OK, like many of you I was disappointed upon hearing that the Senate had passed Bush's FISA bill; I was disappointed that Obama voted for it and pleased that Wyden voted (vocally) against it.

However, I'm having a hard time understanding the real implications of this bill. It's difficult to get unbiased, objective descriptions of what the bill really allows. This morning on KPOJ for example, Thom Hartmann went on and on (with a rep of the ACLU) about how bad it was without describing precisely why. It was just presumed we all knew why.

But as I see it, there are two real components of the bill:

- retroactive immunity for telco companies from civil lawsuits for following (possibly illegal) requests for access from the Bush Administration.
- updates to the old FISA law.

While it's easy to claim in hindsight that the telco companies should all have told the Bush Admin. to go to hell when access was requested, I think we should try to remember the post-9/11 mindset for about a year afterward. (Don't forget the Anthrax attack soon after 9/11 as well.) Most people in the know in government were convinced another big terrorist attack was imminent. So in one sense, I can't blame the Telco companies (except Qwest) for rolling over in that environment.

Has there been any evidence that the post-9/11 info obtained by non-FISA wiretapping was used for anything other than real attempts to thwart terrorist attacks? Or is the real problem that "we don't know?" Or is this really an issue with the fact that it lets Bush get away with yet one more thing (since impeachment clearly ain't going to happen)?

As for the second thing (FISA reform), it seems clear to me that the old FISA law indeed needed reform. I have no problem with the retroactive period for seeking a warrant being extended from 3 to 7 days, and I have no problem with communications between two non-US citizens/residents that happen to pass through circuits physically in the United States being tapped without a warrant. What other real problems do people have with the new bill? What safeguards would you have wanted in the FISA bill to satisfy you here or is there nothing you would have wanted passed to reform FISA? Can you point me to some good, non-biased info?

Andrew

"Has there been any evidence that the post-9/11 info obtained by non-FISA wiretapping was used for anything other than real attempts to thwart terrorist attacks?"

Isn't that the whole issue?

Without a court order, there is no oversight and no way of knowing.

For all we know, they were tapping the DNC or whoever they damn well pleased.

Exactly. Give any human free reign and it will be exploited.

So that's it? Nothing specific in the FISA bill really bothers anyone, only a vague fear that the powers will be abused?

Andrew

I've got some stuff, but need some time...

Would love the sanity check!