by Frank James
If you’re a Democratic lawmaker who wants to make the point that, in your opinion, the Bush Administration has run roughshod over Americans' civil liberties through its warrantless-surveillance program, and that you intend, legislatively, to make things right, you might call your legislation “The RESTORE ACT,” short for The Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007.
That, in fact, is the name of the bill introduced today by Representatives John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) chairs of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, respectively.
The House Democrats’ bill is an effort to counter what they see as flaws in the Protect America Act.
In August, Congress passed the PAA on a temporary, six-month basis, before leaving for its recess as a way to deal with the litany of problems the Bush Administration had with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.
Among the things the administration couldn’t stand about FISA was this oft-cited classic example: If two terrorist suspects outside the U.S. communicated, perhaps by e-mail or Internet telephony, and their communications, for technical reasons, passed through the U.S., FISA, written as it was in the rotary-phone era, required a warrant from the special FISA court for those communications to be legally obtained.
Too cumbersome. Better to do warrantless surveillance, the administration concluded.
It wasn't until news reports in May of 2006 disclosed the secret program's existence that many lawmakers learned of it, and the fact that some large telecommunications companies were making their networks accessible to the National Security Agency, unbeknown to their customers. Since then, the Democrats have made constraining the Bush Administration's use of warrantless wiretapping a priority.
The Protect America Act was meant to fix the obstacles to the NSA presented by the FISA law. But its critics say it went way too far in the other direction, giving the administration excessive surveillance powers and weakening Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections.
Slate had this very good piece describing the flaws as some critics viewed them in the Protect America Act.
Thus the need, in Democrats’ eyes at least, for the RESTORE Act.
Here’s what Conyers said in a press release:
“I am proud to have introduced the RESTORE Act with Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes,” stated Conyers. “Earlier this year, President Bush signed a short-term surveillance law that exposed innocent Americans’ phone calls and emails to warrantless intrusion. Speaker Pelosi immediately asked us to fix this problem and to ensure court oversight while preserving our ability to fight against foreign threats. This bill shows that it is possible to protect civil liberties and fight terrorism at the same time.”
In a story today, the New York Times suggested that Democrats were leaning towards extending the PAA out of fear that Republicans would spin opposition to it as the Democrats, once again, being wusses on national security.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters over lunch today, including one of the writers of the Times article who was present, that the story was wrong and that Democrats are lining up behind Conyers’ legislation.
Conyers’ bill had no sooner been introduced then it was started drawing criticisms from the right and left.
According to Congressional Quarterly (subscription required):
The new bill immediately drew fire from Republicans, who want a retroactive liability shield for companies that have cooperated with secret government spying since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and from civil libertarians who are unhappy because the measure would not require individual warrants for monitoring international communications to which American citizens in the United States might be a party.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Hey, it's not fair wiretapping those Al Queda folks without telling them.
Posted by: Bezerkley | October 9, 2007 6:14 PM
Freedom of seech. Just watch what you say!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | October 9, 2007 6:16 PM
Some Democrats are afraid they might look weak if they stand up for our constitutional rights? They couldn't possibly look any weaker than they did when they rolled over for the Repubs the last time this came up for a vote. Fair warning for the trembling jellyfish Democrats. I'll only be voting for vertebrates in the primary.
And forget that amnesty stuff. Telecoms who violated the law as a favor to the Decider can sue him to try to recover whatever damages they incur from their illegal activities.
Posted by: Tom O | October 9, 2007 6:35 PM
Warrants? We don't need no sticking warrants!
Posted by: The Bush Administration | October 9, 2007 7:08 PM
It seems we've crossed over the slippery slope and are about to fully legalize wiretapping in the name of state interests, so maybe we can find a silver lining in this abomination of state powers..
Use it to find out where all the missing RNC emails are?
Use it for investigative purposes against big multi-nationals?
Use it to ferret out voter fraud in a timely fashion?
I can't wait for President Hillary to have the powers that Bush usurped.
I know I'm trying to put lipstick on a pig, but if all you have is a pig and lipstick, what are you going to do?
Posted by: John E | October 9, 2007 7:29 PM
Rather than wireless warrants on suspected Al Qaeda operatives, I think the Bush administration should head straight for the torture then removal of all Lefties in this country. The Lefties side with Al Qaeda over the fate of the American people, so let's just get rid of Al Qaeda's most favorite allies!!!
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 7:45 PM
There's John D with another intelligent statement..."AL Qaeda's most favorite allies", yikes, what a "maroon". Listen up Lil' Johnny tough guy:
http://www.noolmusic.com/blogs/YouTube_Music_Videos_60s_70s_-_Spirit_-_1984.shtml
Posted by: dt | October 9, 2007 8:35 PM
Don't blow a fuse there John D. Maybe you can take a few of us out to.
Posted by: bill r. | October 9, 2007 8:38 PM
Johnny torture...so clever, so funny, so incredibly stupid!
http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/Archive.asp?Vol=content&Num=0
Posted by: TheReamer | October 9, 2007 8:46 PM
Boy, you nitwits have the sense of humor of a widow at her husband's funeral. But I can see where the truth would bother you folks.
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 9:11 PM
John E:
That's funny.
Seriously, though, I think we need to deal with this problem a little more vigorously than currently proposed. The way our representatives in Congress are sounding, it seems as thought they think this is all about the violation of FISA, which is simply a legislative enactment. That is not the issue, because warrantless wiretaps, authorized by a blanket order, strike at the very heart of the protections guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
In my view, even FISA doesn’t live up to the demands of the Fourth Amendment because it permits a search-first-get-warrant-later procedure. Up to this time, the U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that an invasion of a person’s legitimate expectation of privacy requires either: 1) a judicially authorized warrant supported by probable cause; or 2) consent of the party whose privacy interests are invaded, or 3) probable cause AND exigent circumstances of the sort that would excuse immediate recourse to the warrant process (such as the destruction or removal of evidence). The search-first-get-warrant-later procedure doesn’t meet any of these criteria because the search is conducted without a warrant, and the statute doesn’t require any particular evidentiary showing of emergency or necessity to allow for a search-first procedure.
Bush’s twist on this is even more abhorrent. By executive order, he exempted certain agencies entirely from compliance with the warrant requirement in many circumstances. Admittedly, that would be okay if the parties whose interests are invaded are neither American citizens nor legitimately present within the United States. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, this latter class of persons have no rights the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect. However, there is no way of knowing whether these executive agencies are limiting their warrantless wiretapping to conversations between non-resident aliens unless there is an oversight mechanism. Stated differently, there is no way of knowing whether the federal government is using these warrantless wiretap procedures to conduct domestic criminal investigations on U.S. citizens, or worse, simply monitoring undesirables.
We cannot trust the government to police itself. Folks, government personnel take the path of least resistance to get their job done. If there is an easy, but unlawful, method of doing their job, and they have no fear of getting busted, they will take the easy illegal route. That has been proven true over and over in courts throughout this country. It is, therefore, necessary to have some method of insuring that our war on terrorism doesn’t turn into a general fishing expedition to investigate everyone and anyone.
Therefore, I would not only resist any efforts to insert statutory immunity provisions – as some Republicans have suggested – I would also put more teeth in the law itself to insure proper respect for the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens. I would, for example, require a specific showing of exigent circumstances in any retroactive warrant application – along with the existing requirement that it show probable cause, necessity, and limitations on surveillance. That would make FISA actually comply with the dictates of the Fourth Amendment. I would also stiffen penalties for willful violations of FISA because the government is, apparently, not taking this stuff seriously.
Posted by: John W. | October 9, 2007 11:09 PM
I guess I don't understand why it is SO HARD to get a warrant, if one is needed. There are special courts that operate in the evenings and week-ends. Perhaps what we need are more judges who can expedite warrants- instead of congress playing with civil liberties. Win. Win.
Posted by: Vivian | October 9, 2007 11:16 PM
Can't we just all go back to the B.J. Clinton years when there were no wire taps or any kind of surveillance...I mean we were only attacked 8 times at home and abroad by terrorists.
Wait a minute? Do you think wire tapping or surveillance may have pre-vented 9/11 ???
Ahhhh, forget about it....B.J. and Hillary are lawyers... wire-tapping and surveillance are not a nice thing to do to terrorists....[IS] that why 9/11 was planned for 3 years under B.J's nose...?
I wonder why we havn't been attacked for over 6 years then?
*I Know Now*
Because Bush is dumb!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 10, 2007 2:12 AM
The Lefties side with Al Qaeda over the fate of the American people, so let's just get rid of Al Qaeda's most favorite allies!!!
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 7:45 PM
Wow, two words jerk-off ANGER MANAGEMENT! Totally vacant comments.
Posted by: Alberto | October 10, 2007 2:44 AM
Boy, you nitwits have the sense of humor of a widow at her husband's funeral. But I can see where the truth would bother you folks.
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 9:11 PM
That was...not funny. Not funny john D.
Posted by: Alberto G | October 10, 2007 3:04 AM
Shush up, you guys! I'm having trouble hearing John D on my speaker phone! Listen...
John D: ...really gave it to those Loony Lefters this time, right Paulo?
Paulo: Hee hee, your sure did. I especially like the part about the widow at the funeral. That had them blubbering with outrage. They're so predictable and humorless. All you have to do is attack one of their precious rights, and you can hear them wailing from deep within the caves of Bora Bora.
John D: You're almost right, Paulo. Remember, though, they don't much like that amendment about the right to bare arms.
Paulo: Bare arms? You mean there's an amendment that says you can wear shortsleeve shirts?
John D: No, you twit! Carry guns! Jeeze! Sometimes I half beleve some of those things the Loony Left bloggers write about you!
Paulo: Chill out. Anyone could have made that mistake. Anyway, we need to work together to come up with our next post. What should we rant about next time?
John D: Not sure. I haven't listened to Rush yet in order to get today's talking points.
Paulo: Maybe we attack the Left Wing media again. The Loons always take that bait.
John D: Nay. That's getting kinda stale.
Paulo: How about HRC's cackle of a laugh? I can attach a link to Youtube so everyone can hear it.
John D: It's already been done. We really got to distract those Lefters this time--hey, I got it!
Paulo: What? What? Oh, I can tell this is going to be good!
John D: I'll just wait for John E to make a post, and I'll attack it with snide remarks, half-truths, Rovian spin, and personal innuendo!
Paulo: But don't you do that in all of your posts?
John D: Yeah, but I always keep it fresh with a clever joke or two. This time, I'm gonna tell all the Loons to climb aboard a "Looner" Module at take a trip to the moon! "Looner" Module, get it?
Paulo: Brilliant! I can't wait to see how they'll react to that.
John D: Yeah, they'll be barking at the moon, alright.
Paulo: Jeeze that's good. You really crack me up.
John D: Thanks. Let me get to work on it right away. See you on the Swamp.
Paulo: Right. Take care.
John D: 'Bye.
(Click)
Posted by: Dan M | October 10, 2007 9:39 AM
I wonder why we havn't been attacked for over 6 years then?
*I Know Now*
Because Bush is dumb!
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | October 10, 2007 2:12 AM
Well paula, it seems to be a contest to determine who is dumber, bush or his followers. Now we get attacked daily, in two countries. Quite an improvement.
Posted by: Bill H. | October 10, 2007 10:01 AM
The Lefties side with Al Qaeda over the fate of the American people, so let's just get rid of Al Qaeda's most favorite allies!!!
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 7:45 PM
You mean the John D's and Bruce's of this world who insist every day that we cannot put more pressure on Musharaf to get Bin Laden or get him ourselves because we will upset the poor general's feelings in the same breath that they advocate attacking another country who has not attacked us in Iran?
Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 10, 2007 10:41 AM
Posted by: John D | October 9, 2007 7:45 PM
John "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood" D proves that the Righties side with Hitler and Mussolini in wanting to bring fascism to the US.
Posted by: BC | October 10, 2007 11:08 AM
Posted by: Paulo | October 10, 2007 2:12 AM
Why are you getting so bent out of shape about the US being attacked 8 times at home and abroad, YET you are perfectly calm with the HUNDREDS of TIMES we've been attacked both at home and abroad since Dubya became President?
Better stick to reminding us what Barack Obama's middle name is, okay?
Posted by: BC | October 10, 2007 11:11 AM
AlQuaeda is using DNC talking points if you listen to Mahmoud from Iran. Why would Dems give Islamofascist animals who kill people and chop their heads off America civil rights. Civil liberties have always been abused during War. Lincoln routinely opened private mail during the Civil War. These madmen are going to kill us if we don't win stop being hysteric liberals and wanting to pamper them they want Israel and Amercias destruction. If you don't like America please leave. For those of us who love America we need good intelligence to keep the Jihadists in check.Jerry White, Springfield, IL
Posted by: Jerry White | October 10, 2007 1:20 PM
BC, please tell us about the HUNDREDS of times we've been attacked at home and abroad under Dubya. I'd love to see some of your fantasy tales. They show insight into your delirious, little brain.
Posted by: John D | October 10, 2007 4:20 PM