Home > The Barr Code > Archives > 2008 > March > 12 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USCast wary eye on surveillance efforts
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
It’s become a cottage industry —- scaring the bejesus out of the citizenry in an effort to push U.S. House members into following the example of their Senate counterparts and pass legislation giving the administration legal authority to secretly surveil phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens in this country without court approval.
Surveillance advocates from President Bush on down are disingenuously mischaracterizing the law —- and the already vast power of the government to gather intelligence information electronically —- in order to gain the votes needed to send such legislation to the president for signature.
To set the record straight, here are some key points concerning the surveillance powers of government —- current and desired:
Q. Despite the fact that the House has not yet caved to the president and the Senate and permanently expanded the power of the government to surreptitiously surveil Americans’ international calls and e-mails, is our government still able to conduct necessary foreign intelligence surveillance?
A. Yes. The sky has not fallen and will not fall. The government has had and continues to have robust power and lawful authority to monitor calls and e-mails of known or suspected terrorists.
Q. As an American citizen within the United States, aren’t my calls and e-mails protected against the government listening in, unless the government suspects me of unlawful activity, including working with or communicating with terrorists?
A. Such calls should be, and are, protected against warrantless surveillance by the 30-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. However, under the “Protect America Act,” in effect from August 2007 until the middle of February of this year, the government was given vastly expanded power to listen in to any of your calls or e-mails, so long as a government official “reasonably believed” one party was outside the United States. In other words, any call you made with or e-mail you sent to, someone in another country —- a friend, a relative, a business associate or anyone else —- could be monitored by the government without any suspicion you were doing something wrong or that you were conspiring with a member of al-Qaida.
Q. Is the government listening in on my calls regardless?
A. Probably. Even though FISA requires the government to first get a court order to listen in to your calls, this administration claims it has the inherent right to ignore the law and eavesdrop on Americans’ calls anyway.
Q. Don’t we want the government to be able to listen in to calls if a terrorist overseas is talking to someone in this country?
A. Of course; and the government can already do that.
Q. Why should people overseas have the same protections against the government monitoring their conversations as U.S. citizens inside the United States?
A. They don’t, and they shouldn’t have. This is one of the big lies the administration is pushing. Protections against warrantless surveillance that properly extend to Americans within the United States do not extend to persons overseas. In other words, the government can listen in to conversations taking place outside the U.S., regardless of whether the House adopts the same expansive legislation already passed by the Senate.
Q. But wasn’t there a problem with a secret court decision last year restricting the government’s ability to listen in to persons overseas?
A. Yes, and that problem should be addressed legislatively. Calls between two persons not in the U.S. that happen to be routed through a switching station inside the United States should not be subject to the warrant requirements of FISA just because they were routed thusly. However, that problem can be resolved very easily by a specific and limited change to FISA —- a change that does not require the vast expansion of surveillance powers sought by the administration.
Q. What about this question of granting telecommunications companies immunity for disclosing their customers’ private calling information to the government without proper authority?
A. Companies, just like individuals, should not violate the law, regardless of their motivation. Legislation allowing companies to violate the law just because a government official asks them to would set a terrible precedent we would come to regret mightily.
Q. Finally, are those House members who are raising questions about the expanded powers the administration is seeking doing so for partisan reasons?
A. No. The objections they have raised are principled and reflect important, nonpartisan values: respect for the Fourth Amendment, limits on executive-branch power and fundamental privacy concerns.
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By Martin
March 12, 2008 6:47 AM | Link to this
Normally I don’t agree with Bob on much but his stance on privacy/searches/surveillance is one I absolutely support.
The federal government has all the tools it needs to combat crime and terrorism. There is no driver - other than a incessant desire for more and more power - for this legislation.
And as far as retroactive immunity for the telcoms? To paraphrase a poster “If You Can’t Do The Time - Don’t Do The Crime”… All the telecoms involved got paid BIG bucks to facilitate the spying on citizens that has occured. They knew what they were doing was wrong but chose to do it anyway. Immunity would be a travesty.
By Ron
March 12, 2008 7:32 AM | Link to this
If the government is curtailing liberties because of the Islamists,as they state,then the Islamists have won a resounding victory in the U.S.I have sort of gotten used to the fact that every police person in thre contry looks at me as if I were a mass murderer,but it will take some time getting used to the fact that everyone in government sees me as a suspected terrorist.The fact that every department store you enter treats you like a common thief is carried over to the government treating you as a terrorist.The mindset is that no one except them can be trusted.The bad part is that there is more coming.Lots more.
By Ben Franklin
March 12, 2008 7:48 AM | Link to this
Any people who would surrender liberty in order to gain security will have neither; and deserve neither.
By suddenlylibertarian
March 12, 2008 7:53 AM | Link to this
Apparently no one paid attention to Bush in 2000 before he was elected when he stated this country would be easier to run as a dictatorship and he the dictator. Well, welcome to the slippery slope of dictatorship. If anyone thinks that the government is not using warrentless wiretaps to listen to more than suspected terrorists I have a bridge for you in Brooklyn, cheap.
By vaporland
March 12, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this
Kudos to Barr for pointing out the Bush Administration’s attempt to manipulate public opinion by the use of fear mongering.
My heartfelt thanks goes to my Congressional representatives who had the guts to stand up to Bush’s bullying.
And I have nothing but scorn for the Senators who were cowardly enough to capitulate.
I don’t care which party you were in - you’re NOT getting my vote next time, JIM WEBB.
By Kathy
March 12, 2008 7:58 AM | Link to this
I can’t help but wonder just how much freedom we’d lose if there was a major islamic attack in this country. Perhaps the freedom to live?
By Copyleft
March 12, 2008 8:01 AM | Link to this
Some things are worth dying for, Kathy—and freedom is one of them. Just ask the Revolutionary army.
By Gene Emmons
March 12, 2008 8:06 AM | Link to this
Re immunity - spoken by someone who was never successfully employed in a business which required risk of capital and employed good folks and paid dividends to good folks. How the hell would you replace the phone companies? Duh. gene, Longmont, CO
By suddenlylibertarian
March 12, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this
Kathy, how do you plan to prevent it? Bomb Canada. The government already has the power thorough FISA to wiretap. It doesn’t need unlimited power unless you want a country like the old USSR where people can be jailed at the will of the government for no crime, just disagreement. People like you are the biggest danger to this country…cowards who trade their rights for their “safety”…until they are the ones in jail for nothing.
By Kathy
March 12, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
Freedom is absolutely worth fighting for. Laying down arms and strategies such as surveillance abilities isn’t what I’d call fighting.
By vaporland
March 12, 2008 8:15 AM | Link to this
@Kathy,
Life is not without risk. The former Soviet Union was a very safe place to live, unless you wanted to speak your mind.
Be glad the founding fathers didn’t just say “It would be a lot safer to just go along with what England wants - let’s forget this whole American Republic business and do what King George says”
And yes, we would lose a LOT of freedoms if any terror group attacked, because “King George Bush II” would use it as an excuse to roll up all of our liberties and lock up all of the dissident factions.
Stop watching the nightly news and listening to your Senator - they’re just trying to scare you into submission.
By GoEasy
March 12, 2008 8:16 AM | Link to this
I got news for you….. I worked for the telecom giants for over 30 years in the US. They have always had equipement to monitor, trace and identify any calls they wanted..not so much to protect the security of the US but to protect the companies possible loss of revenue from theft by customers or non customers. Ex…One guy was paying for dozens of so called low cost conditioned circuits for alarms then reselling them as a high speed data nail up internet to his servers to other people for more money…. and there were many others.. as far as I can remember the telcos always had someway of storing calls to include some hugh recording tapes of everything that came in and went out of their c.o.s at most switching offices. So some wiretapping has been around for a long time..with or without warrants…it was called history monitoring troubleshooting.. and now with all the high tech in telecommunications a person can sit at home, to pin point a narrow search, set up a protocol anaylzer on a pc or unit, monitor a series of telephone numbers, filter what you want the unit to capture, give out an alarm, it can record, save, print etc the filter and wala it’s done it for you..thats if you have access to the local switch. Most telco switches have had this capbilty for years. The internet is monitored by the provider and they do store digitally all your incoming and outgoing hits with ease. Same thing with cell phones, which all use a two way channel, trans-rec..most calls all go through a landline switch but not all of them do. Some do manage to route away from landline switching.
By Copyleft
March 12, 2008 8:25 AM | Link to this
Freedom involves risk. If you want freedom, you accept the risk.
Lately, it seems that more Americans are remembering that freedom is a good thing. I guess we’re just “forgetting 9/11,” right?
By Ryan
March 12, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
I like this article. I think the only reason they want the bill passed is to make companies immune to lawsuite. You think customer service is bad now wait until they have immunity. I also wonder who is paying for those adds about how the united states is unprotected because the congress won’t vote for this bill. I hope it’s not tax payer money
By Neil Jensen
March 12, 2008 8:36 AM | Link to this
I have spent a lifetime trying to understand how the intelligent and progressive German nation could be taken over by the handful of fanatics and pyschotics that ran the National Socialist Party along with Hitler, always believing our Constitution prevented that kind of thing from ever happening here. The lesson we must learn from the Bush Administration is that it ain’t necessarily so.
By Neil Jensen
March 12, 2008 8:37 AM | Link to this
I have spent a lifetime trying to understand how the intelligent and progressive German nation could be taken over by the handful of fanatics and pyschotics that ran the National Socialist Party along with Hitler, always believing our Constitution prevented that kind of thing from ever happening here. The lesson we must learn from the Bush Administration is that it ain’t necessarily so.
By airheadmotorcycle
March 12, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this
Oh my gawd, I agree with Mr. Barr on something! I better reexamine my views.
Seriously, this is an important issue that the trembling masses are falling for hook, line and sinker. Do not trust this administration or any administration with your freedoms.
Our forefathers were skeptical of government. Now citizens like Kathy trust government enough to give them control over our privacy in the name of security; soon we will have neither.
By les
March 12, 2008 8:49 AM | Link to this
Lots in news lately about government surveillance. For example, just consider how the governor of NY was caught because of bank financial tracking, now commonplace and pervasive for all of us, apparently. The only conclusion a rational person can make about all of this is that we are slowly becoming a surveillance police state like the Soviet Union of old.
By Red
March 12, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
I shudder to think what would have happened had we had a more serious attack during the Bush Administration. Bush and Cheney would have used their usurped power to further take away our liberties and the Republican Congress would have followed them like puppy dogs. Fortunately, 9-11 pretty much shot Al Quaida’s wad as far as their ability to carry out such attacks. Bush and his buddies can brag all they want about how they have prevented another attack. It is all too easy to still get into this country and do something spectacular if you have the ability to do it. Keep up the good work Mr. Barr. There are too few who are willing to speak up, even now, about the abuses of our freedoms. There way too many that blindly accept what King George and his people say without questioning. As Neil says it is much easier to understand how Hitler took over after seeing our country for the last 7 years.
By vaporland
March 12, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this
@Kathy,
Read the legislation proposed by the House of Representatives. NOBODY is suggesting that we give up communications monitoring.
What they are suggesting is that its a bad idea for the government to monitor anyone they want with no oversight.
FISA has always allowed for legitimate monitoring - Bush wants unreviewed monitoring - and has been doing just that, in violation of rights that many have fought and died for.
By M.L. Bushman
March 12, 2008 9:05 AM | Link to this
Enough already! I feel like I’m back in the Nixon era. Why does any government spy on their citizens? Because they fear…whether it be an uprising or outright revolt. And the thing they fear most, they bring upon themselves.
M.L. Bushman
By American Sharecropper
March 12, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
When you make a cash transaction in a bank, you are assumed to be a drug dealer (any transaction over an arbitrary amount is subject to government oversight). When you apply for a job, you are assumed to be a criminal. When you drive through any intersection in most American cities, you are assumed to be a scofflaw (surveillance cameras everywhere). When you make an overseas phone call, you are assumed to be a terrorist. The fact is, your government has never trusted you to be anything but a threat. None of these laws, none of the assumptions would have seen the light of day without the full support of both wings of the party of government (Republicratics and Democans)
This is the government that you wanted and continue to vote for
By S. Ray DeRusse
March 12, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this
This is the worst administration I have ever seen in office as I am sure many have. They have been very inept and don’t understand how domestic policy including foriegn policy works. What we don’t understand here is why the Congress cannot or will not curtail his activities. It requires direct conforntation but no is willing to step. up.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/misconduct-planetary.html
By Mitch
March 12, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this
Bob, Once again, you’ve nailed it on the head. Our freedoms & liberties are being eroded by our own government and we are allowing it to happen.
By Chewy
March 12, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this
S. Ray DeRusse, How old are you? 12? Did you not live through the Carter years? Worst in the past 5o years. Maybe all you idiot libs have forgotten but Clinton was famous for using wiretaps on other people. Are your liberties at risk? Is anyone spying on you right now? NO! Unless you are a freaking islamic terrorist you have nothing to worry about.
By Syed Abid
March 12, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
I Settled in this country in 1973.I participated in every election.i was proud to go on and sit on a jury duty Did every civic thing i could do because it felt like i m a real american.Early on i join republican party,supported it with money and words.If bob bar has his list of contributor my name will appear on it.Then came 9/11,everything changed All of a sudden i became a terrorist. My republican brothers coin the word “islamist terrorist”I still talk to my family in old country knowing that somebody listning everything i say and i wonder what happened to us. 200 years of history is just waisted Are we ging to be a religious country like iran or SAudi arabia where government controls everything?Am i going to live in a society which i detested and left for good .What scares me most that people just blame president but this legislation has approval of democrats in senate, without there help it can not be done.With tears in my eyes i left republican party because i do not follow any religion and christian mullahs are running the party.i can not join democrate because they are trying to be good christian and throw everybody else under the bus.
By Syed Abid
March 12, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
I hope somebody like BOB Barr take the charge of this country and give us our liberties and unite us against evry evil.What this country has given me i can not payback .LONG LIVE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
By Copyleft
March 12, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
“The innocent have nothing to hide” is the cliche’ used by enablers of the police state.
Objecting to the government spying on its citizens isn’t done out of a fear of having our criminal activities exposed… it’s done out of an entirely appropriate fear of government power, and its inevitable abuse for political purposes.
By Chewy
March 12, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this
Syed Abid, Are you really and arab american? Or are you just pretending to be? I’ve seen way too many people on these blogs pretending to be someone else. Just curious.
By Ritz
March 12, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
Looks like Chewy swallowed that hook, line and sinker. I lived through the Carter years with my rights intact. I also lived through the Reagan-Bush years when I paid 16 percent mortgage interest (in 1982), watched the government illegally deal with Iran and Nicaragua, and I lived through the Clinton years when a president got impeached for a sex scandal (thanks, Mr. Barr) but we had peace and prosperity. Now with W, we have an economy that’s crashing, a 1,000-year war in Iraq and a government that does indeed want to wiretap my legitimate calls (I’m not a terrorist).
By LT5000
March 12, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this
The salient point in the Q&A.
FISA requires the government to get a court order to listen to your calls
All the rest is crap. The parameters the government operates in are strict and very narrow. Nothing to worry about unless you are doing something wrong. Like Gov. Spitzer.
Now, let’s talk about real danger. Bob Barr teaming up with Al Gore at a MoveOn.org event.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=124779
Or attending an event with Bob Barr and a .38.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/07/national/main517784.shtml
LT5000
By LT5000
March 12, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Here’s another link for you Patriot Act Bashers. Bob Barr would do well to read it.
By the way, anyone remember the 1000+ FBI files in the Clinton White House. That was a real abuse of power.
http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/subs/u_myths.htm
LT5000
By Dusty
March 12, 2008 11:28 AM | Link to this
Well, Mr. Barr, I believe you have already chewed this subject to pieces. You are against anything the Bush Administration does for security..period. Terrorists be damned but not watched or “listened”. That is why the AJC has you writing “editorials”.
Will you be quoting Thomas Jefferson on your next “piece”?
By Chewy
March 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Ritz, So Clinton is the greatest president along with Jimmy? Keep drinking the kool aid. How much is Code Pink and Move On paying you to blog?
By Political Mongrel
March 12, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this
The oath to defend the Constitution taken by many who go into government service has a phrase “from enemies foreign and domestic.” Fighting foreign enemies anyone can understand and agree with. But the more subtle domestic enemies who slowly leach away the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and over 200 years of rule of law, not men, scare me far worse.
Your freedom is in much more danger from “Americans” who use the threat of terrorism as a blind to let a few men get more and more power within the nation than it is from outside forces.
By Ritz
March 12, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
Well, Chewy, I see you can’t read OR understand what you read. I didn’t say Carter and Clinton were the greatest, or even good. Just a whole lot better than what we have now. And attacking the person, and not the position is a tactic often used by Republicans and others who are losing debates. (Irony noted and accepted with my tongue firmly in my cheek.)
By Chewy
March 12, 2008 3:51 PM | Link to this
I can’t read? I see that you can’t understand sarcasm. Besides, hooked on phonics worked well for me. Also, under Clinton I got more welfare than I could ever imagine. Tell the folks at Code Pink hello. And, have fun on your next protest of a Marine recruiting office.
By Tom Hutson
March 12, 2008 4:02 PM | Link to this
George Bush, who took an oath to “defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States” with his hand on the Bible, “so help him God” stated in a meeting with Republican senators “quit throwing that Constitution up in my face, it’s just a G.D. piece of paper” I DARE ANY Bush backer to defend this statement!!!! Bush and Cheney are traitors to the Constitution!!
By Chewy
March 12, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this
Tom Hutson, Don’t remember hearing that. Got any links to this statement? You’d think that if he said that then it would be all over the news. Please post a link.
By Gil
March 12, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this
The only reason Dems want to expose telecoms to lawsuits over cooperation with government security efforts is that trial lawyers stand to make a gazillion dollars suing those companies and donate a hefty chunk to the Democrat Party. During WWII, the major overseas cable companies turmed over to the government copies of all cablegrams sent from the US to overseas locations. No great outcry.
By Tom Hutson
March 12, 2008 4:46 PM | Link to this
I posted some, but evidently the moderator of this site chooses not to allow them to be shown, just google the statement with his name and you will find MANY links to this traitorous statement.
Telecoms knowingly broke the law, what part of this do people not understand? Your Rights are exactly that YOURS! Not the governments to take away…..telecoms make millions upon millions of dollars, do you really think some law suite would hurt them? Appeal Appeal Appeal…
By Paco
March 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this
I didn’t expect to say this any time soon, but well said Mr. Barr. Let’s hope the time for Bush pushing through over-reaching legislation by fear mongering is over. Come on, House, don’t cave to a President with an approval rating in the teens.
I say sue the hell out of the telecoms, they shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place. I’m pretty sure they have a number of well paid attorneys on their staffs to advise them on these kinds of things. If a trial lawyer can get paid because of corporate malfeasance, then so be it. It’s the system we have.
By Copyleft
March 13, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
Right, Gil. The “only reason” we’re not offering special immunity to lawbreakers is so we can make money suing them. Uh-huh. Gotcha.
This has NOTHING to do with protecting our freedoms and punishing those who break the law… trivial stuff like that can’t be a concern in a Time Of War(TM)!
By GoEasy
March 13, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
Ooops..forgot to mention..and all your local American telco’s outsource their service centers to name a few India,Pakistan .and other countries..and especialy Canada where they don’t sound like middle easterners.. all have direct access to your personal information to include your social security number.. and I may inject that none..none of the telco’s ever remove any of your data from their record storage. That is a given…reason..for win backs..and for soliciting..they may even release some of your info to different promoters..without your knowledge.