New proposal on NSA surveillance [DeWine]

Scotusblog ^ | March 16, 2006 | Lyle Denniston

[Cboldt]

Four Republican Senators on Thursday [March 16, 2006] proposed new legislation that would give the President clear authority to authorize electronic surveillance that could reach Americans as part of investigations of suspected terrorists, and to do so without a court order "for periods of up to 45 days" and perhaps longer.

The bill, titled the "Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006," apparently is an effort to fill any gap in authority that may now exist for the President to continue the existing secret program of National Security Agency monitoring of telephone calls and e-mails potentially involving terrorist communications, when the contact includes someone in the U.S.. After the present program was disclosed by The New York Times in December, President Bush and other officials have strongly defended its legality, claiming -- among other arguments -- that no new legislation was necessary.

Even so, the new bill reportedly has the endorsement of the Administration, and has been crafted with official input.

This blog recently discussed the role of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in any such program, and referred to proposed legislation being drafted by Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to have the special FISA Court rule on the constitutionality of the existing program so far as it touches domestic individuals or organizations.

The bill introduced Thursday, with Sen. Mike DeWine, Ohio Republican, as its principal sponsor, is different in significant respects from the Specter proposal. The text of the DeWine bill can be found here. A press release by Sen. DeWine describing the bill is here.

[Cboldt]

So, let's back up ... either we're not at war or the President during war time does not have the inherent authority to monitor enemy communications? I am trying to understand the complexities of this issue as there is so much more heat than light.

I was pointing at what should be an obvious difference. In WWII, Congress passed a law that provided for interception of communications and censorship of the press, and agreed with the President's EO that created an Office of Censorship, therefore Congress didn't question what the President was doing. I think that represents an obvious difference from the way Congress and the President are acting in regards to the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program today, with hearings on the legality, competing statutes, calls for censure, and so forth.

That observation isn't very helpful for understanding the complexities of the issue. I agree, there is more heat than light -- but that's par for FR ;-)

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks.

This might cause a lot of binding in the lower GI tracts of rats across the nation.

[BIGLOOK]

Mornin Dave.

Bothers me that the anti-Bush crowd foolishly assumes the intercepts are of US citizens. Residence does not imply citizenship.

I recently upgraded my cell phone (previously owned a "dinosaur"). All new cell phones are required to have built in GPS; my old one can never be reactivated since it did not. Remember the stories of bulk sales of disposables in the country? Any skinny on whether disposables have a GPS chip?