Sen. Barbara Boxer on FISA/Immunity

I love that I get to have Barbara Boxer as my senator. She did me proud this week, with her senate floor statement:

Senate Floor Statement of Senator Boxer
Boxer Statement on FISA Bill

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

One of the most basic tenets of our freedom is justice, and at the heart of justice lies the search for truth.

Washington, DC — U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer today made the following statement on the floor of the Senate regarding the FISA bill:

Throughout history, whenever the United States government has violated the trust of the American people, we have always worked to regain that trust by seeking the truth and allowing for a full examination of the abuses of government power.

In 1975, the Church Committee–which would later become the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence–looked into allegations of covert and illegal spying by the federal government on Americans.

What did the Committee find? The Committee found that the FBI, under J. Edgar Hoover, and the CIA had engaged in spying on the political activities of American citizens.

As a result, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, setting up a new court with authority to approve electronic surveillance on a case-by-case basis.

But in late 2005, we learned that the U.S. government had again violated the trust of the American people when the New York Times published a story exposing a warrantless surveillance program authorized by President Bush shortly after 9/11.

Since that time, Congress and the American people have been grappling with the disclosure and working, with absolutely no help from the Bush Administration, to find out exactly what happened.

Unfortunately, what we have before us today is a bill that would not only deny the Court the ability to finally make a judicial determination as to the legality of the NSA program but would effectively guarantee immunity for the telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Administration and violated the privacy of their customers.

Now, I would support granting the telecom companies indemnification, but this immunity provision blocks us from finding the truth.

I know that many of my colleagues in the Senate think we know enough about this program.

But we do not know enough. The Bush Administration trampled on the Constitution, and we are not doing anything in this bill to provide accountability.

This bill goes along with the premise that we hold up the Constitution when it suits us, and we set it aside when it hinders what we want to do.

Simply put, this bill is a fig leaf that attempts to hide the truth about the warrantless surveillance program at the expense of the rights of our citizens.

And if we vote for it today, we are perpetuating a cover-up.

I want to be clear – I support giving our government every tool necessary to track down terrorists and protect our citizens.

I voted to go after al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden, and I believe it is the responsibility of the Congress to provide all of the tools necessary to fight terrorism and protect the American people.

But we have another responsibility, I believe, of equal importance; and that is our responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the rights of our citizens.

While there have been improvements to Title I in the bill before us, the provisions in Title II that effectively grant immunity and block the Courts from moving forward and learning whose privacy was violated, simply put, undermine any improvements that were made to this bill.

These are extraordinary and difficult times. Our sons and daughters were sent to Iraq by our President to fight for our freedom.

But we should remember, as former Justice Thurgood Marshall said, “History teaches us that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”

So our brave soldiers are fighting for freedom on one hand, while our government is covering up the erosion of our freedoms with the other.

This bill–while improved upon–does not strike the kind of balance we need between broadening the government’s authority to conduct surveillance and protecting the rights of our citizens.

We can and must do better, and therefore I oppose this bill.

Why can’t Obama say this?

After all, it was probably his privacy that among the many being violated.

That’s why all the pressure. They really don’t want us to see the extent of the damage.

Sen. Boxer will have my strong, continued support. I can’t say the same for Feinstein, if a worthy challenger ever faces her.

6 Comments

BooMan on June 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I give her points for even knowing about the Church Committee.

Real History Lisa on June 26, 2008 at 6:34 pm

I’d laugh, but I know what you mean.

Btw – I just got Feinstein’s statement. It’s so long, I’ll post the summary her office sent in the email:

I write this in response to your communication indicating your concerns on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) now before the Senate. This bill has passed the House of Representatives.

This legislation contains multiple sections, including one that deals specifically with liability for telecommunications companies. However, the primary intent to this new bill is to modernize our intelligence gathering capacity. The technology and communications industries have seen vast changes in the past thirty years since FISA was first written in 1978. This has changed the way surveillance is conducted, and the original law cannot adequately address these procedures. This is precisely why FISA needs to be modernized.

It is important to understand the consequences if the Senate does not pass this bill. We would either have to extend the temporary surveillance bill passed last August – which should not happen – or allow surveillance on certain foreign targets to expire, which would lay the Nation bare and decrease our ability to identify and protect against terrorist threats. Neither of these options is acceptable.

I strongly believe that this bill is substantially better than the version the Senate passed in February 2008, which I opposed. It is also a major improvement from the Protect America Act that passed in August 2007, which had few privacy protections and was never intended to be a permanent solution. This bill:

oIncludes provisions I authored that make clear that FISA is the exclusive (or only) authority for conducting surveillance inside the United States. This is crucial as it requires that all future Presidents must act only within the law. FISA would be the only legal authority for conducting surveillance on Americans for intelligence purposes, and only legislation that specifically provides wiretapping authority in the future would be an exception to FISA.

oRequires the government to obtain a warrant before surveillance can begin. This applies to all Americans – anywhere in the world. The Protect America Act allowed surveillance for up to six months before getting a warrant. This bill ends all warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. In this sense it is precedent setting.

oBans reverse targeting, which was a concern under the Protect America Act. Reverse targeting would allow the government to collect the contents of telephone calls and e-mails of an American by conducting surveillance on the people with whom they communicate. This is prohibited in this bill.

oRequires that the government implement procedures approved by the Court for minimization. If an American’s communication is incidentally caught up in electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else, minimization protects that person’s private information. This has been a hallmark of FISA for 30 years, but court review and approval of minimization procedures was not included in the Protect America Act. It is here.

oRequires the government to receive a warrant to conduct surveillance on an American outside of the United States. This means that Americans’ privacy rights are protected everywhere around the world. A court warrant has never been required outside the United States before; this would be the strongest protection ever.

I understand your concern regarding Title II of this bill, which creates a process that may result in immunity for telecommunications companies that are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government. I agree that this is not the best approach to the current legal challenges to these companies. Earlier this year, I pushed an amendment that would require court review of the legality of these companies’ alleged actions. Under my proposal, cases against the companies would only be dismissed if the Court found that they acted legally. I continue to believe this is the right approach.

There may be amendments offered to the FISA legislation to strip or modify the telecom immunity provisions. Know that I will support any that I believe improve the current bill.

Bottom line: this FISA legislation, while not perfect, would bring intelligence activities back under U.S. law. It provides significant improvement in oversight and accountability of our intelligence collection programs while still giving the intelligence community the tools needed to keep our Nation safe. And, it provides the strongest privacy protections to U.S. persons in history.

In conclusion, I have served on the Intelligence Committee for seven years and I take the responsibility extremely seriously. If there is no bill, our Nation goes bare in mid-August, unless the Protect America Act, which does not offer, even remotely, the privacy protections for U.S. persons that are included in this bill, is extended. Additionally, the President – any President – cannot enact a program outside of this law in the future.

I hope this helps you understand my concerns.
- dada on June 26, 2008 at 7:10 pm
  
  ¡jezeus!… these people are all self-rightous asses.
  
  let’s break that down to it’s essence, shall we:
  
  “STFU …l/we know what’s better for the country than you do…<insert condescension here>.
  
  reading between the lines:
  
  she’s going to vote yea. way to go Babs…she’s rapidly disposing what little credibility she had left w/ me.
  - diane101 on June 27, 2008 at 11:51 am
    
    That was Feinstein above your reply, Boxer opposed the bill, I do believe from reading this diary.
    - dada on June 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm
      
      yeah, l know…mental lapse, but you can’t edit comments. l think it’s relatively clear.

AliceDem on June 28, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Thanks for writing this, I was going to write a Boxer appreciation diary, but you have saved me the trouble. I would just point out that it was Boxer who insisted that the Black Caucus have a chance to be heard before the 2004 election was certified.

It was Boxer who called Condi Rice to account on the occasion of Rice’s confirmation hearings. Both Obama and Clinton voted to confirm Rice, Boxer voted against.

It was Boxer who asked Al Gore to testify on Global Warming and hammed Imhoff into submission with the words elections have consequences.

Boxer for majority leader!

BooMan on June 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm

I give her points for even knowing about the Church Committee.
- Real History Lisa on June 26, 2008 at 6:34 pm
  
  I’d laugh, but I know what you mean.
  
  Btw – I just got Feinstein’s statement. It’s so long, I’ll post the summary her office sent in the email:
  
  I write this in response to your communication indicating your concerns on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) now before the Senate. This bill has passed the House of Representatives.
  
  This legislation contains multiple sections, including one that deals specifically with liability for telecommunications companies. However, the primary intent to this new bill is to modernize our intelligence gathering capacity. The technology and communications industries have seen vast changes in the past thirty years since FISA was first written in 1978. This has changed the way surveillance is conducted, and the original law cannot adequately address these procedures. This is precisely why FISA needs to be modernized.
  
  It is important to understand the consequences if the Senate does not pass this bill. We would either have to extend the temporary surveillance bill passed last August – which should not happen – or allow surveillance on certain foreign targets to expire, which would lay the Nation bare and decrease our ability to identify and protect against terrorist threats. Neither of these options is acceptable.
  
  I strongly believe that this bill is substantially better than the version the Senate passed in February 2008, which I opposed. It is also a major improvement from the Protect America Act that passed in August 2007, which had few privacy protections and was never intended to be a permanent solution. This bill:
  
  oIncludes provisions I authored that make clear that FISA is the exclusive (or only) authority for conducting surveillance inside the United States. This is crucial as it requires that all future Presidents must act only within the law. FISA would be the only legal authority for conducting surveillance on Americans for intelligence purposes, and only legislation that specifically provides wiretapping authority in the future would be an exception to FISA.
  
  oRequires the government to obtain a warrant before surveillance can begin. This applies to all Americans – anywhere in the world. The Protect America Act allowed surveillance for up to six months before getting a warrant. This bill ends all warrantless surveillance of U.S. persons. In this sense it is precedent setting.
  
  oBans reverse targeting, which was a concern under the Protect America Act. Reverse targeting would allow the government to collect the contents of telephone calls and e-mails of an American by conducting surveillance on the people with whom they communicate. This is prohibited in this bill.
  
  oRequires that the government implement procedures approved by the Court for minimization. If an American’s communication is incidentally caught up in electronic surveillance while the Government is targeting someone else, minimization protects that person’s private information. This has been a hallmark of FISA for 30 years, but court review and approval of minimization procedures was not included in the Protect America Act. It is here.
  
  oRequires the government to receive a warrant to conduct surveillance on an American outside of the United States. This means that Americans’ privacy rights are protected everywhere around the world. A court warrant has never been required outside the United States before; this would be the strongest protection ever.
  
  I understand your concern regarding Title II of this bill, which creates a process that may result in immunity for telecommunications companies that are alleged to have provided assistance to the Government. I agree that this is not the best approach to the current legal challenges to these companies. Earlier this year, I pushed an amendment that would require court review of the legality of these companies’ alleged actions. Under my proposal, cases against the companies would only be dismissed if the Court found that they acted legally. I continue to believe this is the right approach.
  
  There may be amendments offered to the FISA legislation to strip or modify the telecom immunity provisions. Know that I will support any that I believe improve the current bill.
  
  Bottom line: this FISA legislation, while not perfect, would bring intelligence activities back under U.S. law. It provides significant improvement in oversight and accountability of our intelligence collection programs while still giving the intelligence community the tools needed to keep our Nation safe. And, it provides the strongest privacy protections to U.S. persons in history.
  
  In conclusion, I have served on the Intelligence Committee for seven years and I take the responsibility extremely seriously. If there is no bill, our Nation goes bare in mid-August, unless the Protect America Act, which does not offer, even remotely, the privacy protections for U.S. persons that are included in this bill, is extended. Additionally, the President – any President – cannot enact a program outside of this law in the future.
  
  I hope this helps you understand my concerns.
  - dada on June 26, 2008 at 7:10 pm
    
    ¡jezeus!… these people are all self-rightous asses.
    
    let’s break that down to it’s essence, shall we:
    
    “STFU …l/we know what’s better for the country than you do…<insert condescension here>.
    
    reading between the lines:
    
    she’s going to vote yea. way to go Babs…she’s rapidly disposing what little credibility she had left w/ me.
    - diane101 on June 27, 2008 at 11:51 am
      
      That was Feinstein above your reply, Boxer opposed the bill, I do believe from reading this diary.
      - dada on June 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm
        
        yeah, l know…mental lapse, but you can’t edit comments. l think it’s relatively clear.
AliceDem on June 28, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Thanks for writing this, I was going to write a Boxer appreciation diary, but you have saved me the trouble. I would just point out that it was Boxer who insisted that the Black Caucus have a chance to be heard before the 2004 election was certified.

It was Boxer who called Condi Rice to account on the occasion of Rice’s confirmation hearings. Both Obama and Clinton voted to confirm Rice, Boxer voted against.

It was Boxer who asked Al Gore to testify on Global Warming and hammed Imhoff into submission with the words elections have consequences.

Boxer for majority leader!

Sen. Barbara Boxer on FISA/Immunity

About The Author

Real History Lisa

6 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments