FISA revisited ...

Per my post in 2005 about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Congress is currently considering several amendments (this is one, for example) to this act that would allow, among other things, the NSA to listen in on domestic phone calls that are to or from a foreign country without a warrant. The current law requires that a warrant be obtained from a special court. In many cases, a warrant can be obtained retroactive to the surveillance, when such a need is proven. The court works quickly, and there is no need to by-pass this law. There may be need for inclusion of other forms of communication, although I believe these amendments have already been made as part of the USA Patriot ACT.

One of the troubling considerations under some of the current bill's forms, is the immunity of litigation to US telecommunication companies that may have allowed the government to listen in on phone calls and emails of US citizens without a warrant, or may have provided phone records of US citizens, also without a warrant. This attempt to run an end around on the constitution is scary and troubling, to say the very least.

While I was searching for some information, I came across this quote on the right-wing Heritage Foundation web site.

Everybody agrees the 1978 act is hopelessly out of debate, but those on the left always gloss over why, instead scaring their followers with stories about how the Bush Administration is reading everyone’s email and listening to everyone’s phone calls. A quick review of the known facts demonstrates why the bi-partisan FISA changes ought to be passed by Congress and why they must include immunity for telecom companies from nuisance lawsuits.

Well, the DEBATE may be hopeless, but I certainly hope not. :)

This same post says that because of the warrantless wiretaps, 19 terrorist plots were thwarted, but sites the Heritage Foundation for its source.

I have said this before, and it needs to be said again. THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS! If we continue to chip away at our freedom, if we continue to subvert our liberty, then we should not be surprised when we have none of either.

Stopping terrorist acts is important, but it is NOT more important than keeping this country free. If we diminish our freedoms, then the terrorists have won. It is times such as these that we must be even more vigilant about our freedom. We can have a safe society AND freedom. Will we be able to prevent every attack. I doubt it, but that does not mean that we should allow the government to spy on us at will.

Let's say that we allow this. What if the government then says, we need to be able to enter a home without a warrant so we can find terrorists? What if we set-up road blocks across the country and were required to show our I.D. to continue on our way. What if they could search us at any time? All of these things would reduce the threat of terrorism, but does that make them good?

If the USA can not maintain the liberty of it's citizens, then it is not the USA.