« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Some Civil Libertarian Groups Back Dem Surveillance Bill
With a vote expected today in the House on the Restore Act -- the Democratic surveillance bill that scales back August's Protect America Act (PAA) -- a split has emerged among civil libertarian groups that unanimously strongly opposed that bill. The ACLU continues to oppose the Democratic bill, but two other prominent civil libertarian organizations, the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Center for National Security Studies are urging passage.
Both organizations consider Restore to be an imperfect bill. In particular, neither is fond of the so-called "basket" orders for surveillance authorized by Restore that allow the NSA to collect communications without individualized suspicion. But Kate Martin of CNSS sees the issue much as the Justice Department's Ken Wainstein does: the FISA Court has a front-end oversight role over foreign calls that might be to U.S. persons. It's just Wainstein finds that unacceptable, and Martin doesn't.
"Our view is that as written, the Restore Act would allow the Court to authorize surveillance without a warrant when we think the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant. Yes, that's problematic," Martin says. "But the circumstances under which the court is authorized to do so are much narrower than the circumstances under the Protect America Act, and it's going to be revisited by Congress in a way that's crucial, with oversight and a sunset provision."
That's the position taken by the Center for Democracy and Technology as well. The non-individualized court orders aren't desirable in themselves. But they do represent "a significant improvement over current law." And there's the crucial issue. Both groups view the debate as a fight between Restore and PAA -- which the
administration wants to simply make permanent -- and not a fight between the PAA and some other alternative.
"Over the years, we've frequently worked for improvements to the law which were not exactly what we wanted, and for improvements to existing law even when they didn’t go as far as we wanted," Martin explains. "And that's what this is." She says that if Restore becomes law, her organization will continue to push for changes to it, including "to restore fully the requirement that a judicial warrant be obtained when the government seizes Americans’ international communications."
Martin would not comment on the ACLU's continued opposition to the bill.
Comments (4)
Nell wrote on October 17, 2007 10:53 AM:"Both groups view the debate as a fight between Restore and PAA -- which the
administration wants to simply make permanent -- and not a fight between the PAA and some other alternative."
In other words, they're declaring the ACLU-backed alternative bill DOA. A sell-out that they will live to regret.
Why? Because the House and Senate bills are going to get reconciled in conference. If the non-umbrella/basket warrant version were to get passed in the House, there'd be something to haggle with when the Senate bill comes through (as it almost certainly will) with immunity for the telcos.
If at every stage, those who should have civil liberties as the highest priority settle for the "pragmatic", "realistic" choice without a struggle, then we'll end up with something only marginally better than PAA -- and actually worse, if it includes telco immunity.
Which will be sold to us as just fine, because we'll have made a deal in which we "win" disclosure of what's already gone on. Except that disclosure will never actually happen.
Forgotten entirely is the point that the American people and Congress have an _absolute right_ to know what kind of surveillance has happened, not some conditional right based on what kind of impunity-approving legislation we're willing to accept.
oleeb wrote on October 17, 2007 10:54 AM:I cannot believe and am totally appalled by what the Congress is doing on this bill. Our rights are non-negotiable for one thing and you cannot amend or nullify the Constitution with a statute of any kind. It is an outrage they are dickering over this. Additionally, why is consideration of a retroactive exhoneration of the telecoms even being discussed? They broke the law. I don't give a damn why. They don't make such exceptions when a common criminal breaks the law and this violation of the law was not a petty violation. If they grant immunity for the violation of the law as it is, when it is very clear then the law loses all meaning and the integrity, credibility and enforceability of the law is all but destroyed. That you cannot obey the laws you like and disobey those you don't is a fundamental concept every grade schooler is familiar with. What the hell happened to all these Congressional Democrats that has made them so gutless they no longer even pretend to respect our Constitution? We've known for some time that obeying the Constitution is something Republicans consider optional. For Democrats to get in bed with them on this is unforgivable.
oldtree wrote on October 17, 2007 11:05 AM:Just to confirm, these organizations are in the same informational void that the ACLU must operate in. They think the new legislation is potentially acceptable, but they don't know what has been done, what the congress is talking about, what the new legislation is. They don't have a clue as to what the new legislation is trying to do compared to the actions of these last few years under tyranny.
These other organizations are taking the administration on faith?
tofubo wrote on October 17, 2007 2:16 PM:another reason the ACLU must be reasonably smart. They don't accept proof without actual facts. These other organizations seem rather, damn it, I just can't think of anything except a term of derision to describe someone or some entity that doesn't know what they are talking about because they aren't privy to the discussion.
Is it just me, or is this insane?
since resurrecting reagan is the new national pastime, how about "trust, but verify"
if the administration will not let us verify, how can we (more to the point, why should we) trust them ??