FISA: Got Questions, Will (Help) Pay For Answers

I don't know any more about national security than John McCain claims to know about economics. So I'm puzzled by many aspects of the War on Terror -- for instance, the Senate's renewal of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which, among other things, empowers the president to order wiretaps on American citizens.

Nor do I understand why the Democrats, who control Congress, approved retroactive immunity for the phone companies that have carried out the wiretapping so far, arguably outside FISA's legal limits.

Mostly, though, I would like to know a lot more about the wiretaps themselves.

It's too bad the Democrats didn't at least press for a deal: their support for immunity in return for full disclosure from the telecoms. That is, the names of everyone the administration spied on -- released, if not publicly, then to the FISA judge and, I would hope, Congressional leaders as well.

I don't know if such a deal would have held up in the courts, but it seems to me that there was still a way to get the information. Someone might have offered a reward of, say, $10-million to anyone at the phone companies who would come forward with verifiable records showing whose lines were tapped, when and for how long.

Surely such records exist. And the telecoms presumably would have them, since it was their people who flipped the switches and did whatever else it took to zero-in on the targets.

Maybe all is still not lost. Why not offer the reward now? It would have to be done on the Q-T, of course. And the whistle-blower(s) would remain anonymous. But even if the White House stonewalled, and even if the information had no legal standing, we at least would have a good idea of the extent of the wiretapping.

The thing is, we really need to know WHY the president and his people were so hot to do the tele-spying the way they did it. Why go outside FISA? Why circumvent a law that already allowed them to tap all they wanted, effectively without restraint? Why would they need to keep the operation secret even from the FISA judge, especially when FISA allowed them to wiretap for up to three days before notifying him?

There might be very good reasons for all of this. Maybe potential terrorist acts were so imminent, or the need for speed or total secrecy so dire, that there was no other way. If so, I think the administration could find a way to explain its rationale, in detail and verifiably, without compromising the security of its investigations.

On the other hand, it is possible that the wiretapping was carried out for less-defensible purposes, the disclosure of which, even to a single judge, would be disastrous for the White House.

For example, what if the targets included domestic critics of the administration? What if election year politics was a factor, the targets Democrats who threatened to unseat Republican incumbents and effect a power shift in Congress?

What if targets were not always individuals, but sometimes classes of people -- certain blue-state or blue-district voters, for instance? Or, simply, enrolled Democrats or their party leaders in key districts?

What if targets were profiled racially, ethnically or by religion, selected according to likely voting patterns -- or even for their perceived terrorist potential?

I know. This sounds like a Hollywood movie plot. And taken together, these scenarios do have the ring of a runaway conspiracy theory. But should we simply assume, then, that none of them is at least possible?

It's not as though the current administration has given us no cause to question its motives. The history of the Bush Justice Department alone (not to mention NASA, the EPA, FEMA, etc.) suggests that politics can't be ruled out even in this declared matter of national security.

Why the national news media are not looking into this question aggressively, I don't know. Maybe they do feel that it's just too outlandish a concern. But my guess is that, except for a few intrepid news operations, the industry is too underfinanced, too understaffed, and, in this post-9/11 climate of fear and finger-pointing, too skittish to seriously investigate any aspect of the War on Terror.

So if there's any hope of getting my FISA questions answered, I fear the Big Whistle-Blower's Reward will be the only way to go. Now if I can just find an inquiring mind or twelve with deep pockets. Or ... yeah, that's it:

Maybe a netroots campaign could raise the $10-million.

Comments

[tommybones]

Hypothetical:

Tommybones (U.S. citizen), sitting in his apartment (within the USA), places a phone call to his grandmother in the old country (in Europe).

During the call, I tell "nonna" about the movie "sleeper cell" that I rented the other day. I'm suddenly on a list and ALL of my communications are now being monitored, much more closely, of course. (Remember, I have done nothing wrong and had given the government no reason to suspect me of anything). Next, they go to the FISA judge, who has no right to know anything specifically about my case, other than the fact that certain "words" (hello thought police) were "flagged." Even if the judge rules the spying to be unwarranted, the government appeals, and continues spying on my every communication for months. Government logs every web site I visit, records every call, saves every text message. All the information is now in a government database, to be used in whatever ways a covert entity may be so inclined. I am placed on the terror watch list, making travel abroad a nightmare.

If all goes according to plan, I will eventually learn to love big brother.

All of this to protect us from the dumbest terrorists ion the planet. You know, the bufffoons who would actually use unsecured communications to talk openly about their terrorist plans.

Any American who backs this nonsense is a card-carrying COWARD.

[tommybones]

Michale asks, "what's the harm?"

Hypothetical:

Phone call from Washington to Paris passes through government computer
Computer analyzes phone call (searches it for clues)
"Flags" the communication based on specific words (which words? decided by whom?)
Government agent listens to that communication (establishes it is a DEMOCRATIC SENATOR, records everything)

DEMOCRATIC SENATOR has had his private communications listened to, logged, recorded and analyzed without a warrant issued in a court of law by a judge, based on probable cause.

THE SENATOR HAPPENED TO BE TALKING TO HIS MISTRESS IN PARIS.

Then, AFTER the search (and seizure) has already taken place, the agent takes his findings (from the search) and applies for a warrant to perform the search he has ALREADY PERFORMED and to EXPAND IT. The Judge, precluded from hearing the name of the person being targeted, or even the location, only hears a report from the agent stating certain words were used. Even if the Judge issues a stop order. The agent appeals. During the appeal, which lasts months, the agent listens to EVERY communication of the Senator.

Suddenly, on a key piece of legislation, the Senator flips his position and votes for an unpopular bill.

Nobody can understand why.....

THOUGHTS?

[tommybones]

I love it when Michale makes this inane assertion, "I honestly cannot see why ANYONE would have a problem with HR6304," even though he's been inundated with serious concerns put forth by his fellow citizens as to the potential abuses that could come about from the expansion of wiretapping capabilities.

Now, he doesn't acknowledge these legitimate concerns, but you know he's read them.

For example:

Chris Hedges, NY Times reporter:

"This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours.

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man's story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity."

Does it qualify as a reason someone "would have a problem with HR6304?

[tommybones]

Legitimate concerns, Michale?

Matthew Rothschild:

In his chortle over the Democratic cave-in on FISA, Bush said, "It will ensure that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will, themselves, be protected from lawsuits for past-OR FUTURE-cooperation with the government."

The news lies between those dashes.

The prospective immunity extends beyond telecom companies and ISPs to include even landlords and custodians, and it IS NOT LIMITED TO the provision of communication contents or records.

Title VIII: "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." A "person" is defined as "an electronic communication service provider" or "a landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance... " Note how wide open is the category of "other person."

And "assistance" is defined as "the provision of, or the provision of access to, information (including communication contents, communications records, or other information relation to a customer or communication), facilities, or another form of assistance." Notice how wide open is the category of "another form of assistance."

All of these "persons" providing "assistance" are now immunized by this bill for their future actions so long as the Attorney General certifies them in court.

Look what"s happening here: The combined powers of the Executive Branch and the private sector are now arrayed against the individual.

[tommybones]

The potential for abuse far outweighs the likelihood of catching "terrorists" dumb enough to use "flaggable" words over phone and Internet lines. Tell me, who is more likely to use certain words linked to terrorism? An actual terrorist? Or the average citizen discussing the news of the day or a movie they just saw? Meanwhile, the government hasn't provided a single example of a thwarted attack based on the spying program. Oh, they've made claims.... but have provided no proof at all.

I could hijack this thread with an endless supply of hypothetical abuses, all MUCH more likely to happen then stopping some "terrorist" plot.

Just look at the "terrorist watch list." The well documented abuses of this "list" is pages long, yet the examples of arrests and convictions of "terrorists" from this system? Zero. Zilch. Nada.

As Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman wrote:

"The new statute permits the NSA to intercept phone calls and e-mails between the U.S. and a foreign location, without making any showing to a court and without judicial oversight, whether or not the communication has anything to do with al Qaeda... indeed, even if there is no evidence that the communication has anything to do with terrorism, or any threat to national security."

I feel safer already.... don't you?

[Michale32086]

@BlaineKinsley

}}}}}}}}}}
The correct analogy would be if a domestic police officer monitored all communications within the U.S., without a warrant and without probable cause, to determine if he/she could obtain evidence of probable cause to obtain a search warrant against a particular target.
}}}}}}}}}}

Your analogy is not correct because a domestic police officer doesn't have the legal authority to monitor all US calls.

An intelligence officer, on the other hand, DOES have the legal authority the monitor international calls.

Michale.....

[tommybones]

Michale probably has no idea that he's making BlaineKinsey's case for him with posts like this.

[bgregs]

Now, by intelligence officer, you are speaking of a law enforcement officer, right? The same as the FBI? The same as the Chicago police department? The same as NYPD? The same as Andy fricking Taylor (as protrayed by Andy Griffith)?? The SAME people who MUST get a warrant EVERY time BEFORE they investigate a person?????

[Michale32086]

There are several facts that people who are anti-HR6304 must contend with.

1. US Intelligence services have the legal authority to monitor international communication lines without a warrant.. FISA Act 1978

2. Such monitoring of international communications is vital to the safety and security of this country.

3. With today's technology, it is impossible to differentiate between domestic communications and international communications without monitoring and analysis.

4. Global communications are monitored and analyzed as a matter of course every time they are made.

Given these facts, I honestly cannot see why ANYONE would have a problem with HR6304...

Michale.....

[BlaineKinsey]

Your facts are only your overstated opinions. Prior to the new FISA legislation, U.S. intelligence agencies only had the legal authority to monitor international communications without a warrant if a non-U.S. person was the target of the surveillance or if the Attorney General ignored Executive Order 12333. Although the intelligence agencies were exceeding their legal authority prior to July 9, 2008, and have now been given an unconstitutional umbrella of authority, these agencies were using massive unfiltered surveillance of all international communications to search communications for evidence of probable cause that could be used to obtain legal authority for their surveillance. The Bush Administration threatened to veto the new FISA legislation IF it included the amendment proposed by Senator Bingaman. This means that the President, the Attorney General and the DNI thought that the public safety was not jeopardized by rejecting the new FISA legislation rather than delaying (not removing, but merely delaying) retroactive immunity for the affected telecommunication providers until after the report of the Inspectors General that is required by the new FISA legislation. The vote to defeat Senator Bingaman's amendment revealed the total hypocrisy of the new FISA legislation.

Using your motto that the public good (as determined by you) trumps individual rights, you should be able to convince everyone that the public would be much safer without the Bill of Rights. I hope Senator Obama does not share your totalitarian views.

[tommybones]

I love it when Michale makes this inane assertion, "I honestly cannot see why ANYONE would have a problem with HR6304," even though he's been inundated with serious concerns put forth by his fellow citizens as to the potential abuses that could come about from the expansion of wiretapping capabilities.

Now, he doesn't acknowledge these legitimate concerns, but you know he's read them.

For example:

Chris Hedges, NY Times reporter:

"This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours.

The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.

What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man's story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity."

Does it qualify as a reason someone "would have a problem with HR6304?

Michale?

[bgregs]

1. US Intelligence services have the legal authority to monitor international communication lines without a warrant.. FISA Act 1978

Yeah, so we're going to base our decisions that an intelligence officer can tap without a warrant on a bill which required warrants for EVERY tap?

2. Such monitoring of international communications is vital to the safety and security of this country.

If this one is true then so is the assertion that bush makes that the terrorists will win if we leave Iraq sometime before the end of the world!

3. With today's technology, it is impossible to differentiate between domestic communications and international communications without monitoring and analysis.

Flat out lie. The fact of the matter is that they CAN separate it, they just don't CARE to since that makes it easier for them to spy on Americans too!

4. Global communications are monitored and analyzed as a matter of course every time they are made.

Another flat out lie! They may be (illegally) monitored by the telecoms, but they are NOT supposed to be monitored by the govt!!! This is because the fourth amendment FORBIDS that!!

[BlaineKinsey]

Using the new FISA legislation to grant retroactive immunity from civil liability to the telecommunication providers (that assisted with the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program) is unconstitutional because it would deny the "due process of law" to the plaintiffs in the lawsuits pending against the telecommunication providers, and assertions that these plaintiffs have no evidence of injury is contradicted by the evidence that has already been submitted in connection with these pending lawsuits. Although the provision in the new FISA legislation that grants immunity to the telecommunication providers would not be considered an "ex post facto" law under existing legal precedents (because courts have limited that designation to criminal laws which make an activity illegal that was legal at the time the activity was performed), this immunity provision should be considered an "ex post facto" law because it selectively and retroactively alters the law with respect to civil liability to advance the interests of one group at the expense of another group.

[Michale32086]

Yet the SCOTUS ruled in Calder v Bull that Ex Post Facto simply has NO bearing in Civil cases..

http://law.jrank.org/pages/13565/Calder-v-Bull.html

So, Ex Post Facto is absolutely NO consideration in HR 6304..

Further, the courts have ruled that the public good trumps individual rights.

The effect of allowing every American who has ever dialed a phone or sent an email to sue the TelComs for thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars would completely cripple our telecommunications infrastructure..

Therefore, it's apparent that the public good and even the public safety would be harmed by allowing the individual right of redress..

Public good trumps individual rights...

Michale....

[BlaineKinsey]

You did a good job of arguing with yourself on the issue of "ex post facto" laws because you obviously did not comprehend what I wrote. With respect to your certainty that the public good trumps individual rights, no totalitarian would disagree with you, but that mindset is anathema to our Constitution.

[BlaineKinsey]

Because intelligence agencies have neither the information nor the capability to target individuals and groups effectively at the source of the electronic communications, they rely on massive unfiltered surveillance to detect communications that might be suspicious. It is not possible to analyze any of the content of a communication without searching the content of that communication, and it is not legal to search the content of the communication of a U.S. citizen or other legal U.S. resident without probable cause. Under the new FISA legislation, the language in Section 702 of Title VII has been amended artfully to allow the government to search all international communications (without a court order and without any determination that there is probable cause for surveillance of the electronic communication of a particular person, even in those situations in which the international communication is sent by and/or received by a U.S. citizen or other legal U.S. resident) as the means to determine if probable cause exists for a more comprehensive search of potentially suspicious communications. It is similar to reading everyone's mail to determine which mail should be read. Many people may approve of this, but it is contrary to the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

[Michale32086]

And therein lies the problem..

Because global telecommunications is just that; GLOBAL... it is impossible to separate Americans communications from foreign communications without analyzing the communication itself..

Therefore, the choice must be made.

Do we simply NOT monitor ANY communications and HOPE that other means of detection will be enough to prevent terrorist attacks..

Or do we monitor all communications with an eye on civil liberties, but with the logical and rational conclusion that forewarned is forearmed..

Those who decry HR6304 and Senator Obama obviously believe in the former...

Those who want to see this country safe and secure, including Senator Obama and the majority of Democrats, obviously see that the latter is the best solution...

Michale.....

[BlaineKinsey]

For several days, you have been arguing that this new FISA legislation is not unconstitutional even though what you call "monitoring' of communications is technically a search of these communications to obtain evidence of probable cause. I am sure domestic law enforcement agencies would like to have these same investigative powers, but that would be unconstitutional within the U.S. for the same reason that it is unconstitutional with respect to international communications. The threats of terrorist attacks exist, and our government should be vigilant (which it was not prior to 09/11/2001) regarding these threats, but these threats have been greatly exaggerated to numb public opposition to illegal activity (including but not limited to torture of detainees, manipulation of intelligence, misdirected wars, and invasion of privacy) by our own government. If the threats of terrorist attacks were really as severe as they are pretended to be, President Bush would not have threatened to veto the new FISA legislation IF it included the amendment by Senator Bingaman. The defeat of Senator Bingaman's amendment was the most damning vote related to the new FISA legislation because this vote exposed the total hypocrisy of this new FISA legislation. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and not of men because the rule of law is more constant than the vagaries of politicians such as Richard Nixon and George W. Bush, but you prefer the solace of hope and faith to an adherence to the rule of law.

[DryBrook]

The FISA court would have approved any list of targets that the Bush administration submitted post-911. So, why burn so much political capital circumventing a court that would have rubber-stamped any targets?

There is only one rational answer: there were no targets.

The administration is monitoring/spying on EVERYONE all the time. They cannot submit a list of named targets because they don't have one. Spying one everyone to find out whether anything suspicious is going on is the exact opposite of "probable cause."

Amendment IV: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}The administration is monitoring/spying on EVERYONE all the time.

"Of course, you can PROVE that, right?? Oh that's right... I forgot.. You were absent the day the taught Law at Law School..."
-Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Proof isn't required in this issue! First you must understand that this is not a court of law, therefore the burden of proof is not as strong. Second you must begin to understand human nature! The fact of the matter is that the FISC had been asked for more than 20,000 warrants. They turned down *5*. That's a percentage of 99.975% approval! The only likely reason for NOT going through the EXTREMELY eager court is that he had no Constitutional targets!!

[Michale32086]

CONT

So how does this all tie in to HR6304??

Simple...

We have legal authority for US intelligence services to monitor foreign communications.

Interspersed with foreign communications is American communications..

During the execution of legal monitoring, evidence of crime is flagged. Anything else is NIV'ed..

Once the flagged item is analyzed, it is determined that it either originated or destinated in US Soil or it involves a US Citizen. One this information is learned, a warrant is obtained based on PC (probable cause) from a legal and constitutional monitoring.

Viola'....

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

CONT

OK Let's take a look at domestic laws..

Cops get a warrant for Joe Blow's phone for illegal narcotics. During the course of this LEGAL monitoring, Jon Public calls Joe Blow and says something about having illegal guns for sale.

Using this NEW information, cops can now get a warrant to monitor Jon Public's phone...

A textbook example of how one legal warrant provides PC (probable cause) for a SECOND legal warrant on a totally unrelated crime.

Everyone with me so far??

OK, so what have we learned??

It is perfectly legal for US intelligence services to monitor foreign communications without a warrant..

On the domestic side, if evidence of a crime is learned during the execution of a legal warrant then this new information can be utilized as PC (probable cause) to obtain a NEW warrant to monitor the subject of the NEW crime...

CONT

[Michale32086]

FISA provides authority for warrantless monitoring of foreign communications.

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. 2 lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. US v. Duggan, defendants were members of the IRA 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives & firearms. Court held that their compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of US citizens and non-resident aliens.

In US v. Nicholson, defendant moved to suppress all evidence gathered under a FISA order. 955 F.Supp. 588 (Va. 1997). The court affirmed the denial of the motion. There the court flatly rejected claims that FISA violated Due process clause of the 5th Amendment, Equal protection, Separation of powers, nor the Right to counsel provided by the 6th Amendment.

However, in a 3rd case, the special review court for FISA, the equivalent of a Circuit Court Of Appeals, opined differently should FISA limit the President's inherent authority for warrantless searches in the foreign intelligence area. In In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. of Rev. 2002) the special court stated "[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted the President does have that authority &, assuming that is so, FISA can't encroach on President"s constitutional power."

CONT

[Michale32086]

Thanx Divtune...

I was about to post the facts of HR6304...

But you did it a LOT better than I could...

The simple fact is, there is no Constitutional conflict with HR6304..

Our country is safer and our liberties MORE secure with HR6304 approved.

Senator Obama and the Democrats who supported HR6304 should be commended for taking a VERY unpopular stand at GREAT political risk to themselves to insure the safety and security of this country.

They are American patriots in the truest and most noblest sense of the word...

Michale.....

[divtune]

Thaks for all the legal information.

[divtune]

Before making up your mind on the new FISA Amendments Law, listen to Democratic Rep. Adam Smith explain the advantages of this law in his July 8 appearance on MSNBC's Verdict.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25594680#25594680

Starting at 3:00, Smith explains:

1. Warrantless wiretapping of non-US citizens has always been legal (it is the primary function of the NSA). The new law now requires FISA court oversight of the administration"s foreign wiretapping procedures to prevent accidental wiretapping of U.S. citizens.

2. The new law now specifically requires FISA court warrants for the wiretapping of ALL U.S. citizens, even if they are overseas.

3. Immunity for Telecom companies acting on a warrentless request from the Attorney General has always been legal (FISA 1978). But Bush refuses to verify the requests, thus the companies can't prove they are immune under the old law. This new law provides that immunity.

The new law also prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future. Emergency wiretapping before getting a warrant has always been legal. The new law requires a subsequent warrant. (Wikipedia)

Huffington Post editor, Roy Sekoff, responded with canned talking points about bank robbers keeping the money, without contradicting any of Rep. Smith"s points.

In short, this new law is a huge improvement over the previous situation for the privacy of U.S. citizens. The opposition here appears to be emotional, not rational.

[divtune]

Short History of Wiretapping

Interception and decoding of enemy communications during World War II was invaluable. German and Japanese messages were used to insure success on D-Day, and the Battle of Midway, to name just a few.

After WWII, the National Security Agency (NSA) was established to intercept and decode messages outside the U.S. (without warrants). The NSA is an essential part of our security during war, or peace.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed in 1978 in response to Nixon"s spying on domestic political groups. It created a secret FISA court to issue warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens communicating with "groups backed by foreign governments."

After 9/11, FISA was amended by the USA Patriot Act of 2001 to include surveillance of U.S. citizens communicating with terrorists not backed by foreign governments.

FISA was overhauled again by the Protect America Act of 2007. This act allowed the administration to authorize all foreign surveillance using only internal guidelines, with no court oversight. Obama voted no. McCain did not vote.

The new FISA Amendments Law of 2008, now strengthens FISA court oversight of wiretapping to protect U.S. citizens.

Wiretapping, including emergency wiretapping before a warrant can be obtained, is absolutely essential today to protect ourselves from future terrorist attacks, just like it has protected us since World War II. Telecom immunity for complying with administration requests is also essential, to insure their cooperation.

[tommybones]

Posts like this make me wonder if you are just ignorant or an actual propagandist.

[divtune]

Politics of Wiretapping

Protests against the new FISA Amendments law appear to be an emotional reaction by people just discovering that the government is wiretapping U.S. citizens. However, the government has always done this, with good reason. Although the new FISA law provides many new protections for U.S. citizens, people erroneously believe that this act authorizes new surveillance.

Telecom immunity for complying with government requests is essential. Without it, the government might not be able to intercept real terrorist communications, leading to new attacks. But, the Telecoms can"t prove the government made the requests because Bush won"t provide that information.

The only rational argument for denying Telecom immunity here, is to use the civil courts to find more information about the requests. However, I doubt Bush would allow any release of information anyway (Obama will).

Obama opposed the special telecom immunity in the bill, but voted for the bill because of the provisions that strengthen oversight. This shows that President Obama will NOT try to circumvent the requirement for warrants like Bush.

Our civil liberties will not be protected by congressional bills if we elect someone who doesn't respect civil liberties. Clearly, John McCain, like George Bush, would exploit every loophole in any surveillance bill, and justify everything, legal or not, by "national security." Our surest route to the protection of our civil liberties is to elect Barack Obama.