rights. But we must also remember that the terrorist threat to the nation is extremely serious. I remain fully committed to bringing accountability to this process, and to protecting the privacy rights of all Americans."

In 2008, Webb votes AGAINST the Dodd-Feingold-Leahy Amendment (striking down immunity for telecoms)

This makes Webb is an official WUSSY. That is, when he is "committed to bringing accountability to the process," he mean he's willing to talk tough and then when it comes to the vote, well, backdown.

[stop7997]

Actually Mr. Webb you wouldn't be in the Senate now were it not for the bloggers.

[BADEN]

Very good point!

[whatchamean]

Hey! I think Jim Webb is talking down to us blogpeople. I agree that blogs reflect a variety of opinions, something missing from the MSM where the only opinion is what the corporate filter allows to get through.

[rpence]

There were lots of HuffPost bloggers who said most Americans wouldn't get the New Yorker satire of Obama. So what's wrong with Webb saying what he says? He's probably right. Don't flatter yourselves.

[AlexVonHussein]

Whispering...... Webb is talking down to blogging people....... Jesse Jackson! what should we do to Webb!! cut what! what did you say we should cut!!

[vinny]

Webb has already got that covered.

[plainsman]

The Headline should read "Spy Bill: Too Complicated for Some Senators."

[vinny]

Or "Webb Not Completely Sure if He is a Democrat"

[JohnnyBasic]

Okay Senator Webb, FISA is a complicated matter, granted.

But please explain to me why telecommunication immunity is a good idea. I'm waiting....

I have not heard one compelling case as to why we should offer retroactive immunity for coroprations and this administration.

The only thing I have heard is, "...it's part of the bill FISA bill and that's the way it is..."

[olivia]

Exactly. Telecomm immunity was in there because that was the best compromise (that would pass) that the Democrats could eke out.

Blame the neocons.

[bgregs]

This is not a compromise! bush asked for telecom immunity, and he got it. bush asked to be allowed to spy on whomever he wanted, and he got it. bush asked to be completely excused for having violated the Constitution, and he got it! Even REPUBLICANS are saying that he got a wet dream with this bill!

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

I would have voted "no" on this bill for a number of reasons, telecom immunity from CIVIL lawsuit being but one.

Data mining being the MORE objectionable, to me.

That being said, the now-LAW does not close the door on CRIMINAL prosecution of either the Administration or the telecoms.

[vinny]

Civil culpability is a key way to ensure INDIVIDUALS are protected. CRIMINAL prosecution suits the whims and political calculations of the executive. Civil recourse ensure individuals get to participate in their government. If there is in fact HARM, then individuals can have their day in court. For those of you saying CIVIL IMMUNITY AND CRIMINAL prosecution is a good compromise, please go join the Republican party. Good democrats vote for policies which protect individuals from harm. It's the first principle of policymaking.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

With all due respect, you confuse both my general politics and my position on this law, as well as the distinction between civil and criminal justice.

[bgregs]

You are almost entirely correct here! Yes, the immunity, while troubling, is a non-issue compared to the violations of the fourth amendment.

The only point that I disagree with you on is that there will be NO criminal prosecutions, either. There's no way in hell that mukasey, or whoever the AG is under bush will EVER bring charges against them, and bush, on his last day in office, will simply pardon away the crimes so that Obama will be unable to prosecute them, either!

[rebeccaj]

Gosh, every time I read all of your -- "destroy the village" to make it perfect, it makes me remember how GW got elected in the first place.

If McCain gets elected, you all will have no one but your simpleminded selves to blame.

I am starting to think that, like NRA members, you simply are not happy if you can't be complaining about something.

Too bad you weren't THIS upset about the war, about torture, about women's rights, about immigrants rights about a lot of other issues. No -- it is one issue. The rest of us can go to hell.

What a selfish bunch of jerks.

I bet none of you have done any REAL political grassroots work in your life. You just go on these little sites and moan and groan...

You don't know what REAL political work is like; how hard it is to get some Virginia moderate to vote for a black guy from Chicago who wants to bring our troops home and raise taxes. You guys are clueless and worthless.

[Liam]

I don't know about others, Senator Webb, but for me, I try to understand the issue as fully as I can, and I'm open to changing my position when the facts warrant.

I wish, however, that you'd given us a few examples. I honestly don't understand why so many people voted in favor of this legislation, particularly with the immunity clause attached, and I would like to understand.

So please, if you're going to say we're distilling it too far and not getting the complexities, try to share with us some examples of those complexities. Some of us would very much like to understand!

Liam.

[RRK70]

Classified, sorry, we can't tell you that!
Too complicated, your poor intellect just can't wrap around an issue like mine can and make the correct decision. So it's too complicated for "the public" but it's not for politicians?
How can a democracy work without transparency?
Whatever happened to the concept of check and balances (like the FISA courts, or judicial review).
All of our politicians have sworn to uphold the Constitution. Period. No and, if's or buts.

I like Webb, but I don't respect or understand his response regarding this issue.