Bush Lies about the Need for Increased Spying and the Need for Telecom Immunity – Congressman Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to President Bush regarding the ongoing battle over warrantless wiretapping.
Dear Mr. President:
The Preamble to our Constitution states that one of our highest duties as public officials is to “provide for the common defence.” As an elected Member of Congress, a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee, and Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I work everyday to ensure that our defense and intelligence capabilities remain strong in the face of serious threats to our national security.
Because I care so deeply about protecting our country, I take strong offense to your suggestion in recent days that the country will be vulnerable to terrorist attack unless Congress immediately enacts legislation giving you broader powers to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans’ communications and provides legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in the Administration’s warrantless surveillance program.
Today, the National Security Agency (NSA) has authority to conduct surveillance in at least three different ways, all of which provide strong capability to monitor the communications of possible terrorists.
First, NSA can use its authority under Executive Order 12333 to conduct surveillance abroad of any known or suspected terrorist. There is no requirement for a warrant. There is no requirement for probable cause. Most of NSA’s collection occurs under this authority.
Second, NSA can use its authority under the Protect America Act, enacted last August, to conduct surveillance here in the U.S of any foreign target. This authority does not “expire” on Saturday, as you have stated. Under the PAA, orders authorizing surveillance may last for one year – until at least August 2008. These orders may cover every terrorist group without limitation. If a new member of the group is identified, or if a new phone number or email address is identified, the NSA may add it to the existing orders, and surveillance can begin immediately. We will not “go dark.”
Third, in the remote possibility that a new terrorist organization emerges that we have never previously identified, the NSA could use existing authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to monitor those communications. Since its establishment nearly 30 years ago, the FISA Court has approved nearly every application for a warrant from the Department of Justice. In an emergency, NSA or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) may begin surveillance immediately, and a FISA Court order does not have to be obtained for three days. The former head of FISA operations for the Department of Justice has testified publicly that emergency authorization may be granted in a matter of minutes.
As you know, the 1978 FISA law, which has been modernized and updated numerous times since 9/11, was instrumental in disrupting the terrorist plot in Germany last summer. Those who say that FISA is outdated do not understand the strength of this important tool.
If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda — that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.
You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.
The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.
Congress has not been sitting on its hands. Last November, the House passed responsible legislation to authorize the NSA to conduct surveillance of foreign terrorists and to provide clarity and legal protection to our private sector partners who assist in that surveillance.
The proper course is now to conference the House bill with the Senate bill that was passed on Tuesday. There are significant differences between these two bills and a conference, in regular order, is the appropriate mechanism to resolve the differences between these two bills. I urge you, Mr. President, to put partisanship aside and allow Republicans in Congress to arrive at a compromise that will protect America and protect our Constitution.
I, for one, do not intend to back down – not to the terrorists and not to anyone, including a President, who wants Americans to cower in fear.
We are a strong nation. We cannot allow ourselves to be scared into suspending the Constitution. If we do that, we might as well call the terrorists and tell them that they have won.
Sincerely,
Silvestre Reyes
Member of Congress
Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Lieberman Says Some Waterboarding is OK – Lieberman asserted that waterboarding isn’t torture because it leaves no “permanent damage.”
It is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological.
Does he think that psychological cannot be permanent ? This country has tried and convicted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our soldiers.
US Plans to Shoot Down Spy Satellite – The US plans to use a missile defense interceptor to shoot down a bus-sized spy satellite that will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere in the next week. The Russian Federation seems to be the first government to sound off on the mission. A report in RIA Novosti, a government-linked news service, showed Russian authorities not only worrying about the implications of the launch, but questioning the publicly stated justification of preventing poisonous rocket fuel from raining down on the planet. Two defense officials also cited disagreement within the administration over the action and said the decision appeared to have been strongly influenced by the White House,” according to a Friday morning report from Reuters. Concerns within the government may result from the debris that will be created by the strike, and what it could do to satellites, the International Space Station, and future work in space.
Musharraf Says ‘Pakistan is More Important Than Human Rights’ – Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf made clear that he does not respect western human right standards and would not make a priority of upholding them. “Pakistan is more important than human rights,” Musharraf said recently during a global economic forum in Sweden. “Human rights serves Pakistan; Pakistan does not serve Human rights.” “[Human rights] functions in accordance with our environment,” he said. “Now if somebody, whether he’s anybody, is trying to create such anarchy that maybe Pakistan’s integrity is at stake maybe our economy … will collapse. I don’t consider any human rights in such situations. We will deal with it, whatever it costs because Pakistan is more important than human rights.”
Telecom Lobbying Machines Declare War on Net Neutrality Bill – Telecommunications industry groups have attacked a new bill calling for government regulators to take a closer look at how broadband providers manage their networks. The Internet Freedom Preservation Act, introduced earlier this week by Rep. Ed Markey, the Democratic chairman of the House subcommittee on telecommunication and the Internet, could make it illegal for service providers to block or degrade traffic on their networks. Markey shrugged off concerns that the bill would hamper the activities of Internet companies. “There are some who may wish to assert that this bill regulates the Internet,” he said in a statement. “It does no such thing,” Markey added. “The bill contains no requirements for Internet regulation whatsoever.” However, the new legislation, co-sponsored by Chip Pickering (R-Miss.), aims to draft a broadband policy that would preserve the “open architecture” of the Internet, assuring that “content providers not be subjected to unreasonably discriminatory practices by broadband network providers.”
Regards,
Jim
Andy Hailey