|
01.26 Local Democrats Invited to Brainstorming Session on Sun., Jan. 31
Ref. : Local Newsbriefs
02.04 'The Power of Nightmares': Underwear vs. Reason
Ref. : Letters to the editor
Video National Health Care Systems In Other Countries
02.03 Drugmaker Got Kickbacks for Nursing Home Patients
01.18 Drugmaker Got Kickbacks for Nursing Home Patients
02.04 Err-America
02.03 The Right Gets Itself 'Wired'
Ref. : The Daily Howler
01.25 Thinking About Fictions
01.24 US Democracy's End of the Road
01.22 Editorial: U.S. Supreme Court Nails Down the Coffin of Democracy
01.22 Security Fools
02.09 Palin, Psy-Ops & 'Condescending' Libs
02.09 Growing Hunger in America
02.08 The US Government has Lost its Reason for Being
02.08 Thinking About Oracles
02.06 No Direction Home: Pakistan and the Imperial Principle
02.04 Howard Zinn and the State of the Union
02.04 The US Supreme Court: Vanguard of Friendly American Fascism?
02.04 The New War Against Money
02.04 David Brooks Goes After Greedy Geezers
02.02 Obama's Budget Ducks Pentagon Cuts
02.02 Budgets, War and Blind Ambition: The Limited Minds of the American Elite
02.01 Thinking About Definitives
02.01 Remembering Howard Zinn (1922 - 2010)
01.29 American History 101: We Are Devo
01.29 Obama's Outreach to Americans: Empty Rhetoric, Business As Usual
01.28 The Supreme Court's Partisanship
01.27 Freeze Frame: Flopsweat and Farce in the Hollow Halls of Power
01.25 Granny D on Campaign Finance Reform
01.25 S.C. Republican’s Plan: Starve the Poor So They’ll Stop “Breeding”
01.23 It's Time for Kucinich, Conyers, Feingold and Other `Progressives' in Congress to Take a Stand
01.21 Massachusetts' Message of Stupid
01.21 Terrorism Defined: Bill Clinton Lights Our Way to Truth
01.21 How Obama Lost His Way
01.21 Political Earthquake Rocks Massachusetts
01.20 Obama Cuts Deal that Will Reduce Social Security, Medicare and all Entitlements
01.20 Critical Mass: Dem Agenda Opens Right-Wing Doors
01.19 Outsourcing War: The Rise of Private Military Contractors
01.25 The Silence and the Shield: Depraved Indifference to the Atrocities of Power
01.19 Dark as a Dungeon: A Brutal System Stripped Bare
02.07 AIG-Gate: The World's Greatest Insurance Heist
02.06 The Free Market Fetish
02.04 The Crisis is Not Over
02.03 States Face Worsening Recession with Health Care Funds on the Chopping Block
02.02 Rule by the Rich
01.29 The Battle of the Titans: JPMorgan vs. Goldman Sachs
01.27 State of the Union: Obama’s “Automatic IRA” Plan Could Make Bush’s Wildest Dreams Come True
01.26 Obama, Read Your Reagan on Capital Gains Taxation
01.24 Funding Public Health Care with a Publicly-Owned Bank: How Canada Did It
01.18 Thinking About Accelerants
02.08 Aafia Siddiqui: Victimized by American Injustic
02.07 Annals of Liberation: Obama Surge Driving Thousands From Their Homes
02.05 Human Rights Abuses in Israel and Occupied Palestine
02.03 Child Slavery in Haiti
01.30 Blood is His Argument: Tony Blair's Gentle Cuddling at Iraq "Inquiry"
01.28 Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning
01.27 Haiti's Earthquake: Natural or Engineered
01.26 Helping Haiti’s Elders
01.26 Focus on Israel: Harvesting Haitian Organs
01.25 Focus on Haiti: Washington's Militarized Takeover
01.22 The Lessons of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions
01.18 Disaster Capitalism Headed to Haiti
COMMENTARY:
New Spy Law Broader Than Thought
Before the Democratic-controlled Congress caved in on George W. Bush’s warrantless-wiretapping powers, White House lawyers slipped in two provisions to give the President even more authority – and less accountability – than he claimed on his own. And the U.S. press corps largely missed that part of the story.The law applies not just to terror suspects abroad who might communicate with Americans at home, but to anyone who is “reasonably believed to be outside the United States” and who might possess “foreign intelligence information,” defined as anything that could be useful to U.S. foreign policy.
Beyond the breathtaking scope of this new authority, the Bush administration also snuck in a clause that grants immunity from lawsuits to communications service providers that comply with spying directives from Gonzales and McConnell.
Before the “Protect America Act” won final approval from Congress on Aug. 4 and was signed into law by Bush on Aug. 5, one of the few safeguards against Bush’s warrantless wiretaps was the concern among service providers that they might be sued by customers for handing over constitutionally protected information without a warrant.
Then, in the chaotic hours before Congress left for its August recess, Democratic leaders allowed the Republican-authored bill to be rushed through the Senate and the House with centrist Democratic votes ensuring passage.
Though getting almost no attention in the U.S. press coverage, the immunity paragraph reads: “Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.”
In other words, U.S. citizens, who believe that warrantless surveillance has violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure, will have no legal recourse against the service provider that collaborated with the government.
This immunity provision is important, too, because the only meaningful safeguard against abuse of the new spying power was that service providers could challenge a wiretap directive through a secret court proceeding.
That process already was weighted heavily in the Bush administration’s favor since the service provider would not know the classified basis for the wiretap directive. That evidence only would be shared ex parte in a secret conference between administration lawyers and the judge.
So, the service provider would have to file a costly lawsuit on behalf of an unknowing customer who might or might not be a legitimate target of government surveillance. In filing the suit, the service provider also risked angering the U.S. government, which often is a major customer with the same service provider.
Now, the new law tilts the scales even further, making the warrantless surveillance legally cost free for a collaborating service provider.
These two features – the expansive wiretap coverage and the immunity provision for service providers – were cited in our Aug. 5 article at Consortiumnews.com. [See “Bush Gets Spying Blank Check.”]
But most major U.S. news outlets, at least initially, followed the lead of the White House in describing the law’s goal as simply tinkering with an outdated law to permit warrantless surveillance of terror suspects communicating with each other overseas (if their conversation went through a U.S. switching station) or to some American.
The Times reported that in late July “the administration lowered its sights, slimming its original 66-page proposal to 11 pages and eliminating some of the controversial plans like broad immunity from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that aided the eavesdropping. …
“By Aug. 2, the two sides seemed relatively close to a deal. Mr. McConnell had agreed to some increased role for the secret [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] court, a step that the administration considered a major concession, the White House and congressional leaders said.
“But that night, the talks broke down. With time running out, the Senate approved a Republican bill … omitting the stronger court oversight” and other “compromises hashed out over the previous few days.” Pressed up against the start of an August recess, the House followed suit. [NYT, Aug. 11, 2007]
In its account, the Washington Post reported that McConnell had objected to Democratic attempts to limit the new surveillance powers to cases in which the overseas communications involved at least one person suspected of terrorism.
“McConnell wanted no such limits,” the Post wrote. “‘All foreign intelligence’ targets in touch with Americans on any topic of interest should be fair game for U.S. spying, he said.” [Washington Post, Aug. 12, 2007]
In other words, the law’s broad language was not an accident; it was intentional and substantive. The Bush administration’s goal was to scoop up any information that might be interesting to the intelligence community, not just what was needed to protect the nation from a terrorist attack.
It’s also unclear what restrictions apply to the year-long surveillance directives if the target enters – or reenters – the United States. Under the law as written, there’s no indication that the service provider must be notified that the 12-month order should be suspended if the target steps onto U.S. territory.
Conceivably, therefore, a directive aimed at an American traveling overseas might stay in effect after the target returned home, with the service provider continuing to give the National Security Agency access to the target’s phone calls and e-mails.
But the Democrats will face the same dilemma that has stymied their attempts to force an end to the Iraq War. The Republicans will be in the driver’s seat because they can filibuster a bill in the Senate, forcing the Democrats to round up 60 votes. Even if a new bill is passed, Bush can veto it, requiring two-thirds majorities in both houses to override.
When the surveillance law expires in February 2008, Republicans will have the leverage of an election year to again frighten Democrats with taunts of “soft on terror.”
The Bush administration also has made clear that it will seek an even more advantageous version, including an amnesty provision that would void lawsuits already filed against service providers “who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,” according to a White House fact sheet.
With the fear card still working on congressional Democrats, President Bush retains hope that he can advance his goal of an all-powerful Commander in Chief, despite political reversals and low opinion polls.
Even with the Democrats in control of the House and Senate, very little appears to have changed in Washington. [For a fuller examination of Bush’s dark vision, see our new book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]
This article is republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.
Republication or redistribution of Baltimore Chronicle content is expressly prohibited without their prior written consent.
This story was published on August 13, 2007.
