Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiNEW YORK - Former senior intelligence officials are disputing claims by the George W. Bush administration that the failure of Congress to pass a new foreign surveillance law is jeopardising the country's national security.
In a letter to Admiral Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, the officials say 'the intelligence community currently has the tools it needs to acquire surveillance of new targets and methods of communication.'
Charging that the government's assertions to the contrary 'have distorted rather than enhanced' public understanding, their letter says, 'The sunset of the Protect America Act (PAA) does not put America at greater risk. Despite claims that have been made, surveillance currently occurring under the PAA is authorised for up to a year. New surveillance requests can be filed through current FISA law.'
The letter was signed by two former officials at the National Security Council -- Rand Beers, who was senior director for combating terrorism, and Richard A. Clarke, who served as head of counterterrorism; as well as Lt. Gen. Don Kerrick, former Deputy National Security Advisor; and Susan Spaulding, former assistant general counsel at the Central Intelligence Agency.
The controversy has been triggered by disagreements focusing largely on a single provision of the PAA. Two weeks ago, a bipartisan coalition in the Senate overwhelmingly passed an extension of the PAA, which was due to expire unless renewed. The bill provides retroactive immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that wiretapped U.S. phone and computer lines at the government's request after the Sep. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, without court permission.
A similar bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but the House version did not provide immunity.
Congress left Washington for the President's Day recess in mid-February without agreeing on a single bill the president could sign -- and Bush said he would veto a three-week extension of the current law. The result was the expiration of the PAA last Saturday.
Before and since that time, President Bush has been lobbying for Congressional action granting retroactive immunity. He has warned that terrorists are planning new attacks that could make the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks 'pale by comparison' and that failure to pass the Protect America Act could have dire consequences. Democrats say they are trying to balance concerns about civil liberties against the government's spy powers.
Bush and McConnell have claimed that the telecom companies were acting legally and patriotically at the request of their government, but noted that the companies are already the targets of class action lawsuits that are causing them to be less cooperative.
Bush has lobbied hard to persuade Congress to pass legislation immunising the telecom companies. He said, 'To put it bluntly, if the enemy is calling into America, we really need to know what they're saying, and we need to know what they're thinking, and we need to know who they're talking to.'
He added, 'Our government told them that their participation was necessary. And it was, and it still is, and that what we had asked them to do was legal. And now they're getting sued for billions of dollars. And it's not fair.'
The Democrats have responded by accusing Bush of resorting to 'scare tactics and political games'.
Passed by Congress in 1978, FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, requires the government to obtain a warrant from a special court established under the law before it could conduct wiretaps or intercept the communications of Americans. The FISA law has been modernised nearly a dozen times since the terrorist attacks of Sep. 11, 2001, to keep abreast new communications technologies.
Many legal experts and civil liberties advocates disagree with President Bush's claims that Congress' failure to extend the PAA has increased United States' vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
Typical is Prof. Peter Shane of the University of Ohio law school, told IPS, 'Bush's position is senseless.'
He said, 'First, Congress has been willing to extend the PAA on a short-term basis in its current form. So any lapse in the availability of PAA authority cannot be attributed to Congress. Second, retroactive immunity has nothing to do with the authority of the executive branch going forward. It is simply an effort to make sure that lawsuits are not used to unearth the full scope of possible Bush administration lawlessness in conducting its so-called terrorist surveillance programme.'
His view was echoed by Clayton Northouse, information policy analyst for OMB Watch, a Washington-based open-government research group. Northouse told IPS, 'Since day one, the administration has used the guise of national security to unilaterally increase the power of the executive. This exposes the administration's position as a blatant power grab.'
'The letter from senior intelligence officials shows us that the Bush administration isn't upset because the country is weakened by the House's decision not to reauthorise PAA and grant telecom immunity,' Northouse said. 'Rather, the administration is upset because they may not be able to avoid the oversight and approval of the legislative and judicial branches.'
© 2008 Inter Press Service
15 Comments so far
Show AllGreatbear215 -- Yes, on the who and doing - but no on violence.
These criminals are not 'conserving' anything, other than illegitimate privilege at the wanna-be king's arm. They are ferocious rapacious fascists - and well deserve the more accurate title for their elitist garbage and massive violations of the law of the land.
They are but devious conspiring (having the illegal thought and taking even one act toward that end) criminals, who have yet to be caught and discover that the leash of justice is rather short.
Namaste
… … … … … Mahatma Gandhi … & … ML King … … Inspiration … … … … …
« We must be the change we wish to see in the world »
« There is a sufficiency in the world for man's need but not for man's greed »
« We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself » — MLK
Political conservatives on the attack-and what they are attacking is freedom and civil liberties. Somebody ought to snap a leash on em'!
just like his vetoing the "chip" bill....he was more concerned about the private insurance industry profits....same thing for the telecoms,big oil,and drug companies....pres bush said it's not fair ....WHAT'S NOT FAIR IS HIGH ENERGY COSTS,OIL DEPENDENCE,MILLIONS WITH NO HEALTH INSURANCE,ATTACKS ON CIVIL LIBERTIES,NO BID CONTRACTS,WARRENTLESS WIRETAPPING,AND THIS LIST GOES ON !
Notice that Bush would rather protect telecommunications companies that broke the law than protect the country.
Don't know if anyone is noticed the TV ads running on CNN. IT is the ususal fearmongering stuff complete with Bin Laden in the background asking watchers to tell congress to give more powers & immunity for illegal wiretapping. Apparently congress is helping the terroists by not passing what bush wants. The ad is paid for by the "Defense of Democracies" which I
believe is non other than the "Foundation for defense of Democracies" . Its
advisors include: Louis Freeh, James Woolsdy, Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman.
I am afraid this is going to scare lots of folks out of their wits and make them call congress to give up more civil liberties. Please don't let this happen. Call congress and let it know you don't want this illegal wiretapping to continue.
(202) 225 3121 Congress
House Resolution 3773
the Bush administration is a pinata with a payload of putrefying meat, one well placed blow and its soggy underbelly will rupture in a noisome display that will make the world wretch...then pounce to gorge and dance upon. d
. I figured that they would roll over like the Senate did.
Give them a few more weeks. They'll cave.
And they will hail it as a "victory" in standing up to Bush.
I have been pleasantly surprised that the House has stood up to bush on the telecom immunity clause. I figured that they would roll over like the Senate did.
Maybe we are seeing the beginnings of the new House that has developed a backbone.
I sure hope so!!
truthmonger February 28th, 2008 12:05 pm
"The telecoms will cooperate because the law tells them they will."
Yes, "THE LAW" tells them they will - not a few self-appointed dictators who wanted to bypass FISA. If these companies were actually following the laws that were on the books when they jumped on to this bandwagon, then why are they facing civil law suits while the telecom companies that refused to spy on Americans are not facing any government reprimands for their refusal?
Does anyone really believe that the FISA court would have refused such a request if this country was in "immediate" danger by a terrorist network after 9/11? Without a FISA court warrant, these tellecoms were obviously breaking the law and should be punished.
I emailed my representative today to thank him for not surrendering to George Bush's request for more executive, dictatorial power. Fortunately, he realizes that Congress is not only a "co-equal" branch of this government, but has a "duty and obligation" to the people to uphold constitutional law through "checks and balances".
The abuse of power from this admininstration is beyond belief!
Has anyone seen Noseferatu? Take another look at the photo.
The FBI claim they are monitoring something in the neighborhood of 900,000 potential terrorists on American soil? And nothing has happened yet? And these are, of course, all foreign national terrorists since American citizens' civil rights are protected?
Wow! And we're to believe that if one of those 900,000 is about to do something truly awful, it's thanks to monitoring the communications of all 900,000 that the FBI will know just in time and be able to intervene to stop it? Wow again.
He is definitely on a trip.
I just called my congressperson to thank her for her votes so far against this travesty that the Prexy is trying to steamroller.
BTW - according to him, the economy is fine and the administration supports a strong dollar. Gas expensive "I heard something about that"
The Senate caved in. I have told both my senators that I will not vote for them again. Now it's the House's turn.
I just watched the president's news conference and it was another embarrassingly silly event of avoiding questions and making misstatements. He and others keep saying the telecoms need immunity or won't cooperate in the future. As everyone should know by now, this simply isn't true. We can still "spy" on terrorists for another year as things now stand. The telecoms will cooperate because the law tells them they will. I would be all for immunity if the telecoms come clean with who told them to do what. When we find out that Bush and Cheney had them dragnet all of us and not just the foreign-to-domestic calls, them impeachment would be back on the table. If not, then we might need to toss out Pelosi and Reid.