About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Hill falsely described GOP's previous legislative priority as "passing" FISA -- but it passed 30 years ago

April 10, 2008 7:12 pm ET
image

SUMMARY: The Hill reported that "Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is expected to announce Thursday that the House GOP floor emphasis will transition away from passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act." In fact, FISA became law in 1978, and although it has been amended many times since then, it remains in force today.

39 Comments

In an April 9 article, The Hill reported that "Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is expected to announce Thursday that the House GOP floor emphasis will transition away from passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)." The article later stated that "Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, stressed that the pivot away from security and earmarks was not an indicator that the GOP was giving up pushing for passage of FISA." In fact, FISA became law in 1978, and although it has been amended many times since then, FISA remains in force today. What House Republicans have pushed the House to approve is the Senate version of a bill that would, for the most part, extend until the end of 2013 revisions to FISA enacted by Congress in August 2007 as the Protect America Act (PAA). As The Washington Post reported on February 13, the PAA "expanded the government's authority to intercept -- without a court order -- the phone calls and e-mails of people in the United States communicating with others overseas." The Post article continued: "U.S. intelligence agencies previously had broad leeway to monitor the communications of foreign terrorism suspects but needed warrants to monitor calls intercepted in the United States, regardless of where they originated."

The House passed its own set of proposed amendments to FISA on March 14.

Media Matters for America has documented numerous media outlets and figures conflating FISA and the PAA or falsely suggesting that since the PAA expired in February, the government no longer has the authority to spy on suspected terrorists. In fact, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted in a February 13 statement, "the underlying Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provides for the surveillance of terrorists and provides that in emergencies surveillance can begin without warrant, remains intact and available to our intelligence agencies." Further, a February 14 New York Times article reported regarding the PAA's expiration:

The lapsing of the deadline would have little practical effect on intelligence gathering. Intelligence officials would be able to intercept communications from Qaeda members or other identified terrorist groups for a year after the initial eavesdropping authorization for that particular group.

If a new terrorist group is identified after Saturday [February 16], intelligence officials would not be able to use the broadened eavesdropping authority. They would be able to seek a warrant under the more restrictive standards in place for three decades through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

From the April 9 article in The Hill headlined "Amid economic woes, House GOP to pivot from FISA, earmarks to taxes":

House Republicans are poised to shift their focus from national security to the economy, hoping to rally opposition to what they claim are Democratic plans to raise taxes amid the economic downturn.

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is expected to announce Thursday that the House GOP floor emphasis will transition away from passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and earmark reform to "stop the tax hike."

House Republican leaders will make their case to pass a tax bill introduced by Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.).

Republicans will use procedural floor tactics to force votes on Walberg's bill, which would make the 2001 tax cuts permanent.

The measure has 125 co-sponsors, none of whom are Democrats.

A recent CBS/New York Times poll found that 37 percent of those surveyed ranked the economy as the most important issue facing the United States. The Iraq war ranked second at 15 percent.

The strategy is detailed in an inaugural "Freedom File" e-mail -- a monthly memo to GOP activists -- from Boehner's political action committee, Freedom Project.

[...]

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, stressed that the pivot away from security and earmarks was not an indicator that the GOP was giving up pushing for passage of FISA or comprehensive earmark reform.

Republicans have noted they have successfully peeled off centrist Democrats during procedural votes on FISA and earmark reform. They have also attracted 10 Democrats to sign on to a discharge petition that would force a floor vote on Rep. Heath Shuler's (D-N.C.) immigration bill, which has more Republican than Democratic co-sponsors.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by notanotherconservative2254 (April 10, 2008 7:32 pm ET)
         
      Maybe we should worry more about actually protecting this nation instead of trying to score cheap political points.  

      I'm just saying....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (April 10, 2008 7:35 pm ET)
           
        What the hell are you bedwetters so afraid of?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 10, 2008 7:42 pm ET)
           
        Maybe we ought to worry about our constitutional rights instead of cheering loudly as we lose them. I am just saying. I have yet to see one single rational argument about why, if the issue is to listen in to terrorists conversations what the problem is with getting a darn warrant. ANY government agency that demands the right to have no oversight cannot be trusted. I dont care who they listen to they just need to get a darn warrant if Americans are going to be listened to and there is NO protect America rationale why those two things are mutually exclusive
        Report Abuse
    • Author by MoonbatYouBet (April 10, 2008 9:22 pm ET)
         
      AS for the actual point of this, the debate was never about security for our country from the GOP, it was always about telecom immunity for having engaged in criminal activities under the command of the President.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by solon (April 10, 2008 9:31 pm ET)
           
        Until at least one conservative can explain to me, I have asked at least 20 times, how there is any security issue that precludes getting a darn FISA warrant this is going to continue to be one of the most ludicrous arguments of public policy I have ever seen. They just keep mouthing the screechmonkey radio mantra and it doesnt come CLOSE to making any sense.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (April 11, 2008 1:24 am ET)
             
          They don't need any reasons. They're scared, and that's good enough for them! I'm glad they post, though. I used to look at the history books, and think "what sort of pussies let their gov't tell them they'd be safer if they gave up their rights?". They're still around, the ones that never learned, hopefully they're dying out at a quicker rate.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by Science101 (April 11, 2008 7:18 am ET)
               
            Look Col., not all republicans back all the of "security" concerns of the right wing politics, because I sure dont.  In fact, I believe in smaller government....which would absolve this topic.  I hate nanny-state politics, and this goal of the right goes right on par with it.  I have no problems doing it overseas if they want, but here, a warrant should be served first no matter what.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (April 11, 2008 7:37 am ET)
                 
              Some of us read all of the threads, so it might help with your credibility if you were consistent on EVERY thread.

              "Look Col., not all republicans back all the of "security" concerns of the right wing politics, because I sure dont."

              The quote of yours above says, or at least, implies that you're a Republican.

              The quote below from the Politico thread says that you are not a republican.

              "In fact, I am not even of republican partisonship."

              If you want to be taken seriously, you need to be consitent.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Col. Harlan Sanders (April 11, 2008 10:31 am ET)
                   
                I think he's an Independent-- like Bill O'Reilly. Har!
                Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (April 11, 2008 11:47 am ET)
                     
                  I was going to tell him to get back to work, but I'm pretty sure that this is his job.

                  He's spent too much time here the last few days to be doing it because he likes it.

                  I think he's paid to argue with us.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (April 11, 2008 9:39 am ET)
           

        And, warrantless spying was going on BEFORE 9/11.  So the argument that "everything changed" after 9/11 is a LIE.

        Righties are just scared little bedwetters who need big daddy Bush to protect them from the evil Arabs - no matter how many freedoms they would gladly sacrifice.  Very un-American.

        Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (April 11, 2008 9:48 am ET)
         
      What's really amazing is that conservatives want the Bush administration to continue to completely avoid FISA warrants, yet want credit for FISA's existence.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by peace4all (April 11, 2008 2:31 pm ET)
         
      here's the problem the right does not consider when wanting to abolish rights given in the constitution. bush will not be in power much longer and there is no reason to think that democrats will not get a larger majority in the congress. without even passing any new laws or signing any new executive order the democrats could concievably declare anti-abortion groups as terrorists for being even remotely linked to some lunitic who blows up a clinic or kills a doctor. when the groups leadership denies any tie to this individual we can then look at all their communications without ever getting a warrant. if the government then can find even the slightest hint of wrong doing then they can take those people and send them off to jordon to be asked nicely what they know. of course this would not happen as i don't see democrats as being inherantly facist like the right is. but, the point is the right should really be careful what they push through. it could come back to bite you hard
      Report Abuse
    • Author by robrob (April 11, 2008 4:03 pm ET)
         

      "The article later stated that "Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, stressed that the pivot away from security and earmarks was not an indicator that the GOP was giving up pushing for passage of FISA."

      Sounds like they are confusing FISA with the more recent legislation of the Homeland Security Act.

      Do these people get paid to make mistakes like this?

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.