Excluding the immunity provision, what parts of the new FISA bill are in violation of the 4th?

[onetwo]

Which parts of this newest compromise are still in violation of the Constitution?

[MannyGoldstein]

1. I'm Not Finding Answers To This Either

Perhaps we should read the bill.

[KittyWampus]

5. WTF? And make INFORMED COMMENTS? Before bitching, moaning and gnashing teeth?

that's not how reactionary screaming works.

[madfloridian]

12. Here is the ACLU complete FISA page....

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/fisa.html

Plus constitutional litigator Glenn Greenwald at Salon is really on top of it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

They sold our freedoms and will keep us from holding Bush accountable.

[Crabby Appleton]

2. Link to H.R. 6304 - hope the link works OK

gpo.gov links don't always work properly

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6304eh.txt.pdf

[Warren Stupidity]

3. google aclu fisa

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35740prs20080620.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/35726prs20080619.html

and detailed comments on the house version:
H.R. 6304, THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 (6/19/2008)

The ACLU recommends a no vote on H.R. 6304, which grants sweeping wiretapping authority to the government with little court oversight and ensures the dismissal of all pending cases against the telecommunication companies. Most importantly:

• H.R. 6304 permits the government to conduct mass, untargeted surveillance of all communications coming into and out of the United States, without any individualized review, and without any finding of wrongdoing.

• H.R. 6304 permits only minimal court oversight. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) only reviews general procedures for targeting and minimizing the use of information that is collected. The court may not know who, what or where will actually be tapped.

• H.R. 6304 contains a general ban on reverse targeting. However, it lacks stronger language that was contained in prior House bills that included clear statutory directives about when the government should return to the FISA court and obtain an individualized order if it wants to continue listening to a US person’s communications.

• H.R.6304 contains an “exigent” circumstance loophole that thwarts the prior judicial review requirement. The bill permits the government to start a spying program and wait to go to court for up to 7 days every time “intelligence important to the national security of the US may be lost or not timely acquired.” By definition, court applications take time and will delay the collection of information. It is highly unlikely there is a situation where this exception doesn’t swallow the rule.

• H.R. 6304 further trivializes court review by explicitly permitting the government to continue surveillance programs even if the application is denied by the court. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever it gathered in the meantime.

• H.R. 6304 ensures the dismissal of all cases pending against the telecommunication companies that facilitated the warrantless wiretapping programs over the last 7 years. The test in the bill is not whether the government certifications were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that they were, all the cases seeking to find out what these companies and the government did with our communications will be killed.

• Members of Congress not on Judiciary or Intelligence Committees are NOT guaranteed access to reports from the Attorney General, Director of National Intelligence, and Inspector General.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/35731res20080619.html

[uponit7771]

7. Yeap, The word "exigent" explains the whole issue of why people who love the constitution are agains

...the new bill.

I pray Obama does the right thing

[KittyWampus]

9. Okay, I can support (reluctantly) the first several provisions. It has to do with networks

and patterns which make sense in counter-terrorism.

I can't support allowing Immunity, allowing continuance even if denied by court, keeping Congress in the dark

[dailykoff]

4. All of it.

Seriously, the whole point of FISA in the first place was to relieve federal agents of the burden of complying with the fourth amendment, which has a very fulsome description of search and surveillance requirements:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[KittyWampus]

6. you are totally wrong. FISA is about obtaining warrants with probable cause but on short notice

or retroactively.

[uponit7771]

8. That was the OLD FISA not the one that's being presented, read ACLU responses

[KittyWampus]

10. the poster I responded to implies FISA in its entirety is Unconstitutional. I just finally read the

provisions in the latest FISA Bill and have to say I can reluctantly see the need for the first several provisions in screening networks and detecting patterns of communication.

It's the provisions that allow wiretapping to continue even after court denies them and then says Congress can be kept in the dark that seem egregious.

[MyNameGoesHere]

11. You're right it says right there in the constitution that if it's inconvenient that it can be bypass

Oh wait maybe it is written in invisible ink, you know like that national treasure movie.

[Eric J in MN]

13. It stops state governments from investigating what is going on....

...which makes it a lot easier for companies to hand out information without a warrant:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3494933