Tierney fails constituents with FISA stance
To the editor: It’s high time to end the political posturing over the revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Protect America Act, which addressed modernizing FISA, expired February 17, 2008, leaving our intelligence agencies with their hands tied while trying to keep America safe. The Washington Times on Jan. 18 took Senate Democrats to task over delaying this legislation for trial lawyer paydays and impeding the ability of our agents to gather intelligence in time critical situations. The Senate on Feb. 12 passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2007 by a vote of 68-29. Both Senators Kennedy and Kerry voted against this bill, as did the usual group of “cut and run” white flag liberals. Now this piece of legislation that is vital to our national security awaits action in the House of Representatives. However, it appears that the House, in a pattern that was clearly established during the first session of this 110th Congress, will again drag its feet on taking the necessary action to move this legislation forward. The key battle is the provision sought by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, who wants to grant retroactive immunity to U.S. telecommunications companies that cooperated with government efforts to conduct warrantless surveillance of terrorists after the September 11 attacks. However, there are approximately 40 lawsuits pending against these firms, and the lawsuits could prove to be a financial windfall for a favored Democratic Party constituency — the trial lawyers. Although retroactive immunity is contained in the FISA overhaul legislation passed by the Senate, House Democrats, including John Tierney, are consistently reluctant to pass legislation which hinders the ability of trial lawyers to file lawsuits — even if doing so hinders the ability of U.S. intelligence agencies to prevent future attacks. One only needs to remember his stance on the “John Doe Amendment” that prevented frivolous lawsuits against citizens who reported suspicious activity to authorities. FISA, which was first enacted in 1978, created a special court to oversee intelligence collection. The law was amended after September 11 to tear down the wall between criminal and intelligence investigations, which hindered the gathering of information on jihadist activities. The post-September 11 changes were working until early last year, when the special court overseeing the law ruled that if the government wanted to monitor a suspected terrorist phone call between Iraqi villages, it would have to get a warrant every time it wanted to obtain information from a transmission wire on U.S. soil. As a result, U.S. intelligence agencies lost roughly two-thirds of their ability to obtain communications intelligence about al-Qaeda before Congress passed a six-month extension of the law in August. Along with Clinton, Obama, Kennedy and Reid (Kerry did not vote) the entire House Democratic leadership voted against the Protect America Act, as did John Tierney (House Vote No. 836; Aug 4, 2007). Then again, would you expect anything less from Tierney? His documented history of voting against Defense and Intelligence authorizations, along with his steadfast devotion to protecting trial lawyers, leave much to be desired by the common citizen. His constituents always take a back seat to his political agenda and his loyalty to the Democratic leadership. RICK BARTON
February 19, 2008 at 10:31 am
I wholeheartedly disagree with your view on the FISA and the Undermine-America ACT.
Yes, there needs to be an update to an obviously outdated piece of legislation. But there needs to be limits put in place. Under this bill power will be given to the telecomms and the NSA to essentially conduct domestic data mining. I work in the IT field and know exactly how this works. Every bit of information you transmit via the internet or on traditional LAN-based phone systems will be routed to an NSA office in the local telecomm hub. It will then be duplicated and sent for analysis through several super-computers looking for key words or phrases. You might think this is a good idea, it might even protect a few lives, but the reality is this piece of legislation is completely unconstitutional.
“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.”
Unreasonable search and seizures… I have not committed a crime nor am i suspected of committing a crime yet the government is allowed to abridge my civil liberties under the preponderance that someone somewhere is committing a crime.
It’s unconstitutional plain and simple… and i would hope the over-zealous security proponents will come to their senses.
-James
http://www.freedompress.wordpress.com
February 22, 2008 at 9:42 am
jposty, you are misrepresenting what the PAA law allowed - it allowed us to listen in on FOREIGN phone calls such as one between Afghanistan and Pakistan. You liberals are kowtowing to trial lawyers. 90% of all PAC money spent by the ATLA, (American Trial Lawyers Association), goes towards electing democrats. Does THAT statistic tell you anything at all? HMMM?
Because of liberal idiots in the House including the one ‘representing’ us here in this district, AMERICA IS NOW LESS SAFE THAN IT WAS about one week ago. The Senate passed an extention with SUPER-MAJORITY so that included many SANE democrats who still recall 9/11. Apparently John Tierney forgot about people jumping out of the WTC to end their lives quickly than burn to death. I’m being kind to him there because maybe he actually wants it to happen again? Now I’m not all that certain - please tell us John?
February 24, 2008 at 8:23 pm
That was the first time I have been called a liberal… fairly ironic if you were to go to my site and read any of my analysis or posts.
America is actually less safe because we don’t have larger numbers of border agents… America is less safe because we don’t have national guard forces in our country supplementing our border guards and helping them during national disasters and America is less safe because we allow foreign multinational corporations to privatize super-highways that essentially unite America, Mexico and Canada under trade laws. (I69, Trans-Texas Corridor)
That is why America is less safe… not because the government can not monitor its own citizens. Because, if it actually was for the security of Americans the president would not have refused the three week extension that would have allowed for more debate and kept the tools ‘needed’ to fight terrorist available to the government until an informed decision was made.
-James
February 25, 2008 at 9:55 am
[...] original Barton op-Ed Nystrom letter [...]
February 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm
There you go again jposty with your ” not because the government can not monitor its own citizens”.
That’s simply not true! The PAA is for FOREIGN communication monitoring. The word FOREIGN means OUTSIDE of the USA, tracking phone calls by NON-CITIZENS. What part of that confuses you?
There’s NOTHING stopping Pelosi from bringing this to the floor for more debate - but do you see any? I don’t. So what difference does it make whether Bush allowed the extension or not? What other pressing issues are so much more important than protecting us against another 9/11 that they just can’t get to it yet? Hmmm? In fact, they are only interested in protecting income for trial lawyers - typical fare for democrats.
February 27, 2008 at 2:23 pm
My understanding is that since the passage of the USA Patriot Act, and since amendments have been made to the Protect America Act, domestic targets are fair game. I seriously doubt that the distinction between “foreign” and “domestic” escaped members of Congress when they objected to the complete renewal of the PAA on the grounds that the civil liberties of Americans are being violated…
“So what difference does it make whether Bush allowed the extension or not?”
Um, because if the concern really were keeping America safe from the terrorists, then he would want to keep America safe for as long as possible. So, according to the president, keeping America safe requires the PAA, right? Or is there something else he believes is more important to him?
February 27, 2008 at 6:00 pm
“Or is there something else he believes is more important to him?”
Like giving retroactive immunity to the telecomms for their illegal actions.