List Only

Is FISA yet another infringement of our Constitutional rights - and giving retroactive immunity to violators?

"(PressMediaWire) April 07, 2008 Congressman Ron Paul's statement on the emerging surveillance bill - Last month, the House amended the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the government’s ability to monitor our private communications. This measure, if it becomes law, will result in more warrantless government surveillance of innocent American citizens. Though some opponents claimed that the only controversial part of this legislation was its grant of immunity to telecommunications companies, there is much more to be wary of in the bill. In the House version, Title II, Section 801, extends immunity from prosecution of civil legal action to people and companies including any provider of an electronic communication service, any provider of a remote computing service, “any other communication service provider who has access to wire or electronic communications,” any “parent, subsidiary, affiliate, successor, or assignee” of such company, any “officer, employee, or agent” of any such company, and any “landlord, custodian, or other person who may be authorized or required to furnish assistance.” The Senate version goes even further by granting retroactive immunity to such entities that may have broken the law in the past. The new FISA bill allows the federal government to compel many more types of companies and individuals to grant the government access to our communications without a warrant. The provisions in the legislation designed to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance are full of loopholes and ambiguities. There is no blanket prohibition against listening in on all American citizens without a warrant. We have been told that this power to listen in on communications is legal and only targets terrorists. But if what these companies are being compelled to do is legal, why is it necessary to grant them immunity? If what they did in the past was legal and proper, why is it necessary to grant them retroactive immunity? In communist East Germany , one in every 100 citizens was an informer for the dreaded secret police, the Stasi. They either volunteered or were compelled by their government to spy on their customers, their neighbors, their families, and their friends. When we think of the evil of totalitarianism, such networks of state spies are usually what comes to mind. Yet, with modern technology, what once took tens of thousands of informants can now be achieved by a few companies being coerced by the government to allow it to listen in to our communications. This surveillance is un-American. We should remember that former New York governor Eliot Spitzer was brought down by a provision of the PATRIOT Act that required enhanced bank monitoring of certain types of financial transactions. Yet we were told that the PATRIOT Act was needed to catch terrorists, not philanderers. The extraordinary power the government has granted itself to look into our private lives can be used for many purposes unrelated to fighting terrorism. We can even see how expanded federal government surveillance power might be used to do away with political rivals. The Fourth Amendment to our Constitution requires the government to have a warrant when it wishes to look into the private affairs of individuals. If we are to remain a free society we must defend our rights against any governmental attempt to undermine or bypass the Constitution. What do you think of this act? Gentle giant, by the time a law GETS in front of the Supreme Court, abuses have been going on, over all of American citizens, for years. mt pelio - Spitzer might disagree with you. However, that is another problem with this, the only time it will be CHALLANGED is by someone who did something wrong. Yet all of us who are doing nothing wrong are having huge databases made of information on us, and that is an invasion of privacy. It is also not noticably secure to let the government maintain databases, as the recent passport file issues with the candidates underlined (although only their prominance even made it a headline.) fuhbiddon, most people who ever roll over a 401K 'wire that much money'. Why should the government be spying on it?

Public Comments

1. Freedom in America is becoming a thing of the past. "Live free or die"
2. ron paul has issues
3. Anyone who supports this with their vote is violating the Constitution.
4. When the Supreme Court of the United States( or any court for that matter) rules that FISA violates the Constitution, you will know it. Until then it is Constitutional and important to the safety of this Nation. The rest of what you posted is useless garbage.
5. As long as information obtained without a warrant is inadmissable in court I see no problem with domestic espionage. EDIT: It is not an invasion of privacy if I don't know about it. Also, Mr. Spitzer's situation is totally different. He was the specific target of a fully lawful undercover investigation. He is a criminal who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. However, since he was not making calls to terrorists, the FISA does not come into play at all. The government is not going to be collecting anything other than a log of all international calls to countries known to harbor terrorists. They cannot use this information against citizens of this country without getting a warrant, but they can use this information to prevent a terrorist from attacking our interests.
6. i agree, and have you noticed how the erosion of our CONSTITUTIONAL rights are being cleverly eliminated under the PATRIOT act? It's just like the law that allows big corporations to pollute our rivers, lakes and oceans and is called the Clear Skies Act...
7. Just because something has not been ruled unconstitutional by a court, does not mean that it is constitutional. The 4th amendment clearly states that a warrant, specifically stating what is to be searched, and for what reason, is needed to perform a search. When the government (also known as regular people elected to office) decides they can override that by saying "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about." It isn't about that. It's about the protection we have in our Supreme Law of the Land, also known as the Constitution. The Constitution is law, not just suggestion. Any law created that violates that law, is invalid. FISA is one of them.
8. I love it. If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. You make reference to Governor Spitzer,but what he was doing was against the law. Had he not been breaking the law, he would not have been in trouble.That enhanced provision was there to target criminals. People who wire that much money are not doing to help their kid out in college. Its like making the argument that police hidden in the shadows are violating your liberties by clocking your speed. Don't go over the speed limit and you won't get pulled over.
9. Whne I worked for the Feds , what I have notice was teh government was living in a standard different from what they expect everyone else should live. They flagrantly violate privacy laws and when brought up before the judge, tehy say not a big deal. Granted, I am only viewing this in my small cosmos of the Federal system, but I hate the idea to sea that we are givng them even more leeway, because their attitude is to see how far they can push the envelope. As for Retroactively applying this law, it is horrifying. That means that they have violated the law and try to get some evidence in with out prosecuting those who have violated. There is no reasonable reason to do this. If we fight an enemy, we must take care of not becoming our enemy. WE can't come down on other nations for lacking moral standards, when are own government does not stand by the same standard.
10. Our rights under the Fourth Amendment should not be permitted to erode, even under threat of terror. The summer of 1787 was no picnic for the contributors to and signers of the Constitution, the addition of a Bill of Rights being one of the most hotly contested issues. Many threatened (and a few made good on that threat) to walk out unless and until one was included. Terror can be detected and dealt with as effectively using compliant methods as by disregarding the Constitution. All else equal, we can be pretty darned certain of one thing: we'll be immeasurably better off demanding that our elected servants respect and maintain those Constitutional limits. ...