The existing FISA law did not allow the monitoring they did, he ignored the FISA courts and ordered it be done because he wanted it done. Then of course there was the PPA and as Obama has stated, the FISA law is far better than allowing the pres to rely on that.
IMHO, what the existing FISA law and the proposed legislation does is provide laws that must be followed when monitoring US citizens under the guise of national security - to prevent or capture or detect spying. Thus, it provides for laws that can be broken which negate the basic defense afforded all governmental agencies (and quasi agents, like the telecoms, working under the direction of the president) that defense being sovereign immunity.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereig... In all actions involving governmental actions, government agencies, the defendants will raise the issue of sovereign immunity. That defense will not protect them from the litigation if it is shown that their actions were illegal, if their actions violated the civil rights of others.
I have read where both Greenwald and the ACLU claim no probable cause is required but that is in total conflict to the language of the bill. It requires that the 4th amendment be fully complied with when ordering the monitoring of US citizens at home and abroad. The 4th amendment requires probable cause. They also claim there is no review of the certification that relates to the statutory defenses and that what the AG says goes, not questions asked - that is blatantly false.
Hell, this bill even states that no persons 1st amendment rights be infringed upon, and no one notes that, no one sees how important that provision is. That means that just because a person has exercised his first amendment rights by being a member of some organization or attending peace/anti-war rallies that person is not subject to the monitoring, that the membership alone or exercise of the 1st amendment rights does not equal requisite probable cause. That is one important provision that folks are overlooking.
No United States person may be considered a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or officer or employee of a foreign power solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Relative to criminal actions - the president doesn't need FISA to pardon all involved.
The only way to hold "them" responsible is to get a dem in office who will conduct the investigations and who will protect our rights. Obama knows the rule of law, respects the rule of law and cherishes the constitution, he has said he will investigate the alleged crimes of this administration. We need to get him in office and hold him to that.
FISA has come up now in an effort to peck away at the perceive weaknesses of all dem candidates, not just Obama. That is that dems are weak on national defense and soft on terrorists. To vote against the "spy law" plays into their hands, that is what they want him to do. Now they have the added bonus of trapping him between a rock and a hard place. Because of the extreme statements related to FISA, that to support it is to be against the constitution, they get to have their cake and eat it too. Posts like your OP proves that. It is a mischaracterization to say that he doesn't care about our constitutional rights simply because he finds this FISA legislation better than nothing.
