- Obama not worried about Ebola at upcoming African summit in D.C.
- Obama: ‘We tortured some folks’ after 9/11
- Obama administration asked whole D.C. Circuit to take on major Obamacare case
- Mark Levin: Topple GOP leadership or country will ‘unravel’
- Massachusetts to let police chief deny gun buys to those deemed unfit
- John Kerry condemns attack on Israeli soldiers, kidnapping
- U.S. starts to evacuate American Ebola patients from West Africa: Report
- Geraldo slammed as ‘dummy’ for backing Clinton’s bin Laden claim
- Israeli spokesman: No need to debate who broke the cease-fire
- 35 Palestinians killed; Israeli officer missing
Renewal of surveillance law set for vote in Senate
Question of the Day
With talks stalled on averting the "fiscal cliff" ahead of Tuesday's deadline, the Senate spent hours Thursday debating whether to renew an antiterrorism measure that has led to warrantless wiretaps of Americans.
The move to extend the nation's foreign surveillance law for another five years raises constitutional, ethical and procedural questions, including why Congress hasn't held a substantive debate on how much the federal government is eavesdropping on its citizens.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was established in 1978 and allows U.S. intelligence agencies to conduct physical and electronic surveillance of foreign terrorist suspects overseas. Americans can get swept up in an investigation if officials think they're in contact with a suspected terrorist.
The Senate has scheduled a Friday vote to renew the law, which was extended in 2008 after being updated and called the FISA Amendments Act.
The White House has pressed for a "clean" reauthorization without any amendments before the law expires on Tuesday.
The measure says intelligence officials can't intentionally target a specific American, nor intentionally acquire communications that are "known at the time of acquisition" to be wholly domestic.
But critics say the law leaves plenty of room for circumstances in which Americans' phone calls and emails — including those that are purely domestic in nature — can be caught up and reviewed without a warrant.
Critics say Americans may be unaware a friend or family member they have communicated with has been targeted by intelligence agents as a suspected terrorist. They add the law threatens constitutional privacy rights because intelligence officials can eavesdrop on them without a warrant.
"A right to private communications, free from the prying eyes and ears of the government, should be the rule, not the exception for American citizens on American soil, whom law enforcement has no reason to suspect of wrongdoing," said Sen. Chris Coons, Delaware Democrat.
Sen. Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, a leading opponent of extending FISA without significant changes, said intelligence agencies don't know how many American communications they have collected under FISA. And he said there is nothing in the law that prevents government officials from sifting through their piles of communications and deliberately searching for the phone calls or emails of a specific American, even if they don't have evidence the person is involved in nefarious activity.
"This loophole in the law allows government officials to make an end-run around traditional warrant requirements and conduct 'back-door searches' for Americans' communications," Mr. Wyden said.
But supporters of the measure say weakening of FISA would handcuff the intelligence community and compromise national security.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, says there already is "vigorous oversight" of intelligence-gathering techniques built into the law.
"I'm fully satisfied that the [FISA Amendments Act] is working exactly as intended and in a manner that protects our rights as Americans," Mr. Chambliss said.
The Senate on Thursday defeated three proposed substitutes to the law, including one by Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, that called for extending Fourth Amendment guarantees of privacy to electronic communications.
"To discount or to dilute the Fourth Amendment would be to deny really what constitutes our very republic," he said.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
Sean Lengell covers Congress and national politics and can be reached at email@example.com.
- GOP tests Democrats on college loan issue
- Lawmakers outside intelligence loop get miffed about briefing structure in Congress
- John Boehner: Time is right to bring latest farm bill to House floor
- Supreme Court nears rulings on key voting rights cases
- N.J. Gov. Christie picks state A.G. to fill U.S. Senate seat
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
By Orrin G. Hatch
Procedural changes impede the chamber's traditional deliberative function
- U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas
- Border agents cleared of civil rights complaints from illegal immigrant children
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Ben Carson takes major step toward presidential campaign
- Porn-surfing feds blame boredom, lack of work for misbehavior
- Pentagon wants extra $19M to equip, train Ukrainian troops
- 'Big Bang' star Mayim Bialik helps send bulletproof vests to IDF
- Feds raid S.C. home to seize Land Rover in EPA emission-control crackdown
- Australia issues arrest warrant for men believed to be homegrown ISIL terrorists
- Iraq Christians get meeting with top Obama aide
Top 10 U.S. military helicopters
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors