House Passes (Insert Misnomer Here) Bill
The House of Representatives has passed what the media continues to call a "warrantless wiretap" bill. It is not, of course. What the House passed is a bill allowing specific telephone calls to be listened to under specific circumstances. For example if you were to call a known of suspected terrorist outside of the US. Or if said known or suspected terrorist was to call you from outside the US.
That's all.
There are significant provisions for Congressional oversight. There are significant protections for Americans with no ties to terrorists. Yet the fight was fierce.
"The Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies that help keep our nation secure should be of great concern to the American people," Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement after the bill passed 232-191.
"To always have reasons why you just can't vote 'yes,' I think speaks volumes when it comes to which party is better able and more willing to take on the terrorists and defeat them," Boehner said.
Democrats shot back that the war on terrorism shouldn't be fought at the expense of civil and human rights. The bill approved by the House, they argued, gives the president too much power and leaves the law vulnerable to being overturned by a court.
"It is ceding the president's argument that Congress doesn't matter in this area," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., that give legal status under certain conditions to Bush's warrantless wiretapping of calls and e-mails between people on U.S. soil making calls or sending e-mails and those in other countries.
Under the measure, the president would be authorized to conduct such wiretaps if he:
• Notifies the House and Senate intelligence committees and congressional leaders.
• Believes an attack is imminent and later explains the reason and names the individuals and groups involved.
• Renews his certification every 90 days.
We'll have to see what the Senate does here, but it appears unlikely this will get through before November.
Other Links to this Post
-
bRight & Early » First Cup 09.29.06 — Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 6:58 am
By Santay, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 4:21 am
What does renew his certification every 90 days mean? Are they going to have the same fight every three months?
By Jon, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 12:57 pm
This post is confusing. “Warrentless Wiretapping” means you can do wiretapping without a warrent. Your description of the bill indicates that it allows wiretapping without obtaining a warrent. So how is it a misnomer?
By Jon, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Just pretend I didn’t misspell warrant three times in the above post.
By Gaius, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 1:07 pm
No “wiretapping” is involved first - it is signal intel, something actually different. The president has never needed a warrant for overseas signal traffic. What is different here is the extension to a party inside the US. This is where it starts getting very legalistic and the lawyers can argue that part. The question is when is it unreasonable to expect privacy?
I do not think there is any expectation of privacy if you are talking to terrorists.
By Jon, Friday, 29 September , 2006 @ 1:21 pm
Could you explain the difference between wiretapping and signal intel, and how the bill does not cover wiretapping in its definition?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c109:3:./temp/~c109RotI4B:e501:
As far as I can tell, signal intelligence is a broad term that includes wiretapping (both the traditional attach-a-phone-to-a-wire kind, and the modern, electronic kind) and a number of other things like intercepting radio signals.
If this is the case, then you’re still not telling us how this bill isn’t about allowing warrantless wiretapping.
As to your second point, the bill itself says it directly addresses surveillance “under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes”.