Americans are just not paying enough attention

[WilcoFan]

This bill was passed by the congress who is investigating the firings of politically appointed attorneys. So they give Gonzales more power?:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/07/ter...e.ap/index.html

 

For the first time in nearly four decades, a senior intelligence official -- not a secretive federal court -- will have a decisive voice in whether Americans' communications can be monitored when they talk to foreigners overseas.

art.bush.fisa.ap.jpg

 

President Bush demanded Congress expand his surveillance authority before leaving for vacation.

 

The shift came over the weekend as Congress hustled through changes to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA.

 

The bill provides new powers to the National Security Agency to monitor communications that enter the United States and involve foreigners who are the subjects of a national security investigation.

 

Apprehensive about what they were doing, Congress specified that the new provisions would expire after six months, unless renewed.

 

They would give National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joint authority to approve the monitoring of such calls and e-mails, rather than the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

 

That means an intelligence official is now empowered to sort through the legalistic, secretive world of FISA, rather than a judge or the nation's highest law enforcement officer.

 

McConnell was added to the legal decision-making after lawmakers argued that the embattled attorney general shouldn't hold the power alone. The spy chief's experience is largely in military intelligence, not legal matters.

Don't Miss

 

* Bush: Surveillance law needs to keep up with technology

 

Civil liberties groups and some Democrats call the bill a vast expansion of government power. In the past several days, officials who work for McConnell, the Justice Department and the Republican congressional leadership have argued vehemently that that isn't so.

 

On Monday, White House spokeswoman Tony Fratto dismissed as "highly misleading" any suggestion that the changes broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' communications without court approval.

 

However, the law's wording -- underscored by conversations with administration officials -- shows the rules governing when and how Americans' calls and e-mails will be monitored have changed significantly.

 

Communications that can get caught up in intelligence collection require a spectrum of approvals, depending on the circumstances. Generally, such calls, e-mails, text messages and other electronic exchanges fall into three categories:

 

 

[isadorah]

it is all so very scary and makes no sense. politicians playing politics.

[uncle wilco]

unfortunately, lindsay lohan, britney, paris and nicole are far more interesting to the general public.

[WilcoFan]

The supreme court should be all over this considering it gives unchecked powers to a branch that claims executive privilege for just about everything.

[mountain bed]

I guess I won't be giving my friend froggie a call anytime soon.

[MrRain422]

The supreme court should be all over this considering it gives unchecked powers to a branch that claims executive privilege for just about everything.

 

There are some actual lawyers around here who would know way more about this than me, but I'm pretty sure that it will be difficult to get this matter up to the point where the Supreme Court can even rule on it. Before the Supreme Court can rule on it, there has to be a lawsuit filed on a lower level, by someone who has standing. In order to have standing, you have to show injury. Since all of this is secretive, and none of us know who has or has not been spied on, it's impossible to show injury. The ACLU failed in an attempt to file suit over domestic wiretapping earlier this year for that reason.

 

Perhaps there's something different about this that would allow for someone to sue, but as far as I know, we're stuck with this until a later Congress/President decide to change it.

[WilcoFan]

There are some actual lawyers around here who would know way more about this than me, but I'm pretty sure that it will be difficult to get this matter up to the point where the Supreme Court can even rule on it. Before the Supreme Court can rule on it, there has to be a lawsuit filed on a lower level, by someone who has standing. In order to have standing, you have to show injury. Since all of this is secretive, and none of us know who has or has not been spied on, it's impossible to show injury. The ACLU failed in an attempt to file suit over domestic wiretapping earlier this year for that reason.

 

Perhaps there's something different about this that would allow for someone to sue, but as far as I know, we're stuck with this until a later Congress/President decide to change it.

 

 

Thanks for the info.

[anodyne]

it expires in six months -- just in time for posturing for the primaries.

[caliber66]

it expires in six months -- just in time for posturing for the primaries.

 

Without a repeal, lawmakers "weren't just giving them the power for six months. They were giving it to them for the rest of the administration," Graves said.

[owl]

It's not that we Americans don't care, it's just that we're preoccupied with perpetuating willful ignorance to avoid responsibility for anything other than our possessions. Americans in 2007 just happen to be particularly good at this (as we lose headway everywhere else). For more information, consult human history.

[Mr. Kinsley]

As long as they use it to spy on this guy, I'm ok with it!