Comments on: Details on the FISA “Compromise”

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:24:16 +0000

Title III Review of Previous Actions

“(3) PRESIDENT’S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM AND PROGRAM”

This is good!

—————

Title IV OTHER PROVISIONS

Repeals sections 105A 105B and 105C of the former law. What’s this? Is it something important?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:08:37 +0000

It appears the way they’ve gotten around the idea of ‘retroactive immunity’ (if they have) is to say this law directs that a certain category of pending cases must be dropped.

Why is the period of ‘immunity’ Sep 11 2001 - Jan 17 2007? Why that end date?

It does specify that the only ‘immunized’ cases are those where the the AG or an intell chief (or his deputy) writes that the President authorized AND it is determined (by whom?) to be lawful AND it relates to a terrorist attack.

Under the 4th amendment it has always been a judge who ‘determined it to be lawful’. Who determines it now?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:48:52 +0000

On Weapons of Mass Destruction:

It specifies weapons, but doesn’t mention materiel for making such or parts thereof. Should it?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:40:52 +0000

In Section 104: Applications for Court Orders:

(4) in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (d), as re20
designated by paragraph (3) of this subsection, by
21 striking ‘‘or the Director of National Intelligence’’
22 and inserting ‘‘the Director of National Intelligence,
23 or the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency’’.

To what does this change refer? Why would they allow the DCI request something rather than the DNI? Deniability?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:32:29 +0000

Information gathered, but not to be used:

It says federal government officers and employees may not disclose such information. But, what if it is gathered at the behest of the government by non-employees? If it’s in their possession (or copies), then what is to prevent them from disseminating it?

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:08:29 +0000

In Section 703:

‘‘(G) a summary statement of the means
12 by which the acquisition will be conducted and
13 whether physical entry is required to effect the
14 acquisition;

meaning ‘physical entry’ of what?

By: FrankProbst

FrankProbst — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:03:08 +0000

Called my Rep (Al Green), and his office didn’t know his position on this. That raised my eyebrows a little, but seeing as how we only got the text of the bill today, and the vote is tomorrow, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.

By: darclay

darclay — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:54:51 +0000

I”m calling the DNC and giving them an ear full. Have called Brad miller my Rep. With Dole and Burr for Senators they’ll blow you off.

By: jdmckay

jdmckay — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:28:24 +0000

re: you WSJ link, what is the language defining:

conditional immunity

By: ffein

ffein — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:18:01 +0000

Just received this email from obama’ office:

Thank you for contacting Obama for America about proposed legislation to give phone companies legal immunity for past wiretapping. Senator Obama has opposed this legislation and stood with Senator Dodd, cosponsoring his amendment to remove this special interest provision from the bill that came before the Senate.

Senator Obama believes strongly in accountability, and when he is President, there will be no more illegal wire-tapping of American citizens; no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime; no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. Our Constitution works, and so does the FISA court. By working with Congress and respecting our courts, Senator Obama will provide our intelligence and law enforcement agencies with the tools they need to track and take out the terrorists without undermining our Constitution and our freedom.

Thank you again for contacting us.