« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Conyers: "I'm Proud" of Dem Surveillance Bill
Judiciary and intelligence committee Chairs John Conyers (D-MI) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) have released their own summary of the Dems' surveillance bill.
His take: “I am proud to have introduced the RESTORE Act with Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes... 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.”
A summary of the bill provided by Conyers' office is below.
RESTORE Act of 2007(Responsible Surveillance That is Overseen, Reviewed and Effective)
Bill Summary
Security and Liberty: The bill provides the Intelligence Community with effective tools to conduct surveillance of foreign targets outside the United States but restores Constitutional checks and balances that were not contained in the Protect America Act (PAA--the Administration’s FISA bill.)
The RESTORE ACT:
1. Clarifies that No Court Warrant is Required to Intercept Communications of Non-United States Persons When Both Ends of the Communications are Outside the United States.
2. Requires an Individualized Court Warrant from the FISA Court When Targeting Persons in the United States. (Same as current law.)3. Creates a Program of Court Authorized Targeting of Non-U.S. Persons Outside the United States. Grants the Attorney General (AG) and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) authority to apply to the FISA Court for an order to conduct surveillance of foreign targets, or groups of targets, for up to one year – but RESTORES the following checks and balances that were absent under the PAA:
a. Court Review of Targeting Procedures. The FISA Court must review targeting procedures to ensure that they are reasonably designed to target only people outside the United States. In emergencies, the FISA Court review may take place after the surveillance has begun – for up to 45 days. DNI McConnell told Congress in September that he did not oppose FISA Court review of these targeting procedures.
b. Court Review of Minimization Procedures. The FISA Court must review minimization procedures. DNI McConnell told Congress in September that he did not oppose FISA Court review of these minimization procedures.
c. Court Review of Guidelines to ensure that, when the government seeks to conduct electronic surveillance of a person in the United States, the government obtains a traditional individualized warrant from the FISA Court.
4. Clarifies Ambiguous Language on Warrantless Domestic Searches. The bill clarifies and eliminates ambiguous language in the PAA that appeared to authorize warrantless searches inside the United States, including physical searches of American homes, offices, computers, and medical records.
In a letter to Congress in September, Administration officials indicated that they did not intend their legislation to authorize such warrantless domestic searches and expressed a willingness to consider alternative language.
5. A RESTORE ACT Authorization May Not Be Used to Target Any Known U.S. Person. If the government learns that the target of surveillance is a U.S. person (say, an American traveling abroad), it cannot use this new authority.
Assistant Attorney General Ken Wainstein acknowledged to Congress in September that the PAA could be used by the Administration to target Americans abroad without a warrant, even U.S. soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.
6. Limits Authority to Terrorism, Espionage, Sabotage, and Threats to National Security. The Administration’s bill allowed for surveillance for all foreign intelligence, including a broad category of information related to “foreign affairs.” This bill allows the Intelligence Community to deal with the threats facing the United States from terrorism, espionage, sabotage, clandestine intelligence activities, and to collect information related to the national defense or security of the U.S., without authorizing the collection on the broad category of “foreign affairs.”
7. Requires Quarterly Audits and Reports. Requires quarterly audits by the Justice Department Inspector General (DOJ IG) on communications collected under this authority and the number of U.S. persons identified in intelligence reports disseminated pursuant to this collection. These audits would be provided to the FISA Court and to Congress (Intelligence and Judiciary Committees.)
The Administration’s bill contained very limited reporting to Congress. During testimony, DNI McConnell said he did not oppose an Inspector General audit of the program to determine the scope of American communications swept up by this authority.
8. Requires an Audit of the President’s Surveillance Program and Other Warrantless Surveillance Programs. This audit mandates a report and documents related to these programs be provided to Congress in unclassified form with a classified annex.
9. Requires Record-keeping of the Use of United States Persons Information. Mandates that the Executive Branch record every instance in which the identity of a United States person whose communication was acquired by the Intelligence Community is disseminated to an element or person within the Executive Branch and that it submit an annual report to Congress on the dissemination.
10. Adds Resources for FISA. Adds funding for personnel and technology resources at DOJ and NSA to speed the FISA process and to ensure that audits can be conducted expeditiously.
11. Reiterates the Exclusivity of FISA. Includes House-passed bipartisan Schiff-Flake language stating that FISA is the exclusive means to conduct electronic surveillance of Americans for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection.
12. No Retroactive Immunity. The bill is silent on retroactive immunity because the Administration has refused to provide Congress with documents on the specifics of the President’s warrantless surveillance program. However, the bill does provide prospective immunity for those complying with court orders issued pursuant to this authority.
13. Establishes En Banc Review. Allows the FISA Court to sit en banc. The FISA Court requested this, and the Administration does not oppose it.
14. Provides Sunset, Transition Procedures and Report on PAA. Sunsets this new authority on December 31, 2009, when certain PATRIOT Act provisions sunset. However, the legislation will allow for a transition from the existing warrants to the new ones to ensure that the Intelligence Community does not go “dark” on any surveillance. The Administration will be required to submit a report on U.S.-person information collected and disseminated under the PAA authorities.
Comments (27)
Elle wrote on October 9, 2007 10:54 AM:If this makes GW Bush happy, it is a travesty. And, it's title is clearly meant to mislead--"RESTORE" as in restoring habeas corpus, but it doesn't do that at all, does it? Also, FISA wasn't broken until they did their little dance in August--Bush's Justice Department was broken.
Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel must go. They are not the caliber of men needed to fight by fascism, they are the caliber of men who sit by and watch it happen without seeing the forest for the trees. Sadly, I think Conyers is at best deceived here, and possibly has traded political favors for his support of this "compromise."
brantl wrote on October 9, 2007 10:56 AM:This will be abused by the Bush administration for 45 day fishing expeditions, but otherwise a good law, seemingly.
dasher wrote on October 9, 2007 11:31 AM:I don't have the time or energy to parse this bill at the moment, but I'll agree that if it's "acceptable" to the Bush admin, then Jesus Christ himself will have to put his stamp of approval on it before I'd trust it.
onceler wrote on October 9, 2007 11:33 AM:yeah, this is a joke. these bastards should be being prosecuted for committing felony warrantless wiretapping against American citizens, and the companies which helped them should be fined in the billions. this ass-kissing bill doesn't even come close to doing what needs to be done. what else would we expect though? the bill claims that now the admin will have to operate under FISA for US citizens, but that has been the law all along - and BushCo. pays no attention to it. FISA wasn't created as some accidental measure, it was specifically created to prevent the government from tapping and eavesdropping without a warrant. a bill which doesn't go after the administration for doing so, and strengthen both FISA AND the PENALTIES in terms of money and jail time for those violating it is an unnecessary sellout compromise. weak.
jimijazz wrote on October 9, 2007 11:35 AM:I don't trust these democrats anymore than I trust republicans. If democrats think they can pass garbage like this without any repercussions they are in for a rude awakening.
jimijazz wrote on October 9, 2007 11:35 AM:I don't trust these democrats anymore than I trust republicans. If democrats think they can pass garbage like this without any repercussions, they are in for a rude awakening.
West Ailsworth wrote on October 9, 2007 11:35 AM:Anyone have a link to the actual bill?
moondancer wrote on October 9, 2007 11:39 AM:It doesnt matter one iota. Bushco will do exactly what they want. I appreciate the effort to reign in our beloved tyrants, but I think its a waste of time.
eric wrote on October 9, 2007 11:42 AM:Impeachment should be the only agenda of the house.
I continue to be puzzled by all of this. The Fourth Amendment simply doesn't allow searching without a warrant. No law passed by Congress can change that. (Yes, I know that there are judicially created exceptions, but the point remains - Congress can't make these exceptions).
Text:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
benjoya wrote on October 9, 2007 11:44 AM:what bush wants, and what the senate looks ready to give him, is retroctive immunity for telecoms involved in warrantless wiretaps. the house bill doesn't do it. let's see if the house dems cave as the senate apparently has.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 9, 2007 11:50 AM:A single sentence law would have been more effective and addressed the situation better:
Congress does hereby repeal both PATRIOT Acts, the Military Comission Act and all legistlation effecting the FISA Act enacted since 1999 and order that the provisions thereof be stricken from the public record permanently.
America needs to stop being a fascist state.
jimijazz wrote on October 9, 2007 12:03 PM:And don't give me that "It will make us look weak on national security" crap. This is a civil liberties issue, not a national security issue because there was nothing wrong with FISA in the first place. Just a red herring so the Congress led by democrats could do more damage to our constitution. It makes you wonder that the democrats secretly really like Bush and will be dissapointed when he leaves office.
johnnydoughey wrote on October 9, 2007 12:22 PM:When they start picking up folks in larger numbers, this act, along with the other surveillance bills, will give credence to the actions.
Terrorist acts are being incorporated into our judicial system at a rapid pace.
Under the present definition of terrorist, the federal government is now prosecuting a couple of environment groups.
Under the present definition of terrorist, states are now prosecuting folks for domestic and other violent crimes.
These laws which our Congress is supporting will directly affect ALL of us as our democracy diminishes and the powers to be (the folks formerly known as our representatives) gain more ability to rule us.
If you are hesitant to believe this, just ask one of the many guards at Social Security, Mental Health, Veterans Administration... all these places where the "government folks" now believe they need to be protected from "We the terrorist People"...
ReggaeBass wrote on October 9, 2007 12:24 PM:It actually looks like a pretty good law. It brings FISA back mostly to what it was. Yes it does have that 45 day extension which is nothing to be happy about but it does not make anything retroactively Legal or anything like that. Think Progress endorses it. It actually looks pretty good. What I don't get is why the NYT put out that article today to get everyone's panties in a bunch about the bill before it was even relesed. This bill does not caputale anything to Bush. He won't sign it of course even if it does pass but why the NYT is putting out disinformation about it does not make a whole lot of sense. Go check out the bill before you judge it. Seems like someone at the NYT is trying to play us.
ReggaeBass wrote on October 9, 2007 12:25 PM:It actually looks like a pretty good law. It brings FISA back mostly to what it was. Yes it does have that 45 day extension which is nothing to be happy about but it does not make anything retroactively Legal or anything like that. Think Progress endorses it. It actually looks pretty good. What I don't get is why the NYT put out that article today to get everyone's panties in a bunch about the bill before it was even relesed. This bill does not caputale anything to Bush. He won't sign it of course even if it does pass but why the NYT is putting out disinformation about it does not make a whole lot of sense. Go check out the bill before you judge it. Seems like someone at the NYT is trying to play us.
Xavier wrote on October 9, 2007 12:38 PM:The White House ignores the FISA law under it's Unitary Executive theory.
Instead of reprimanding Bush with atleast a censure, they change the law to make his actions legal.
This is ridiculous. Absolutely ridiculous.
Bob's not Right wrote on October 9, 2007 1:11 PM:I have taken some excerpts from the United States Code on Presidential records. The same definitions and requirements extend to the Vice President. Keep your eye out for a soft landing by the Bush Administration and key words like “Retroactive Immunity”, at some point in time (Jan, 2009) somebody else gets a peek at the candy store.
Either this will go as defined by law and they have already started to shift gears and are going to bury some of the skeletons, or I am not paranoid enough and they already succeeded at corrupting the electoral system and no opposition party will be elected.
I would like to hear any other thoughts on how they get out of the Presidential records transfer.
United States Code section 2201 title 44: Definitions
As used in this chapter - (1) The term ''documentary material'' means all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations. (2) The term ''Presidential records'' means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President….
United States Code section 2202 title 44: Ownership of Presidential Records
The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter
United States Code section 2203 title 44: Management and Custody of Presidential Records
Through the implementation of records management controls and other necessary actions, the President shall take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented and that such records are maintained as Presidential records pursuant to the requirements of this section and other provisions of law….
Joe wrote on October 9, 2007 1:20 PM:Simply put, especially under long held Supreme Court precedent, there are various 'searches and seizures' that don't req. a warrant esp. if the material is not used for criminal prosecutions and occur outside the U.S.
There are limits even there and in various cases the SC has allowed too much, but that's the case. As to this law, it looks credible and suggests what should have been passed the last time.
Yes, Bush will abuse it, but he will abuse any law. As a look to the future, it might be a decent bill. The immunity issue as to telecommunication companies is a core issue here.
wtenn wrote on October 9, 2007 1:46 PM:Notice that the court can only review the targeting procedures and minimization procedures. Nowhere in this bill does the court review the actual surveillance to see if the procedures are being complied with. Also, the administration is only required to get warrants when specifically targeting individual citizens. It can routinely eavesdrop on groups of US citizens and still be in compliance as long as none of them are named as individiual targets. Furthermore, since the court is not reviewing the actual incidences of eavesdropping (only procedures), the admin could easily eavesdrop on Americans without discovery. The only auditing or review of their actions come, not from the courts, but the executive branch overseeing itself. The loopholes here are a mile wide.
Daver wrote on October 9, 2007 2:00 PM:I have a serious suggestion. Just substitute the Conyers bill for the present law until January 20, 2009 at which time it sunsets; then it is replaced by a law that gives the POTUS absolute unfettered power to tap anyone's phone secretly and use the results as she sees fit. If this is about terrorism and not politics, all of the Republicans will support it. If its really just a political game, it will terrify them and they'll cooperate in enacting a bill with real protections. Remember, Republicans only support absolute executive power when the president is a Republican!
Stephen wrote on October 9, 2007 3:46 PM:How about some bill numbers so we can actually contact our congressmen??
judyinnm wrote on October 9, 2007 4:35 PM:It is time for rabble rousing. EVERY congressperson (Senator & Representative) needs a challenger (or several)on the ballot, in every district in the country. Democrat, republican, independent, green, libertarian, write-in, or self-named party of one (like Lieberman, in Connecticut) whose sole issue is the reinstatement of the Constitution of the United States of America, in all its Glory. No warrantless wiretaps, Habeas Corpus restored, no support of particular religions with tax dollars, the very concept of a "secret court" (FISA, in every form, with or without warrants) eliminated, no more condemning exercise of free speech (no matter how "offensive") on the Senate floor. In addition, all unconstitutional laws enacted in the name of fighting the "war on drugs", also to be repealed - including the "no knock" raids, and confiscation of property on mere suspicion of illegal drug activity (once convicted, okay, but not til).
People in this country do not realize how many rights have been incrementally infringed upon, in the name of keeping us "safe" - from drugs, from terrorists, from our neighbors. Constant reminder on the campaign trail could cause a grassroots demand of the return of these rights; and maybe even effect the change.
judyinnm wrote on October 9, 2007 4:41 PM:Remind all candidates for federal office that their oath is to "protect and defend the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES". Even the preamble does not set out the purpose as to keep us "save".
Eric Ferguson wrote on October 9, 2007 5:30 PM:I agree with the people who said this looks like a considerable improvement, and with those who don't trust the Bush administration to obey it. One concern I haven't seen raised however, and would have thought this was a big one, is we're giving ourselves permission to intercept all communication coming through the US. It's not accidental so much comes through. It's an effect of Americans having built the Internet. The cables were built basically to carry data to and from the US. If we say we have a right to intercept any of it, won't that cause other countries to build alternative routes. I don't know what the effect would be beyond securing their data from our snooping, but maybe the amount of control we've enjoyed over how the Internet works drops precipitously.
judyinnm wrote on October 9, 2007 6:06 PM:And I kinda had my hopes pinned on Conyers - but someone must be holding his family hostage....
Phoenix Rising wrote on October 9, 2007 6:14 PM:To wtenn: it looks like point #5 in the summary covers your concern about targeting groups vs. individuals - all U.S. persons require individual warrants from FISA (RESTORE explicitly does not authorize exceptions to this...). And I believe the audit reports cover the question of proper use of the guidelines.
To Eric Ferguson: I don't know that our level of control over the Internet is all that great now, anyway. IP Address allocation is decentralized, domain naming is controlled by an international organization, and Internet standards are if anything being held back by U.S. non-compliance (Most of Asia is all ready for IPv6...)
To those screaming about this law: I'm guessing you didn't read the summary. It looks good to me - at least as good as the FISA law was ever supposed to look.
illlich wrote on October 10, 2007 11:44 AM:I begin to wonder if the DEMs are pushing what amounts to essentially the SAME surveillance bill that Bush wanted because they see a DEM in the white house very soon, and want that power for themselves.