Buh-bye 4th Amendment ~sniff~ I’ll Miss You!

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a bill overhauling the rules on the government’s wiretapping powers and conferring what amounts to legal immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Original DVD cover.

“Our intelligence officials must have the ability to monitor terrorists suspected of plotting to kill Americans and to safeguard our national security,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader. “This bill gives it to them.”

The Democratic majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, was considerably more restrained in his support of the bill, calling it the best compromise possible “in the current atmosphere.”

The issue has bitterly divided Democrats, as a sampling of remarks after the vote made clear. “The FISA legislation we approved gives our intelligence community the tools it needs and the public the civil liberty protections it deserves,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “While this bill isn’t perfect, the perfect should never be the enemy of the good. I applaud the Democrats and Republicans who reached this compromise and produced legislation that earned support from both sides of the aisle.”

But Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat who heads the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, called the bill “a fig leaf,” and one that “abandons the Constitution’s protections and insulates lawless behavior from legal scrutiny.”

…snip…

The deal, expanding the government’s powers to spy on terrorism suspects in some major respects, would strengthen the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign targets. It would also allow them to conduct emergency wiretaps without court orders on American targets for a week if it is determined that important national security information would otherwise be lost.

…snip…

With AT&T and other telecommunications companies facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”

“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence on Thursday.

…snip…

The bill was supported by 188 Republicans and 105 Democrats in the House, while 128 Democrats and a single Republican voted against it. The contrary Republican was Representative Tim Johnson of Illinois […].

…snip…

The Senate Democratic majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said he would still resist the immunity section of the bill.

…snip…

Another Democratic Senator, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, who pushed unsuccessfully for more civil liberties safeguards in the plan, called the deal “a capitulation” by his fellow Democrats.

…snip…

Perhaps the most important concession that Democratic leaders claimed was an affirmation that the intelligence restrictions were the “exclusive” means for the executive branch to conduct wiretapping operations in terrorism and espionage cases. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had insisted on that element, and Democratic staff members asserted that the language would prevent Mr. Bush, or any future president, from circumventing the law. The proposal asserts “that the law is the exclusive authority and not the whim of the president of the United States,” Ms. Pelosi said.

…snip…

Among other important provisions in the 114-page plan, Democrats also pointed to requirements that the inspectors general of several agencies review the security agency’s wiretapping program, that the government obtain individual court orders to wiretap Americans who are outside the United States and that the secret court overseeing wiretaps give advance approval to the government’s procedures for wiretapping operations.

…snip…

The proposal also seeks to plug what the Bush administration maintained was a dangerous loophole by no longer requiring individual warrants for wiretapping purely foreign communications, like phone calls and e-mail messages that pass through American telecommunications switches. The government would now be allowed to use broad warrants to eavesdrop on large groups of foreign targets at once.

…snip…

The arcane details of the proposal amount to a major overhaul of the landmark surveillance law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress passed in 1978 after the abuses of the Watergate era. But much of the debate over the bill in the last six months has been dominated by the separate question of whether to protect the phone companies from legal liability for their role in the eavesdropping program.

On that score, the bipartisan proposal marks a clear victory for the White House and the phone companies.

…snip…

Even Democratic officials, who had initially opposed giving legal immunity to the phone companies, conceded there was a high likelihood that the lawsuits would have to be dismissed under the standards set out in the proposal. That possibility infuriated civil liberties groups, which said the cursory review by a district judge would amount to the de facto death of the lawsuits.

Just for nostalgia’s sake:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.