Michael B. Mukasey: A FISA fix

[babylonsister]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-mukasey12dec12,0,238086.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

A FISA fix
By Michael B. Mukasey
December 12, 2007


One of the most critical matters facing Congress is the need to enact long-term legislation updating our nation's foreign intelligence surveillance laws. Intercepting the communications of terrorists and other intelligence targets has given us crucial insights into the intentions of our adversaries and has helped us to detect and prevent terrorist attacks.

snip//

The Senate Intelligence Committee's bill is not perfect, and it contains provisions that I hope will be improved. However, it would achieve two important objectives. First, it would keep the intelligence gaps closed by ensuring that individual court orders are not required to direct surveillance at foreign targets overseas.

Second, it would provide protections from lawsuits for telecommunications companies that have been sued simply because they are believed to have assisted our intelligence agencies after the 9/11 attacks. The bill does not, as some have suggested, provide blanket immunity for those companies. Instead, a lawsuit would be dismissed only in cases in which the attorney general certified to the court either that a company did not provide assistance to the government or that a company had received a written request indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful.

It is unfair to force such companies to face the possibility of massive judgments and litigation costs, and allowing these lawsuits to proceed also risks disclosure of our country's intelligence capabilities to our enemies. Moreover, in the future we will need the full-hearted help of private companies in our intelligence activities; we cannot expect such cooperation to be forthcoming if we do not support companies that have helped us in the past.

The bill that came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee was carefully crafted and is a good starting point for legislation. Unfortunately, there are two other versions of the bill being considered that do not accomplish the two key objectives. The House of Representatives recently passed a version that would significantly weaken the Protect America Act by, among other things, requiring individual court orders to target people overseas in order to acquire certain types of foreign intelligence information. Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee made significant amendments to the Senate Intelligence Committee's bill that would have the collective effect of weakening the government's ability to effectively surveil intelligence targets abroad.

Moreover, neither the House bill nor the Senate Judiciary Committee's version addresses protection for companies that face massive liability. Both the Senate Judiciary Committee amendments and the House bill passed largely on party lines, and the full Senate will be debating this issue shortly.

Congress must choose how to correct critical shortcomings in our foreign intelligence surveillance laws. It is a time for urgency: The Protect America Act expires in just two months, and we cannot afford to allow dangerous gaps in our intelligence capabilities to reopen. But this is also a time of opportunity, when we can set aside political differences to develop a long-term, bipartisan solution to widely recognized deficiencies in our national security laws. When Congress returns to this challenge, it should continue on the course charted by the Senate Intelligence Committee.


Michael B. Mukasey is the attorney general of the United States.

[atreides1]

1. Send those thank you notes

Let's not forget to send those thank you notes to Feinstein and Schumer, for giving us the white version of Gonzo!!!!

[Solly Mack]

2. This is a tasty little morsel (not that I didn't already know it)

The bill does not, as some have suggested, provide blanket immunity for those companies. Instead, a lawsuit would be dismissed only in cases in which the attorney general certified to the court either that a company did not provide assistance to the government or that a company had received a written request indicating that the activity was authorized by the president and determined to be lawful.

In other words - if the President does it, it's legal.

I'm still waiting on all that integrity and independence some in Congress claimed Mukasey would bring to the DOJ

[ProgressiveFool]

3. scumbag Mukasey - this alone should have made him ineligible to be AG

Sort of fun, though, that we get to co-opt a favorite phrase of right wingnuts, now: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

Love the way Mucusey sounds all high-minded in the opening parts and then just sort of says "Oh, by the way, we really need to issue a blanket pardon to these companies that helped us break the law," which is really the whole point of his piece.

[babylonsister]

4. Yes, that was the point. At least we know where he stands and I'm

pretty sure no one on DU will be the least bit surprised. I wonder if Schumer/Feinstein are? Or embarrassed? contrite?? NAH!

[Mojorabbit]

5. I wrote a letter to the editor

in response and feel a bit uneasy doing it. I can't believe it has come to this, that I would be worried about retaliation for expressing my opinion in the USA.

[babylonsister]

6. Isn't that sad we've come to feel such distrust?

Look at it this way; they could be monitoring our phone calls, internet activity, etc., so depending on what's being monitored, we're screwn either way.

I'm glad you wrote a letter and I hope you feel better for doing so.

[L. Coyote]

7. The AG of the USA is advocating throwing the Law in the Trash! Sooo BUSH JUNTA

If the AG does not respect the law, it really is time to Impeach Bush and Cheney on the same day!

[countryjake]

8. kick & recommend

[bonito]

9. Just saw that

At no quarter, along with some other enlightening subjects.