Terrorism
Congress Expected to Approve Wiretap Bill Today
Posted Jul 9, 2008, 06:03 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss
Congress is expected to approve legislation today that updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and expands government power to obtain broad foreign intelligence warrants.
Recent reports emphasize the bill’s protection for telecommunications companies that aided the government’s wiretap efforts. But a Wall Street Journal story (sub. req.) says provisions that allow intelligence officials to obtain more sweeping wiretap orders may be more important. They allow broad warrants to wiretap foreign targets whose communications pass through U.S. telecommunications networks.
The story says the law may lead to further expansions of the use of foreign intelligence in criminal cases here. Rules barring sharing of foreign intelligence with U.S. prosecutors have been relaxed since Sept. 11, resulting in dozens of criminal cases. Critics say prosecutors have used permissive wiretap regulations under the law to obtain evidence that would be more difficult to get because of Fourth Amendment protections.
The story mentions two criminal cases based on information obtained under the law. One accuses a California computer engineer of providing material support to his brother, a member of a terrorist group in the Philippines. The other resulted in what turned out to be mistaken accusations against lawyer Brandon Mayfield, who was initially arrested in connection with the 2004 Madrid train bombings. The government later released Mayfield and apologized for the error.
Related Stories
- Ex-Chair of Prominent Maine Firm Gets 2 Years in Tax Case
Sep 5, 2008, 05:33 pm CDT - Kansas High Court Asked to Decide: Can Judges Fill Out Questionnaires?
Sep 5, 2008, 04:14 pm CDT - Retired N.Y. Judge Pleads in Federal Prostitution Case
Sep 5, 2008, 03:52 pm CDT - Embattled Nev. Judge Hospitalized, Husband Charged With Attempted Murder
Sep 5, 2008, 02:37 pm CDT
Related Topics
Commenting has expired on this post.
Comments
Posted by associate - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 34 minutes ago
This is the same bill that Obama opposed before he supported it, right?
Or is that Kerry? I’m so confused.
Posted by oh dear - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 day, 11 hours, 52 minutes ago
oh please someone explain this one to me ‘cos I seriously don’t get it ... I think I am with a large percentage of Americans. This is not a straightforward issue. Since I was having difficulty understanding the laws relevant to the bill ... I haven’t even been able to understand what the compromise is! I just wish the Obama camp would recognize that not all American are lawyers! Much less legislators who are use to uncompacting sometimes unrelatable efforts in one bill! (oh well, maybe phone bills could equate). This strikes me as a discussion with the American people to understand first their rights and second HOW these rights are protected. I don’t get the responsibility aspect for the various carriers. I was watching Dan Abrams and very happy to have him grill one of the legislators to such a point that I could at least understand that - under current administration - the oversight legal branch for warrants FISA was being side stepped. THIS bill is thought to put back that process and attach a legal framework to what I think is the original state. Okay, I get that - checks and balances ... this administration has had tons of checks with no balance. (heh). Frankly, however, I am hanging out in the land of me ... and I am not hapy that my carrier can allow access to MY PRIVACY without my knolwledge. So easy to do with ths modern technology that you don’t even actually need to go through the carrier ... and probably a lot more people are snooping without full understanding of privacy and legality! But that aside. The second kind of snooping is something that can be controlled by the carrier ... shouldn’t they be responsible? Where is the liability ... ? I don’t get it - the law already had them not answereable? .... by implication that law (already on the books) needs to be changed - but that is not what this bill was about. Is there like an abridged version of this? And it makes me even more confused this way ... because this is so greviously related to THIS administrations disregard for the constitution of the United States ... that it wants to function beyond. I just think if more Americans could understand what is happening here, they really would consider deeply their votes. It is easy to relax back and say ‘I have nothing to hide.” However, the thing of it is that this adminstration already is linked to two sets of falsifying informaition: the evidence to go to war and EPA global warming data. They have centralized the executive position leeching out as much oversight as possible. Which means, you have no control how information is used - and there may not be as much protection as prior given the post 9.11 environment. This may seem outlandish, but not necessarily unheard of. For those who work in nonprofits that deal with human rights issues - globally, legally in the Southern States ... this is sort of important. A professor working on some research is open to privacy violations ... the constitution of the United States is the guiding principal that sets it apart from oh, say a dictatorship.