Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pelosi: FISA Bill Protects Our National Security and Our Civil Liberties

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 01:16 PM
Original message
Pelosi: FISA Bill Protects Our National Security and Our Civil Liberties
Pelosi: FISA Bill Protects Our National Security and Our Civil Liberties

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Contact: Brendan Daly/Nadeam Elshami, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke on the House floor tonight in support of H.R. 3773, the RESTORE Act, which updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to provide flexible surveillance tools for the intelligence community while protecting the constitutional rights of Americans. The bill passed by a vote of 227 to 189. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:

“Mr. Speaker, as one who has long served on the Intelligence Committee, I understand full well the threats to our national security. I understand full well the need for us to have legislation that strikes the proper balance between liberty and security. I think this legislation does just that, and I commend Chairman Conyers, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Chairman Reyes, for their important work and their leadership in presenting this legislation to the floor for consideration.

“The bill is important - it accomplishes the goal of striking the balance between security and liberty in the following ways: it defends Americans against terrorism and other threats; it protects Americans’ civil liberties; and it restores checks and balances.

“The bill protects Americans by providing the Director of National Intelligence with the flexibility he has requested of Congress to conduct electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States. No warrants are required whenever foreign to foreign communications are captured, regardless of the point of collection anywhere in the world.

“It protects our civil liberties in a number of ways. The DNI has agreed that when Americans are targeted for surveillance, a warrant is required. We have now included certain criteria that the government must take into account in considering whether a warrant is required. This will help prevent inappropriate warrantless surveillance and ‘reverse targeting’ of Americans under the guise of foreign intelligence.

“The bill restores checks and balances. This is very important, because that is our oath of office, to protect the Constitution of the United States. The bill rejects groundless claims of ‘inherent executive authority.’ There are those who claim that the President has inherent authority from the Constitution to do whatever he wishes. Long ago, our Founders rejected that concept in founding our country; we must do that as well.

“The legislation also makes clear that FISA makes the principle of exclusivity the principle that determines the collection of intelligence. It makes clear that FISA is the exclusive means for conducting electronic surveillance to gather foreign intelligence. The government must seek approval from a FISA court. So we’re talking about the Congress of United States passing legislation as it did in the late 1970s, passing this legislation today, which is in light of the new technologies and new realities in the world, and recognizing the authority of the third branch of government, the courts.

“This legislation includes extensive reporting to Congress with respect to the interception and dissemination of communications among Americans and from Americans. This is very important because we want to minimize the use of that information and keep it for the purpose in which it is collected.
“Most significantly, the bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the President’s warrantless surveillance program. We cannot even consider providing immunity unless we know exactly what we are providing immunity from. And even then we have to proceed with great caution.

“It is important to note that the bill sunsets on December 31, 2009, the date the Patriot Act sunsets. So the next Administration and the next Congress can review and reassess the program.

“This legislation is supported by organizations dedicated to protecting our national security and in light of protecting our civil liberties, including the Center for National Security Studies, the Center for Democracy and Technology, and many other groups that work to protect privacy rights. The bill both protects national security and civil liberties, reaffirms our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and deserves the support of this House.

“Mr. Speaker, all of us want our President to have the best possible intelligence, our President and our policy makers. So they can do the best possible job to protect the American people. But no President, Democrat or Republican, should have the authority to have inherent authority to collect surveillance on Americans without doing so under the law.

“This legislation establishes that principle, and establishes it in a very focused way in keeping with a need for flexibility for the Director of National Intelligence, in keeping with honoring our oath of office to the Constitution.

“I urge our colleagues to support this important legislation. I for one am very proud of the work of Mr. Conyers and Mr. Reyes, and thank them for their leadership.”

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Nov07/fisa.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. For some reason, I am not as optimistic as Ms Pelosi.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yeah, but that's not the bill that would make it through conference.
We already seen this routine, Nancy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. She's to blame for the Senate version of this thing?
Hm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. She's to blame for bringing it up for vote right before recess the last time.
Edited on Tue Nov-20-07 01:33 PM by BuyingThyme
Remember? Right before they "fled" to summer recess it came out of committee and the Dems rolled over. Remember?

She goes public to fool the people, then quiet to hide the deed.

...

At issue now is the temporary update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) passed earlier this month, just before Congress fled Capitol Hill for its summer break. This update was made necessary when the secretive judicial body that oversees the wiretapping, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, banned eavesdropping on foreigners whose communications were being routed through the United States.

The legal update, which expires in six months, allows the NSA to resume siphoning such communications. In one of its key changes, US intelligence no longer needs to know that at least one of the parties to a communication is abroad prior to eavesdropping. It needs only to "reasonably believe" that one person is off US soil.

...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0822/p01s03-uspo.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kansasblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. in her defense....

The House was working in a good faith effort with the Bush Admin on a version last time. At the last minute Bush rejected all compromises and wanted it his way. This may have been the plan all along knowing the House wanted to go home and didn't want to leave Bush with a 'Dems risked the safety of the country' statement.

But this time..... let's get it right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I can't trust Pelosi on this. I don't think she should be defended.
She was apparently in on the spying even before 9/11. She's such a disappointment to people who don't hate the Constitution.

Good comment here:

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4252&Itemid=220
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
5. Does "flexible surveillance tools" mean blanket warrants? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Didereaux Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
6. PELOSI- Lieberman spelled backwards n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WGS Donating Member (116 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
7. There are arguments
that FISA in unconstitutional. The argument being that congress does not have to authority to pass along it's oversight authority to the court, and I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-20-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Me too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 02:14 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC