Quid custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who shall watch the watchers?
That's the question even more so now that Congress has capitulated yet again to Bush's fear-mongering over surveillance of communications between American citizens and foreign entities. Here are the highlights:
...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:
• Purely foreign overseas communications. The NSA can monitor these calls and e-mails without any signoff from a judge or a senior government official.
• Domestic conversations between two Americans. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure requires that the government get approval from a court before eavesdropping on these exchanges.
• Communications between an American and a foreigner, a more complex, gray area. If the American is the target of the investigation, then a court must approve the surveillance, the White House says. However, if the foreigner is the target, no court approval is necessary under the new law. Instead, Gonzales and McConnell will decide together whether to go ahead with the work.
It's this area -- when an American is talking to a foreign suspect -- where the Bush administration has acquired powers it didn't have before.
Under government regulations, agencies are supposed to minimize the collection, retention, and dissemination of any information about a U.S. citizen. Often that means names are blacked out, unless the identity is crucial to understanding the conversation.
Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies, which advocates for civil liberties, said the new law will potentially allow the government to intercept millions of Americans' calls and e-mails without warrants -- as long as the NSA and other authorities have a foreign suspect in their sights.
"This power that they have obtained is a dramatic expansion," she said.
My position on surveillance of U.S. citizens is pretty simple. I don't have a problem with needing to monitor communications when a situation presents itself. That's how we catch the bad guys, I get it. However, if you want to do it, get a damn warrant. Period. FISA has provisions for emergency warrants in case we have a situation where obtaining a warrant would be burdensome from a time perspective.
The law wasn't the problem. The problem was the executive branch wanting carte blanche to surveil at will. We started monitoring a citizen? Oops, but we're not at fault because 9/11. And you Democrats better tow the line or I'll use this roller brush of Rudy Giuliani #9 blush paint to make you guys look soft on terror.
Ben Franklin had it nailed over 200 years ago. When we're willing to sacrifice liberty for security, we wind up with less of both.
I would write my Senators and Representative about this, but all three of them blindly support the damn thing.
This kind of cowardice by the Democratic leadership has me seriously considering hanging up my party creds and going back to being an Independent.
That's the question even more so now that Congress has capitulated yet again to Bush's fear-mongering over surveillance of communications between American citizens and foreign entities. Here are the highlights:
...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:
• Purely foreign overseas communications. The NSA can monitor these calls and e-mails without any signoff from a judge or a senior government official.
• Domestic conversations between two Americans. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure requires that the government get approval from a court before eavesdropping on these exchanges.
• Communications between an American and a foreigner, a more complex, gray area. If the American is the target of the investigation, then a court must approve the surveillance, the White House says. However, if the foreigner is the target, no court approval is necessary under the new law. Instead, Gonzales and McConnell will decide together whether to go ahead with the work.
It's this area -- when an American is talking to a foreign suspect -- where the Bush administration has acquired powers it didn't have before.
Under government regulations, agencies are supposed to minimize the collection, retention, and dissemination of any information about a U.S. citizen. Often that means names are blacked out, unless the identity is crucial to understanding the conversation.
Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies, which advocates for civil liberties, said the new law will potentially allow the government to intercept millions of Americans' calls and e-mails without warrants -- as long as the NSA and other authorities have a foreign suspect in their sights.
"This power that they have obtained is a dramatic expansion," she said.
My position on surveillance of U.S. citizens is pretty simple. I don't have a problem with needing to monitor communications when a situation presents itself. That's how we catch the bad guys, I get it. However, if you want to do it, get a damn warrant. Period. FISA has provisions for emergency warrants in case we have a situation where obtaining a warrant would be burdensome from a time perspective.
The law wasn't the problem. The problem was the executive branch wanting carte blanche to surveil at will. We started monitoring a citizen? Oops, but we're not at fault because 9/11. And you Democrats better tow the line or I'll use this roller brush of Rudy Giuliani #9 blush paint to make you guys look soft on terror.
Ben Franklin had it nailed over 200 years ago. When we're willing to sacrifice liberty for security, we wind up with less of both.
I would write my Senators and Representative about this, but all three of them blindly support the damn thing.
This kind of cowardice by the Democratic leadership has me seriously considering hanging up my party creds and going back to being an Independent.