Specter Offers Meaningless Changes To FISA Bill

Sham Specter Bill is ready.

[ Bill Tracking H.R. 5825: Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act]

* * *

Issues

Idiot boy Specter, along with his poodle friends in the RNC-DNC cabal, have crafted quite a doozie. A New Constitution would make this bill sufficient evidence to launch an independent inquiry by the States to impeach this Senator for having failed to protect the Constitution.

Consider the defects of the bill, all fail to credibly remedy the defects of the Congressional oversight, or the Secret Executive Orders this President issues. Even a change in Congressional leadership would do nothing about these violations as it relates to issues of impeachment and Presidential criminal conduct. "Oh, we aren't going to look at those illegal acts, it might get too close to the President. We don't want to offend anyone." Lazy Congressional staffers. How do you credibly justify living in the VA-MD area, knowing each mortgage payment you make is related to income related to your offensive, disruptive, incompetent refusal to fully assert your oath of office. Contemptible Congressional Staff Counsel.

* * *

Problems with Specter's FISA Trash-Bill:

(1) Illegal Change to Construction

The bill illegally Amends the Constitution. Permitting the Government to engage in surveillance, even if Americans are involved, ignores the warrant requirement-problem.

(2) Changes do not address President's illegal conduct

Even if the new 168-hour deadline were approved, the US government would still be in violation. There is a 15-day provision, which the US government ignored.

(3) "New" procedures already ignored

Adding lawyers and judges to the oversight program is meaningless. The existing FISA court, despite having judges and lawyers, was ignored and circumvented. Gonzalez is already required to provide things in writing, but hasn't; making a new requirement to do what he doesn't do is meaningless. The law hasn't been enforced. This bill is worthless.

(4) Imposes Reporting Requirements ignored, not enforced

The Attorney General is already required to report annual reports to Congress, but isn't doing that. Making a new requirement, on top of what the lazy Congress refuses to investigate is meaningless. By refusing the investigate the President's illegal conduct, both parties have refused to effectively enforce the law, or compel prosecutions.

(5) Illegal Legislative Assertion of Judicial Power Ref

Specter makes no credible case as to why the Supreme Court should or should not review an issue. This essentially makes the Supreme Court a required step, not something that the Legislature can compel: Prejudges whether something is or is not suitable for appeal. This is outside Congress' powers, and an unlawful assertion of Judicial Power.

* * *

"SPECIFIC PLACE NOT REQUIRED" It's not reasonable not to specify the place to search. This violates the Constitution.

Permitting security-retention procedures, without court oversight is meaningless. Needs to be subject to FISA court review, not something the AG can independently certify or do.

Non-sense to give AG power to "compel" anyone to do something; the AG hasn't followed the law as it is. What about situations where the AG refuses to go to court to get the order? Find some other lackeys to comply with illegal searches. The certification from the US Government is meaningless. The AG lies. Get over it.

AG needs to make a case that, despite his illegal activity, his requests for approval are not frivolous. This bill offers nothing new to impose sanctions on the AG for lying to, or ignoring, the FISA court, as the FBI agents have done.

Liability. Should not be able to grant blanket immunity to liability for illegal activity. Contactors can play stupid, this bill permits the General Counsel to play dumb on matters he should challenge. Not prudent.

"Lawful purposes" is broadly defined to mean anything that may or may no the legal. This is absurd.

What will prevent "privileged information" not being used to "find" other information that is "non provided". No answer.

The bill provides no timely method to have the illegally-obtained information suppressed. Burden should be on the government, not the target to get around to discovering their rights have been violated.

Bill fails to state how State AG's, when they gather evidence of Presidential misconduct, how the Supreme Court will review the indictments against the President.

Rather than exclude evidence, the Government should bear the burden to show why the evidence should be introduced; burden should be on the govt to prove the information was lawfully acquired, not on the victim to prove it was illegally acquired. The bill doesn’t' permit the public access t procedures to prove that the acquisition was or was not lawful or consistent with policy. Burden should be on the government to show that it was lawfully obtained.

The information, when not attached with a warrant, should be presumed to have been illegally obtained. Burden not on public to prove anything. Once govt fails to obtain the arrant, they may have an exception if it's something serious. This bill does the opposite, shifts the burden of proof.

AG affidavits are worthless.

useless to have district courts binding on all courts; but then give the US government the right to go on endless appeals. This is wholly at odds with the government's burden of proof. Three times the govt gets to craft new lies. Americans' government is not legitimate.

"Potential attack" could mean anything. Conversely, why isn't there a "preemptive government oversight doctrine" that allows We the Pele to lawfully target US officials who are abusing powers?

"What information is used to determine that there is a potential attack?" -- How does this square with the unanswered questions from the ticking time bomb scenario? No answer.

AG emergencies, even if warranted, do not explain the failures of the AG between 2001 and 2006 to act. The new bill doesn't immunize him from the abuses he's let happen.

AG can make a rule that says the information can be used, despite the promises not to enter it. That is non-sense. Is "non-serous bodily harm" permissible, and does not require a waiver? This is baloney, just like the Geneva exceptions in the Bybee Memo.

"Communication" as redefined could mean anything: Speculative assumptions of communication despite nothing there.

Senate notifications haven't been followed or enforced. Requirements of what the AG should or shouldn't do are meaningless. Need documentation on why AG hasn't submitted the Title 28 violation/exception reports.

Consultations with Ranking Members are meaningless: The AG and others can ignore them if this is illegally done in secret.

"Bipartisan basis" is a load of non-sense. What does this mean? Could mean anything that violates the House rules, as the RNC has done.

Need requirements for Intelligence Committee to consult with legal counsel; and the option for them to discuss issues, without gag orders. Why is this bill being proposed without reviewing what is wrong?

Should have SHALL inform, and make the report a requirement to the committee. Discretion is not followed.

Section 10 immunities are too broad. Need to have some meaningful sanction on these who violate the law. Section illegally grants blanket immunity to those who have already violated the law after Sept 2001. This is illegal, retroactive, and unlawful. Should have followed the law the first time, not rely on this bill for immunity, like the Military Commissions Bill.

It's nonsense to grant immunity on issues which have not been independently examined, and the real issues related to 9-11 have been buried.

No adequate provisions if the NSA personnel do not file a correct report to Congress; or there are gaps; or they have defined something as "nonreportable" when it should be

Armed attack after 90: Should change it from authorization to a request. President cannot authorize illegal activity; Congress may approve that. However, this provision doesn't explain the pre-Sept 2001 monitoring. Not a good solution.

Baloney on physical searches for 90 days. This effectively lets POTUS permit an attack, then use that pretext to go on a rampage. Baloney.

baloney: The US was already monitoring prior to 9-11; changing whether they do or do not monitor after an attack is meaningless. We have yet to understand what failed prior to the attack. Monitoring of the US government should increase after the attack: What happened, and where are the US officials destroying evidence to keep their jobs?

POTUS already not complying with law; he didn't follow law prior to 9-11; no reason to believe he'll follow notification requirements. Even if violated, Congress isn't looking at the issue.

"Reasonable belief" == on what basis? This is absurd. You’re just making up non-sense to make "anything we believe" as the basis to act. No. You need something more than just a belief. Time to turn this monitoring system the US government.

AG can't approve the Presidential order; that has to come from Congress.

AG hasn't complied with Title 28 reporting requirements; on reason to expect he'll comply with this.

"reasons for believing" could be fantasy. Why not debate or discussion or independent review of his assertion; and what happened prior to the attack? "Hay, whatever you want. . ."

No: Can't use illegally captured information to start new surveillance. That requires another court review: Why are you violating the law; and is there a real problem or a fishing trip.

"Basis to believe" needs to be an affidavit for the court to review, not an assertion to the legislature. Get the third branch involved.

"Imminent threat of attack" -- how do you know this? If you've interested this, then the people involved are connected to something that is real, so why no specific targeting?

Five-day time limits (new ones) are meaningless: AG has ignored longer deadlines.

Will the Committee Counsel be given the access to the classified data; or is it the aim of the AG to use the classification not prevent DOJ OPR from reviewing illegal surveillance?

"imminent threat" -- same nonsense as "imminent problem in Iraq." Major credibility problem. AG could believe anything. Courts need to challenge his, especially when he's lied.

Sec 113. SUBSEQUENT CERTIFICATIONS -- Change MAY SUBMIT to SHALL SUBMIT. President cannot authorize something that changes monitoring, but provide no notice, or do son on a discretionary basis. Must be SHALL.

Information "may" be foreign intelligence That's meaningless. Needs to be specific, not "may be related."

MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES -- this gives AG the power to approve POTUS illegal activity. No. Not allowed. Congress and Courts need to be involved, not just the AG.

Need sanctions for false AG certifications; or failures to certify; or his failure to notify as required. Change MAY to SHALL impose sanctions.

DOJ AG cannot explain why he failed to comply with previous requirements: DOJ Staff counsel goofing off. Where is the money going to come from to comply with these new requirements, and ensure the DOJ Staff is complying with this, not creating new excuses to ignore requirements?

Need sanctions if Congressional leadership not notified. Can't put gag orders on them to prevent them from discussing issues with counsel.

* * *

Investigate the President, and Impeach!

Where is the House Judiciary Committee status report from the contractors of the progress of their Mar 2007 report on the effectiveness of the committee in investigating the President's violations of the law?

We need some answers:

___ When will the report be made public

___ What is the timeline to produce and finalize the report

___ Discuss the range of comments, issues, and concerns related to the recent decision not to investigate the President

___ How will a decision of the Committee not to investigate the President be reflected in the report

___ Please discuss how the "focus on Iraq" is going to distract your staff resources from this contract effort and ability to meet the deadline

___ Have appropriate staff been allocated to meet the March 2007 deadline

___ Please discuss the staff questions, issues, and comments raised on legal questions the Committee will not put the President or his legal counsel;

___ Please discuss whether your staff has raised any issues or concerns with inconsistencies in how the Committee staff is or is not disciplined; and how the President is or is not reviewed

___ Please include in your response a copy of the descriptive summary related to this work effort: Which descriptive summaries does your staff review; please include a list of the numbers, budget items, and other documents your staff reviews. Please include a summary table no more than three pages which includes the name of the major projects of concern, and other legal issues your staff plans to raise in the report.

___ By name, who is the program manager in the DOJ and Congress assigned to oversee these various data collection efforts to finalize the report, and meet the March 2007 deadline

___ How many man-hours have the contractors expended on this contact effort to meet the deadline of March 2007?

___ Does the Chairman anticipate any problems with fully disclosing whether the Committee has or has not been able to document the staff progress in monitoring the President?

Other questions, which We the People need answers to, right now.