Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and Modified Changes in 2001, 2005, 2007 and 2008

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/goldenrod1960/2013/06/12/what-do-the-fisa-courts-do

I did a radio show tonight on FISA and the history of it which was initiated in 1977.  The information is below.  It has been modified, and regulations loosened following 911 terrorist attacks in 2001.  This was partly due to the definition of a terrorist organization which had to be defined as "non-state actors"...those acting outside the traditional boundaries of the nation-state or identity with a particular nation.  Bush stretched the legal boundaries of the FISA act and now the Obama admin is under heat for doing the same due to leaks by Snowden and the fiasco last week of Verizon allowing the feds to review personal data of customer phone accounts.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by the nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.^[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hoursafter surveillance begins.

Bush administration warrantless domestic wiretapping program

Main article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

The Act came into public prominence in December 2005 following publication by the New York Times of an article^[5] that described a program of warrantless domestic wiretapping ordered by the Bush administration and carried out by the National Security Agency since 2002; a subsequent Bloomberg article^[6] suggested that this may have already begun by June 2000.

Scope and limits

For most purposes, including electronic surveillance and physical searches, "foreign powers" means a foreign government, any faction(s) or foreign governments not substantially composed of U.S. persons, and any entity directed or controlled by a foreign government. §§1801(a)(1)-(3) The definition also includes groups engaged in international terrorism and foreign political organizations. §§1801(a)(4) and (5). The sections of FISA authorizing electronic surveillance and physical searches without a court order specifically exclude their application to groups engaged in international terrorism. See §1802(a)(1) (referring specifically to §1801(a)(1), (2), and (3)).

The statute includes limits on how it may be applied to U.S. persons. A "U.S. person" includes citizens, lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens, and corporations incorporated in the United States.

The code defines "foreign intelligence information" to mean information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential grave attack, sabotage or international terrorism.^[7]

In sum, a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance must be to obtain intelligence in the United States on foreign powers (such as enemy agents or spies) or individuals connected to international terrorist groups. To use Fisa, the goverment must show probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power.  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act established a court of 11 rotating federal judges living around D.C. area.  These judges are the same ones who rule on warrants the gov't seeks in domestic criminal cases.  If we trust them to rule in routine matters, would we not trust them with greater matters?

Unyielding dedication

Yes, I was pulled in again and called the Larry Elder show this a.m. to debate a topic about Reaganomics and Reagan's intent in Nicaragua & El Salvador. I was on hold one hour and 45 minutes an the super nice guy managing the phones promised to get me in. I waited thru endless Reagan jokes which were soft spoken and funny but a bit long winded; Ed Meese's interview (I think he worked for Nixon as a cabinet member during Watergate as well as Reagan). Also Nancy Reagan's archive interview with Larry where she virtually had not a thing interesting to say. Anyways, the media has currently compared Obama to Reagan. In reality, Obama had a dinner where he was brainstorming the success of previous presidents and was curious how Reagan turned over the economy. Despite party, Reagan and Obama have more things in common than not. Both were elected into broken economies except in 1982, there was double digit inflation and the aftermatn of the Oil Crisis and America was on the advent of boom technology. I was a senior in college and graduated in Dec, 1982 and took a job in a bakery after college. Secondly, Obama inherited a two front war. Reagan created a two front covert war basically in response to his fear of Soviet hegemony and influence in Central America. It was noble of Reagan to support Jose Napolean Duarte in his newly elected government in El Salvador but it was not right to oppose the Sandinistas in Nicaragua by supplying arms and traniing. The Somoza family ruled over 30 years in Nicaragua and the Sandinistas were freedom fighters. However, their military style did put citizens in harm's way. If they had solidified their government immediately, they would not have had to attempt reform by force. By Reagan meddling in Central America, it was making another second world country subjected to the Cold War Conflict and not allow their government to achieve their own autonomy. With supply of weapons, it was unfairly balancing and counter-balancing both sides. Anyways, my point is that both Obama and Reagan faced similar problems in America but how they handle the problems will be different for Obama. He does see the institution of nationalized health care as a legitimate policy endeavor. Now Larry Elder may be right in his assertion of the liberal agenda, but it is not for a negative result. After all, is funeling weapons and money into a CIA backed covert war more egalitarian than allowing every citizen access to health care? And Reagan did equal damage to the economy. Trickle down economics only gravitationally trickled up and created yuppiedom, buppiedom and rich bastards who were reckless. Reagan also allowed deregulation and gave the authority for James Watts of the Interior Dept. to deregulate commerce and leased federal lands for oil exploration and the Gulf and other places. I am not saying Reagan is horrible. But being likeable is not enough. His legacy is duel-edged, just like Clintons. Why should our nation keep glorifying past relics. Lets face the problems of today. We can draw from the past but not re-create or use phony statistics to back up our arguments. Elder said once Reagan's economy improved, the media removed his coverage by and large. The media had other things to report like Contra gate, Yuppiedom, Silicon Valley and of course, the new found fame of Madonna Ciconne.

Why democracy in Iraq cannot be achieved

and why certain radio pundits have to defend our invasion of Iraq is not palatable:

American exceptionalism is not just the exchange of natural rights for civil rights based on the Consent of the Governed by Locke, Rosseau and Hobbes. It was purported by Louis Hartz that democracy could exist in America due to lack of class division, consensus of the same goals, religious commitment and desire for limited government. It also means that because of this unique conditional environment, America was proper breeding ground for philosophical government based on consent and protection of freedoms where a higher devotion was to God, not civility. Secondly, even with your defense of Bush, our invasion of Iraq was a sovereign invasion of a foreign nation which caused regional shift of power in the Middle East. The Conditions of democracy were not ample in Iraq to exist even after our long occupation. A civil society was not established, there were not solid civil institutions to uphold (the civil society must be ready and willing to commit and invest in new government -not by force), the people were bound by an obedience to Islamic theocratic government which will not change with shift of power. Islam factions will still be in competition because Saddam rewarded the Sunnis over the Shias. Our occupation and false authority is similar to colonization and until a stable economy with direct benefits is manifested and consistent over time, it won't work.