red states rule
06-23-2008, 05:54 AM
First Dems cave on fuinding our troops, now they cave on allowing the ACLU to sue the telecom companies for doing thier patriotic duty
Obama says he will try to strip that protection from the bill when it reaches the Senate. Another example as to why this clod should never be elected President
EDITORIAL: A good deal on FISA
Monday, June 23, 2008
The agreement on changes to the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) announced Thursday by the White House and congressional Democrats is an important victory for U.S. national security. Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the Bush administration, in particular National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, and to congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, for fighting to ensure that the U.S. intelligence community will have the tools it needs to monitor foreign terrorist networks. The legislation passed the House on Thursday by a vote of 293 to 129, and is expected to pass the Senate this week.
The most important benefit of the agreement is that it grants retroactive liability protection to telecommunications companies who responded to the federal government's request for emergency help after September 11. The companies did their patriotic duty: making sure that the U.S. intelligence agencies were able to monitor the telephone calls and faxes of known and suspected terrorists - at a time when there was good reason to worry about a second wave of attacks. However, for doing the right thing, the companies were hit with approximately 40 lawsuits pushed by the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and trial-lawyer activists. These lawsuits exposed the telecoms to the possibility of paying billions in damages for helping the government conduct "illegal" warrantless surveillance. But two centuries of American case law demonstrate that the warrant requirement has never been absolute. To cite but one of many exceptions, the president has long been understood to have the "inherent authority" to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. This has been recognized by federal appeals courts and was acknowledged in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/23/editorial-a-good-deal-on-fisa/
Obama says he will try to strip that protection from the bill when it reaches the Senate. Another example as to why this clod should never be elected President
EDITORIAL: A good deal on FISA
Monday, June 23, 2008
The agreement on changes to the Foreign Intelligence Security Act (FISA) announced Thursday by the White House and congressional Democrats is an important victory for U.S. national security. Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the Bush administration, in particular National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, and to congressional Republicans, especially Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, for fighting to ensure that the U.S. intelligence community will have the tools it needs to monitor foreign terrorist networks. The legislation passed the House on Thursday by a vote of 293 to 129, and is expected to pass the Senate this week.
The most important benefit of the agreement is that it grants retroactive liability protection to telecommunications companies who responded to the federal government's request for emergency help after September 11. The companies did their patriotic duty: making sure that the U.S. intelligence agencies were able to monitor the telephone calls and faxes of known and suspected terrorists - at a time when there was good reason to worry about a second wave of attacks. However, for doing the right thing, the companies were hit with approximately 40 lawsuits pushed by the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and trial-lawyer activists. These lawsuits exposed the telecoms to the possibility of paying billions in damages for helping the government conduct "illegal" warrantless surveillance. But two centuries of American case law demonstrate that the warrant requirement has never been absolute. To cite but one of many exceptions, the president has long been understood to have the "inherent authority" to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. This has been recognized by federal appeals courts and was acknowledged in 2002 by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/23/editorial-a-good-deal-on-fisa/