by Frank James
If you’re a Democratic lawmaker who wants to make the point that, in your opinion, the Bush Administration has run roughshod over Americans’ civil liberties through its warrantless-surveillance program, and that you intend, legislatively, to make things right, you might call your legislation “The RESTORE ACT,” short for The Responsible Electronic Surveillance that is Overseen, Reviewed, and Effective Act of 2007.
That, in fact, is the name of the bill introduced today by Representatives John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.) chairs of the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, respectively.
The House Democrats’ bill is an effort to counter what they see as flaws in the Protect America Act.
In August, Congress passed the PAA on a temporary, six-month basis, before leaving for its recess as a way to deal with the litany of problems the Bush Administration had with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, or FISA.Among the things the administration couldn’t stand about FISA was this oft-cited classic example: If two terrorist suspects outside the U.S. communicated, perhaps by e-mail or Internet telephony, and their communications, for technical reasons, passed through the U.S., FISA, written as it was in the rotary-phone era, required a warrant from the special FISA court for those communications to be legally obtained.
Too cumbersome. Better to do warrantless surveillance, the administration concluded.
It wasn’t until news reports in May of 2006 disclosed the secret program’s existence that many lawmakers learned of it, and the fact that some large telecommunications companies were making their networks accessible to the National Security Agency, unbeknown to their customers. Since then, the Democrats have made constraining the Bush Administration’s use of warrantless wiretapping a priority.
The Protect America Act was meant to fix the obstacles to the NSA presented by the FISA law. But its critics say it went way too far in the other direction, giving the administration excessive surveillance powers and weakening Americans’ Fourth Amendment protections.
Slate had this very good piece describing the flaws as some critics viewed them in the Protect America Act.
Thus the need, in Democrats’ eyes at least, for the RESTORE Act.
Here’s what Conyers said in a press release:
“I am proud to have introduced the RESTORE Act with Intelligence Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes,” stated Conyers. “Earlier this year, President Bush signed a short-term surveillance law that exposed innocent Americans’ phone calls and emails to warrantless intrusion. Speaker Pelosi immediately asked us to fix this problem and to ensure court oversight while preserving our ability to fight against foreign threats. This bill shows that it is possible to protect civil liberties and fight terrorism at the same time.”
More Top Picks Hp Laserjet Pro M428fdw
In a story today, the New York Times suggested that Democrats were leaning towards extending the PAA out of fear that Republicans would spin opposition to it as the Democrats, once again, being wusses on national security.
But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters over lunch today, including one of the writers of the Times article who was present, that the story was wrong and that Democrats are lining up behind Conyers’ legislation.
Conyers’ bill had no sooner been introduced then it was started drawing criticisms from the right and left.
According to Congressional Quarterly (subscription required):
The new bill immediately drew fire from Republicans, who want a retroactive liability shield for companies that have cooperated with secret government spying since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and from civil libertarians who are unhappy because the measure would not require individual warrants for monitoring international communications to which American citizens in the United States might be a party.