The controversy surrounding a bill that would amend the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is dividing Congress
and enflaming civil liberties groups.
"I am adamant about protecting the Constitution. They're
giving nothing in return for it. We're not getting any more
security and they're shredding the Constitution," said
U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Second Dist.
The fourth amendment to the Constitution protects Americans
from unreasonable search and seizure, requiring probable cause
for issuing search warrants.
FISA was adopted in the wake of Watergate to protect American
citizens from warrantless wiretapping, while allowing the
government to conduct surveillance of foreigners. Under the
act, wiretapping must be approved by special federal judges
who retain anonymity so they cannot be pressured or influenced
by other members of government. FISA required wiretap seekers
to show probable cause.
(Article continues below)
The Senate recently passed a bill, SB-2248, that updates
FISA for the 21st century. One of the more controversial aspects
of the bill is granting immunity for telecommunications companies
that cooperated with the government after Sept. 11, 2001,
providing information under the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
The new bill is designed to replace a stopgap measure —
the Protect America Act — which lapsed several weeks
ago.
"What shocks me is how members of Congress from Kansas
would so readily give up 230 years of our Constitution without
gaining any additional security," Boyda said.
The Senate bill passed, 68-29, with both Sen. Pat Roberts,
R-Dodge City, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Topeka, supporting
the bill. Of the 29 who objected, all but one were democrats.
"This legislation is of extreme importance to our future
intelligence gathering initiatives," Sen. Roberts said.
"As former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
I understand the implications not passing an updated FISA
Amendments Act has on our efforts in the Global War on Terror."
A knowledgeable source on intelligence issues, who declined
to speak on the record concerning a sensitive topic, said
that current FISA legislation worked, but was not expeditious.
Targets of opportunity were difficult to pursue under current
FISA guidelines.
Full
article here.
