Court Of Impeachment And War Crimes: Impeachable Protect America Act

THE PROTECT AMERICA ACT This Issue Is Not A Dead And Gone Concession To The Administration.

The Fight Has Just Begun. The Fact That This Administration Has Sought These Powers And Fully Intends To Exercise Them Is Grounds For Impeachment.

Please Don’t Bother Me With The Argument Or Retort: “But The Congress… “, Because I’ll Concede As Fact That They Are Complicit, Accomplices In This And Other Criminally Tragic Legislative Enactments.

Though that is part and parcel of the larger problem; that component will have to be dealt with separately in due course. This War must be fought on one front and we cannot be squandering our energies in the division and dilution of a multi-front campaign. It does not work given the level of fear, ignorance/stupidity and apathy with which we are confronted!

The focus must be “IMPEACHMENT FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE”, after which we can be about the task of purging the Congress, selecting a President with Integrity, and that list grew painfully small this week given the vote on The Kyl/Lieberman Amendment.

I do not give a damn if your if your favored candidate was among those who voted Yes or DID NOT vote; if they fall in either column they must be abandoned in all support, verbal, financial, and vote. They are not to be trusted; they are not part of a solution; they are part of the problem and they must be stopped and their ambitions defeated/destroyed.

It is frustrating to have to repeatedly present, argue and explain issue upon issue in isolation, (and even taken alone this way things are bad enough to warrant the most severe acts of rebellion available t0 us), when my fondest hope is that some how Americans will wake up and digest the totally of the perversions that have been visited upon our system of government as the entirety of our foundation principles, fundamental laws, sacred institutions and our Constitution have been consigned to sewer by one Bush flushing after another after this administration has literally shit on them and us WHILE ARROGANTLY LYING, SPYING AND SMILING AS THEY HAVE GIVEN “WE THE PEOPLE”, THE CONGRESS, THE SUPREME COURT AND THE WORLD THE FINGER!

A Small Collection From The “TOTALITY PACKAGE”.

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/06/alexandria-city-virginia-petition-of.html

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/07/alexandria-petition-of-impeachment.html

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/07/summary-of-causes-outline.html

http://thepetitionofimpeachment.blogspot.com/2007/08/eds-memorial-notes-jefferson-manual.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeachment-impeach-bush-and-cheney_2868.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-is-intolerable.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeachment-nspd-51-and-hspd-20-are.html

http://courtofimpeachmentandwarcrimes.blogspot.com/2007/06/impeach-bush-and-cheny-high-noon-in-dc.html

PROTECT AMERICA LINKS:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:s.01927

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110augYHT

THE ACT

To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

THIS ACT MAY BE CITED AS THE `PROTECT AMERICA ACT OF 2007'.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105 the following:

CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that—

(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act;

(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;

(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;

(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h).

This determination shall be in the form of a written certification, under oath, supported as appropriate by affidavit of appropriate officials in the national security field occupying positions appointed by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, or the Head of any Agency of the Intelligence Community, unless immediate action by the Government is required and time does not permit the preparation of a certification. In such a case, the determination of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall be reduced to a certification as soon as possible but in no event more than 72 hours after the determination is made.

(b) A certification under subsection (a) is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition of foreign intelligence information will be directed.

(c) The Attorney General shall transmit as soon as practicable under seal to the court established under section 103(a) a copy of a certification made under subsection (a). Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice of the United States and the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the acquisition under section 105B.

(d) An acquisition under this section may be conducted only in accordance with the certification of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate under section 108(a).

(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and Attorney General may direct a person to—

(1) immediately provide the Government with all information, facilities, and assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such person is providing to the target; and

(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished that such person wishes to maintain.

(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or assistance pursuant to subsection (e).

(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found.

(h)(1)(A) A person receiving a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e) may challenge the legality of that directive by filing a petition with the pool established under section 103(e)(1).

(B) The presiding judge designated pursuant to section 103(b) shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) to one of the judges serving in the pool established by section 103(e)(1). Not later than 48 hours after the assignment of such petition, the assigned judge shall conduct an initial review of the directive. If the assigned judge determines that the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge shall immediately deny the petition and affirm the directive or any part of the directive that is the subject of the petition. If the assigned judge determines the petition is not frivolous, the assigned judge shall, within 72 hours, consider the petition in accordance with the procedures established under section 103(e)(2) and provide a written statement for the record of the reasons for any determination under this subsection.

(2) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside a directive may grant such petition only if the judge finds that such directive does not meet the requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not modify or set aside the directive, the judge shall immediately affirm such directive, and order the recipient to comply with such directive.

(3) Any directive not explicitly modified or set aside under this subsection shall remain in full effect.

(i) The Government or a person receiving a directive reviewed pursuant to subsection (h) may file a petition with the Court of Review established under section 103(b) for review of the decision issued pursuant to subsection (h) not later than 7 days after the issuance of such decision. Such court of review shall have jurisdiction to consider such petitions and shall provide for the record a written statement of the reasons for its decision. On petition for a writ of certiorari by the Government or any person receiving such directive, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision.

(j) Judicial proceedings under this section shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and statements of reasons for decision, shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice of the United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence.

(k) All petitions under this section shall be filed under seal. In any proceedings under this section, the court shall, upon request of the Government, review ex parte and in camera any Government submission, or portions of a submission, which may include classified information.

(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.

(m) A directive made or an order granted under this section shall be retained for a period of not less than 10 years from the date on which such directive or such order is made.'.

SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCEDURES.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105B the following:

`SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURES

`Sec. 105C. (a) No later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures by which the Government determines that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The procedures submitted pursuant to this section shall be updated and submitted to the Court on an annual basis.

`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous.

`(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an order directing the Government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B that are implicated by the court's order.

`(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b). If such court determines that the order was properly entered, the court shall immediately provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under subsection (c) of this section may continue during the pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the Supreme Court of the United States.'.

SEC. 4. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

On a semi-annual basis the Attorney General shall inform the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, concerning acquisitions under this section during the previous 6-month period. Each report made under this section shall include—

(1) a description of any incidents of non-compliance with a directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence under section 105B, to include—

(A) incidents of non-compliance by an element of the Intelligence Community with guidelines or procedures established for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence authorized by the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence concerns persons reasonably to be outside the United States; and

(B) incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to whom the Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence issue a directive under this section; and

(2) the number of certifications and directives issued during the reporting period.

SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) In General- Section 103(e) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(e)) is amended—

(1) in paragraph (1), by striking `501(f)(1)' and inserting `105B(h) or 501(f)(1)'; and

(2) in paragraph (2), by striking `501(f)(1)' and inserting `105B(h) or 501(f)(1)'.

(b) Table of Contents- The table of contents in the first section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 105 the following:

`105A. Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the United States.

`105B. Additional procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions concerning persons located outside the United States.

`105C. Submission to court review of procedures.'.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROCEDURES.

(a) Effective Date- Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect immediately after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Transition Procedures- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of such order, and, at the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable effective date of this Act.

The Government also may file new applications, and the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act. At the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)), shall extinguish any extant authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical search entered pursuant to such Act.

Any surveillance conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.

(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

PULL CONGRESS BACK INTO THE WIRETAPPING FIGHT TO RESTORE YOUR RIGHTS

In August, Congress passed legislation that broadly expands the National Security Agency's authority to spy on Americans without warrants. Now Congress needs to undo the damage as soon as possible, and to make it do that, your representatives need to hear from you.

By capitulating to the President's demands for sweeping new surveillance powers, Congress not only trampled on your Constitutional rights but also disregarded its own Constitutional duties. The law permits warrantless surveillance of “persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States,” even when they are U.S. citizens or are communicating with U.S. citizens, with no prior court approval and only minimal court oversight. Rather than setting meaningful boundaries on the Executive, Congress essentially handed him a blank check to invade Americans' privacy.

The most important check on government surveillance still remains though. It's you. Tell your representatives to repeal this legislation and restore your rights now.

More info:

Text of the bill (off-site)

Analysis by Center for National Security Studies (off-site), and round-up of op-eds

EFF's case against AT&T for its role in the NSA's domestic spying

Protect us from the Protect America Act

ACLU fact sheet on the Protect America Act

Executive Summary of Grave Concerns about the FISA bill, S. 1927 from the Center for National Security Studies

EFF class action lawsuit against AT&T - including links to legal documents

List of Senate Democrats who voted for the Protect America Act

List of Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted for the Protect America Act

http://www.irregulartimes.com/2008reasonsmain.html
The So-Called Protect America Act: Why Its Sweeping Amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Pose Not Only a Civil Liberties Threat, But a Greater Danger As WellBy JOHN W. DEAN

Congressional Democrats are getting a lot of well-earned heat from rank-and-file members of their party, not to mention editorial writers and bloggers, for their lack of spine in refusing to reject the Bush/Cheney Administration's sweeping amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Just before Congress departed for its August recess, the Administration jammed through in five days - from start to finish -- the dubiously titled Protect America Act (PAA) of 2007, over the protest of the Democratic leadership. The only thing good about the PAA is that it is temporary - with a six month expiration date (although surveillance programs authorized under it can operate for up to one year.)

On her Democracy NOW daily program, Amy Goodman's (streaming video) interviewed Salon.com's law blogger, Glenn Greenwald, and the president of the National Lawyers Guild, Marjorie Cohn, about the PAA. The interview nicely sets forth what happened and its broad implications. Simply stated, Bush threatened to make a political issue of any effort by Congressional Democrats to protect the civil liberties of American. Bush surely succeeded beyond his most fervent hope in his intimidation of sixteen Democratic members in the Senate and forty-one Democratic members in the House, earning these members a place on "the roll of shame" in the blogosphere.

A THREAT GREATER THAN THAT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES: EXECUTIVE AGGRANDIZEMENT

The Washington Post, the New York Times, and politically-diverse organizations ranging from the John Birch Society and the Cato Institute to the American Civil Liberties Union all agree that the PAA is a serious mistake, and threat to the civil liberties of Americans. They point out that the law ignores the Fourth Amendment while, at the same time, hiding its actual operations in national security secrecy. Indeed, Congress was not even certain about the full extent of what it has authorized because President Bush and Vice-President Cheney refused to reveal it.

It is not likely that law-abiding Americans will even know that the U.S. Government's intelligence gathering operations are listening in on their calls to and from foreign countries, or similarly scanning emails. For this reason, it is not to be expected that many Americans will care about what the Democratic Congress has given a Republican president who has proven himself insensitive to anyone's privacy other than his own.

There is, however, a threat in this new law even greater than its robbing Americans of their communications privacy, which commentators and critics have virtually ignored. This law is another bold and blatant move by Bush to enhance the powers of the Executive branch at the expense of its constitutional co-equals.

Congress was willing to give Bush the amendments to FISA that would make this law effective under current technology. The 1978 law did not account for the fact that modern digital communications between people outside the United States often is routed through the United States, yet the FISA Court said surveillance of such routed communications required a warrant. Nevertheless, Bush rejected the legislation proposed by the Democrats because it also contained checks on the use of surveillance powers.

This, of course, is consistent with Bush and Cheney's general drive to weaken or eliminate all checks and balances constraining the Executive. This drive was evidenced by countless laws enacted by the Republican-controlled Congresses during the first six years of the Administration, and in countless signing statements added by the President interpreting away any constraints on the Executive. Thus, when even the GOP Congresses required presidential compliance and reporting, they were thwarted.

The most stunning aspect of the Democrats' capitulation is their abandoning of their institutional responsibility to hold the president accountable. The Protect America Act utterly fails to maintain any real check on the president's power to undertake electronic surveillance of literally millions of Americans. This is an invitation to abuse, especially for a president like the current incumbent.

Fixing the Dangerously Deficient Albeit Quickly Sunsetting Protect America Act And Ignoring the White House's Requests For Even More Power.

Though it is quite certain abuses of the surveillance powers under the Protect America Act will occur, they have not yet occurred. The failure to provide a check on such potential abuses, however, has already occurred. It represents the greatest failing of the Democratic Congress in acceding to the demands of Bush and Cheney. It is this failure that should be a paramount concern of the Congress when it next addresses this temporary law.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sent a letter to the chairmen of the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, requesting they develop legislation "addressing the many deficiencies" of the temporary law as soon as Congress returns from its recess.

Even though the White House got everything it demanded from Congress, it is requesting even more. When signing the Protect America Act, Bush said, "When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001."

Bush also wants legislative immunity for the American companies, and government officials (including himself), to protect them from criminal prosecution for violating the criminal provision of FISA. As readers will recall, before Congress caved and gave Bush power to conduct this surveillance, he - and telecommunication companies simply opted to do so illegally. Now, Bush will claim, with some justification, that because Congress has now made legal actions that were previously illegal, it should retroactively clear up this nasty problem facing all those who broke the law at his command.

If the Democrats fail to stand up to the bullying of this weak president, and ignore his demands for more unaccountability, they might as well start looking for another line of work. Not only are their fellow rank and file Democrats going to turn on them in 2008, but the overwhelming numbers of independents who assisted them in regaining power are going to desert them in droves.

At bottom, Democrats truly only need to add one fix to this dangerous law: meaningful accountability. They must do so, or face the consequences.

No one wants to deny the intelligence community all the tools it needs. But regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, no Congress should trust any president with unbridled powers of surveillance over Americans. It is not the way our system is supposed to work.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/08/20070806-5.html

For Immediate ReleaseOffice of the Press SecretaryAugust 6, 2007

Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007 President Bush Signs Legislation Modernizing Foreign Intelligence Law ToBetter Protect America

White House News

In Focus: National Security

"We know that information we have been able to acquire about foreign threats will help us detect and prevent attacks on our homeland. Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, has assured me that this bill gives him the most immediate tools he needs to defeat the intentions of our enemies. And so in signing this legislation today I am heartened to know that his critical work will be strengthened and we will be better armed to prevent attacks in the future."

President George W. Bush, 8/5/07

The Protect America Act Modernizes The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) To Give Intelligence Professionals The Tools They Urgently Need To Gather Information About Our Enemies, While Protecting The Civil Liberties Of Americans. The Act, passed with bipartisan support in the House and the Senate, restores FISA to its original focus on protecting the rights of Americans, while not acting as an obstacle to conducting foreign intelligence surveillance on foreign targets located overseas.

Changes In Technology Since 1978 Had The Effect Of Expanding The Scope Of FISA's Coverage To Include Intelligence Collection Efforts That Congress Excluded From The Law's Requirements. This unintended expansion of FISA's scope meant the government, in a significant number of cases, needed to obtain a court order to collect foreign intelligence information against a target located overseas. This created an unnecessary obstacle to our Intelligence Community's ability to gain real-time information about the intent of our enemies overseas and diverted scarce resources that would be better spent safeguarding the civil liberties of people in the United States, not foreign terrorists who wish to do us harm.

The Government Should Not Have To Obtain A Court Order To Conduct Surveillance On Foreign Intelligence Targets Located In Foreign Countries. This was not Congress' intent when it enacted FISA. As the Director of National Intelligence stated, continuing to operate under this outdated law meant our intelligence professionals were "missing a significant amount of foreign intelligence that we should be collecting to protect our country."

The Protect America Act Modernizes FISA In Four Important Ways

1. The Act Permits Our Intelligence Professionals To More Effectively Collect Foreign Intelligence Information On Targets In Foreign Lands Without First Receiving Court Approval. The Act clarifies that the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA shall not be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. This clarification restores FISA to its original intent and means intelligence professionals will not have to go to court in order to collect foreign intelligence on an overseas target who may be planning to attack the U.S.

2. The Act Provides A Role For The FISA Court In Reviewing The Procedures The Intelligence Community Uses To Ensure That Surveillance Efforts Target Persons Located Overseas. The Attorney General is required to submit to the FISA court the procedures by which intelligence professionals will determine that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance that is, the procedures by which the government determines that the acquisitions are directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States.

3. The Act Provides For The FISA Court To Direct Third Parties To Assist The Intelligence Community In Its Collection Efforts. The Act permits the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to direct third parties to provide the information, facilities, and assistance necessary to conduct surveillance of foreign intelligence targets located overseas.

4. The Act Protects Third Parties From Private Lawsuits Arising From Assistance They Provide The Government. No cause of action may be brought in any court against any person for complying with a directive to provide the Government with all information, facilities, or assistance necessary to accomplish the acquisition of foreign intelligence information.

Our Work Is Not Done — This Act Is A Temporary, Narrowly Focused Statute To Deal With The Most Immediate Needs Of The Intelligence Community To Protect The Country. When Congress returns in September, the Intelligence Committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, including the important issues of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

President Bush Discusses the Protect America Act of 2007

President Bush on Wednesday said, "...I call on Congress to make the Protect America Act permanent. The need for action is clear.www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/09/20070919.html - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

[ More results from www.whitehouse.gov ]

protect america act of 2007
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s1927es.txt.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

Protect America Act of 2007
To amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence ...cryptome.org/s1927.htm - 25k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Orwellian Legislation: Stop the Unconstitutional "Protect America" Act
The tools provided by the Protect America Act are scheduled to expire in early February 2008 – it is essential that Congress act to make the legislation ...www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6831 - 51k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Fact Sheet on the “Police ...
The so-called “Protect America Act of 2007," which we are calling the “Police America Act," allows for massive, untargeted collection of international ...www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/31203res20070807.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Disinformation :: Stop The Unconstitutional 'Protect America' Act
The single largest anti-Constitutional contribution to the Bush Regime by the Protect America Act (PAA) is its effective cancellation of legislative and ...www.disinfo.com/site/displayarticle20509.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Digg - ACTION ALERT: Stop the Unconstitutional "Protect America" Act
Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. From the biggest online destinations to the most obscure blog, ...digg.com/political_opinion/ACTION_ALERT_Stop_the_Unconstitutional_Protect_America_Act - 65k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[PDF]

P.L. 110-55, the Protect America Act of 2007: Modifications to the ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTMLThe Protect America Act provides for review by the ..... Protect America Act of 2007, P.L. 110-55, Sec. 105B(a), 121 Stat. 552 (August 5, 2007) ...www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34143.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

House Approves Amendment to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Regrettably, the Protect America Act includes a 180-day sunset, .... This is the Protect America Act of 2007. The American people expect to be protected and ...www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/h080407.html - 120k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

[ More results from www.fas.org ]

Commentary: The Protect America Act and Legislation Related to the ...
Beth Wellington's commentary examines the rapid introduction and passage of the Protect America Act, and the impact of related legislation on civil ...www.llrx.com/extras/nsa.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Threat Level - Wired Blogs
The bill, known as the Protect America Act, removes the prohibition on ..... Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, Protect America Act; Who the hell do they ...blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/analysis-new-la.html - 99k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

S. 1927: Protect America Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)
A bill in the US Congress: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain ...www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1927 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

United Press International - NewsTrack - Top News - Bush: Make ...
FORT MEADE, Md., 19 (UPI) -- President George Bush called upon the U.S. Congress Wednesday to make permanent the Protect America Act reforms to U.S. ...www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/09/19/bush_make_protect_america_act_permanent/5159/ - 43k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Protect America Act of 2007 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to provide ... and for other purposes also known as the Protect America Act of 2007 (Pub. ...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007 - 58k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

D 110 1st U.S. House of Representatives 836 S 1927 On Passage YEA ...
D 110 1st U.S. House of Representatives 836 S 1927 On Passage YEA-AND-NAY Passed 4-Aug-2007 10:20 PM Protect America Act Party Yeas Nays Answered “Present” ...clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml - 82k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

beSpacific: Questions and Answers on the Protect America Act of 2007
Fact Sheet: The Protect America Act of 2007, August 6, 2007 · Fact Sheet: Combating Terrorism Worldwide, August 6, 2007 ...www.bespacific.com/mt/archives/015643.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Protect America Act, S. 1927 - Council on Foreign Relations
Protect America Act, S. 1927. Published August 4, 2007. This bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It allows the U.S. government to ...www.cfr.org/publication/13982/protect_america_act_s_1927.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

'Protect America Act' Set to Expire - Politics - CBN News
President Bush says the nation's security team is at risk of losing critical tools needed to protect the US.www.cbn.com/CBNnews/234696.aspx - 18k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Take Action: Stop Unlimited Wiretap Authority
Tell Congress to reconsider the Protect America Act of 2007! ... The Protect America Act passed Congress Aug. 5, surrendering privacy and government ...ga6.org/campaign/ProtectAmericaAct - 49k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Data-Mining Our Liberties
The Protect America Act of 2007--the title alone ought to be warning that unsavory motives ... The key term in the Protect America Act is its licensing of ...www.thenation.com/doc/20070813/huq2 - 38k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

New law expands power to wiretap - The Boston Globe
Just before midnight on Saturday, Congress passed the Protect America Act of 2007, which was largely drafted by the White House and received no committee ...www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/08/06/new_law_expands_power_to_wiretap/ - Similar pages - Note this

United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The hearing on “Strengthening FISA: Does the Protect America Act Protect Americans' Civil Liberties and Enhance Security?” scheduled by the Senate Committee ...judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2942 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Analysis of the Protect ...
ACLU Analysis of the Protect America Act (8/29/2007). SECTION BY SECTION S. 1927, “The Protect America Act”. AG= Attorney General ...www.aclu.org/safefree/general/31496leg20070829.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

Congress approves sweeping surveillance powers
But the hastily-enacted legislation, dubbed the Protect America Act, does more than permit the interception of foreign-to-foreign communications. ...arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070806-congress-approves-sweeping-survellance-powers.html - 26k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
[DOC]

protect america act
File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTMLS. 1927 — Protect America Act of 2007. Summary of the Bills Under Consideration Today:. Total Number of New Government Programs: 0 ...www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/LB_080407_FISA_Rev.doc - Similar pages - Note this

ANALYSIS

TALON Spy Database To Continue Operation Under Alberto Gonzales

Government Activates Behavior Detection Agents

John Michael McConnell Authorizes Spy Satellites Against American Citizens

Government Attorney Confirms Hepting v. AT&T is connected to the Protect America Act

Too Busy Partying to Protect the Bill of Rights?

Does Claire McCaskill Have No Will?

James Webb Bullshits the American People

Four out of Five Republican Candidates Don't Want to Protect America

Democratic Presidential Candidates Stand By Liberty

Is Protect America Act About Hepting v. AT&T?

The Protect America Act and Total Information Awareness

Update on Total Information Awareness Cases and Protect America Act

Critical Questions About The Protect America Act

Third Case Bush Had To Squelch With Protect America Act

A Mighty Big Coincidence in Warrantless Surveillance

It's About the Timeline

Protect America Act Linked to Total Information Awareness

Summing Up A Fishy Timeline for The Protect America Act

Why The Protect America Act Lawsuit Link Matters

Protect America Act Sunset is Not a Sunset

FISA: But Americans Are Protected, Right?

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr004=5ks34s1xv1.app13b&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=270

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks

Sign the petition to repeal the Protect America Act

From The Irregular Times (There Are No Internal Links In This Source That Are Not Worth Opening And Following)

It is a time of fear in the face of freedom, a time for the widening of previous roads and the opening of new paths, a time of an emptying country and swelling cities, yet a time when these paths are mined by knowing algorithms of the all-seeing eye. It is the time of the warrior's peace and the miser's charity, when the planting of a seed is an act of conscientious objection. These are the times when maps fade and direction is lost. Forwards is backwards now, so we glance sideways at the strange lands through which we are all passing, knowing for certain only that our destination has disappeared. We are unready to meet these times, but we proceed nonetheless, adapting as we wander, reshaping the Earth with every tread. Behind us we have left the old times, the standard times, the high times. Welcome to the irregular times.

Keeping the Promise?

The Oath of Office of the House of Representatives:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.

This is the central commitment of every member of the United States House of Representatives: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Not to support and defend the American people. Not to support and defend the land itself. To support and defend the binding contract we Americans make with ourselves and each other, the American Constitution.

The Irregular Times Oath Of Office Index measures the extent to which our Representatives actually support and defend the Constitution in their legislative actions. Does your member of Congress support or oppose the central tenet of Americanism: support for the Constitution? Or in opposition to the Constitution has your Representative embraced an unAmerican agenda? Has your member of Congress been faithful to or broken his or her solemn oath of office? Check our index for the 110th Congress of 2007-2008m and find out.

Progressive Rankings and Contact Information for Members of the House of Representatives in the 110th Congress Brought to you by Irregular Times

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/index.html

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/conservativerank.html

http://progressivepatriots.com/house/oathofofficeindex.html

Subsection Categories

Extraordinary Support and Defense of the U.S. Constitution

Relatively Strong Support of the Constitution:

Moderately Pro-Constitution

Weak Support for the Constitution

An Utter Lack of Support for the Constitution

THE UNITED STATES SENATE

http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/110byranking.html

http://progressivepatriots.com/senate/rightwingindex110.html

http://www.progressivepatriots.com/senate/senateoathindex110.html

SOME CLOSING SHORT SUBJECTS

Sometimes, Republicans Really Are Nazis

With the Nationalist slogans, scapegoating of ethnic minorities, and widespread attacks against the liberty of citizens that have taken place under the Republican government here in the United States over the last five years, a lot of people have found themselves thinking to themselves, Those Republicans are a bunch of Nazis. Well, now, as chance would have it, there’s proof that sometimes, Republicans really are Nazis.

The official, unchallenged Republican nominee for the 76th district seat in the Montana State legislature this year is a Nazi. That’s not just some rhetorical point. He really is a Nazi. His name is Shawn Stuart, and he wants to represent the area around Butte, Montana in the state legislature. In addition to being a Republican candidate for the Montana State House, Stuart is the leader of the National Socialist Movement, also known as the Nazi Party of America. The local Republicans didn’t bother to run any candidates against Stuart, and so have given him their nomination.

The Republican Party needs to do some serious soul searching about why it is that Nazis find such a comfortable place on the Republican Party line. There’s a reason Nazis run as Republicans instead of as Democrats.

Buoyed by Shawn Stuart’s electoral success, the American Nazis say that they’re going to run a candidate for President in 2008. Will that be on the Republican Party line?

Right Wingers Argue War is Better Than Faded Patriotism
The latest in the growing list of 2,008 reasons to elect a progressive President in 2008 comes from a right wing supporter of the lobbyist corporation Unity08. It’s a quote from John Stuart Mill:

“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

Consider what this means, for a moment. John Stuart Mill is actually claiming that it’s a good idea to go to war in order to keep people to feeling patriotic. It’s better to bomb, shoot and stab people in massive numbers, John Stuart Mill says, than to allow people’s patriotic feelings to wane a little bit. Sending your own countrymen off to the deaths is better, from this point of view, than seeing some people wave the flag a little bit less fervently.
This isn’t a theoretical argument. It’s one of the main justifications behind the invasion and military occupation of Iraq by the United States.

Please, don’t vote for a candidate that supports this bloody and wasteful philosophy of war.

How Are US Military and CIA Not Terrorist?

Filed under War and Peace, Moral Values, irregular questions by Peregrin Wood at 6:44 am
If Iran’s Revolutionary Guards are terrorists, how are the US Army and the CIA not terrorist?
The Army and CIA go into countries around the world which America is NOT at war with, kidnap people and torture them and threaten them with execution, and even show some of the prisoners on international television as a warning to others. They go around the world dropping bombs, invading other countries, resulting in immense civilian deaths and woundings, not to mention destruction of people’s homes.

How are Iran’s Revolutionary Guards worse than this?

The US Congress passed resolutions declaring Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be a terrorist organization.

Now, Iran’s legislature has returned the insult, and declared the US Army and CIA to be terrorist organizations.

If we are to say that the US Army and CIA are not terrorist organizations, how is it justifiable to say that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is?

Joseph Lieberman Gets Iranamania

Filed under War and Peace, 2008 Reasons by Peregrin Wood at 1:31 pm
If you ever need a reminder of how important it is to vote progressive, just take another look at Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman has now come out on the record as saying that he thinks it would be a good idea to start bombing Iran.

Lieberman says that bombing Iran would be an effective way to calm down the violence in Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, has promised to enter into no holds barred open warfare with the United States if it is attacked by the U.S. military. So, with the United States waging war in Iran in order to try to get the initial mess of Iraq under control, what would Lieberman’s next suggestion be? Would he say that we ought to start bombing Azerbaijan in order to get the violence in Iran under control?

Lieberman’s plan to win one war by starting a new war would lead to war around the world. It’s not a plan for victory. It’s a plan for magnifying the humiliation of America’s defeat.
Joseph Lieberman is going to be promoting his crazy ideas in the United States Senate for at least five more years. In 2008, we need to elect a President who is willing to stand against the Lieberman pro-war agenda, not help it become official American foreign policy.
(Source: Financial Times, June 11, 2007)

NEED FURTHER READING AND RESEARCH MATERIAL LINKS? KEEP GOING!

http://irregulartimes.com/election2008resourcecenter.html