Selise FISA Part I

Selise FISA Part II

Lessig has emphasized in interviews that his philosophy experience at Cambridge radically changed his values and career path. Previously, he had held strong conservative or libertarian political views, desired a career in business, was a highly active Teenage Republican serving as the Youth Governor for Pennsylvania through the YMCA Youth & Government program[1] in 1978 and almost pursued a Republican political career.

Another Chris Carney?

The Framers felt no need to wait for all possible harms causable be government to present before drafting constitutional law intended to prevent those harms. They were students of European history, and knew very well the tendencies of those who possessed power over others. They didnot wait for a list of recent anecdotal harms committed by government to inform their decisions as to how the Republic should be. Today, convincing anecdotes of harm to surveilled persons or companies might be all that would sway most Members of Congress to admit error, if not lying, in their positions on FISA and related domestic surveillance issues. Government secrecy and public fear of speaking up may make anecdotes of harm hard to come by.

Lawsuits by EFF, ACLU, and others support hope that reclamation of the Constitution is possible, at least in part. Yet, while I won’t wish harm on persons or companies whose ill treatment by government would necessarily provide the basis of anecdotes of harm, I will be hoping that instances of harm against persons or companies, committed by surveilling government agencies and their corporate partners, will be brought to light and provide incontrovertible evidence that Congress has done the Constitution and the country wrong.

House Report 109-680, Part II

ROLLCALL NO. 13–DATE: 9-20-06

SUBJECT: Mr. Cannon offered an amendment to H.R. 5825, which was agreed to by a rollcall vote of 22 ayes to 16 nays. This amendment would limit the civil and criminal liability of telecommunications carriers for any activity arising from, or relating to, any alleged intelligence program involving electronic surveillance that the government has certified is, was, or would be intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. The amendment applies to all pending and future cases, and allows all such cases to be removed to Federal court. The amendment also applies the old definition of `electronic surveillance’ contained in FISA prior to enactment of the Act.

Very well done, and summarizing the timeline is helpful. The events from Dec 2005 to August 2007 are also interesting.

Dec 2005 – Dec 2006: Government says TSP is legal, resists Congressional intrusion, but gets hammered to disclose information that Congress might use to craft legislation
Jul 2006 – A request for retroactive immunity appears in Heather Wilson’s H.R.5825 (See “Reported in House – H.R.5825.RH at Section 11(a))
Jan 2007: Government submits TSP to FISC on some mysterious basis. Issue “chills” in Congress (not as much clamoring against the administration, Gonzales, etc.)
Apr 2007: FISC puts up some resistance, government put heat on Congress to pass a bill and submits a 66 page proposal for legislation. Congress “crickets” until late July.

The real reason I started this post was to share some speculation as to which members of Congress support personal privacy interests. I think that number “depends,” and I’ll toss out one hypothetical. If the Capital building had been hit on 9/11/2001, I think nearly 100% of Congress would have passed FISA “modernization.”

Q: Do we know much of anything about the NY judge who will handle this case?