News and Views

In August of 2007, Congress passed the Protect America Act (PAA) which closed a loophole in U.S. laws that are designed to protect our nation from terrorists. Before last August, U.S. national security officials were required to seek warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court before intercepting communications from suspected foreign terrorists in foreign countries. The time it takes to secure such a warrant can result in the loss of a window of opportunity to capture the critical communications.

The PAA was authorized for only six months; expiring on Feb. 16, 2008. The Senate passed a full renewal, but the now-adjourned House has not considered renewing it, allowing the PAA to expire. The reason given is that the bill currently includes immunity to telecommunications companies that prevent them from being sued. There are 40 surveillance-related lawsuits currently pending against AT&T, Verizon and Sprint. Without immunity, the telecommunications firms would most likely decline cooperation with the U.S. authorities, rendering the PAA useless and crippling U.S. electronic foreign intelligence gathering efforts.

Carol Shea-Porter and many other Democrats in Congress don’t seem to give a whit that our national security is compromised. PAA does not allow spying on U.S. citizens, it addresses spying on suspected foreign terrorists. But, even that is too much for Shea-Porter to accept. She grandstands, using liberal hot button phrases like “fear-mongering” and “scare tactics” insisting “nothing terrible is going to happen” in her effort to score political points. No one can guarantee that no more terrorist attacks will occur. In fact, the odds are that eventually another one will occur. But, it is surveillance laws like PAA that have helped keep us safe for the past seven years and Carol Shea-Porter seems intent on tearing those safeguards down all for the sake of political maneuvering.

Stephen Poschmann is a member of the Bedford Republican Committee.

In opposing the re-authorization of the Protect America Act (PAA) in the US House of Representatives, Carol Shea-Porter has once again demonstrated why she cannot be trusted to represent the best interests of the people of New Hampshire. Following the lead of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Shea-Porter characterized the Administration’s vocal support for a bill that had passed the Senate by a 2-1 margin as “scare tactics” and insisted that “nothing terrible is going to happen”.

As a result, the existing legislative authority, previously approved for a six month period, has been allowed to lapse, and a vast amount of foreign intelligence is now beyond our reach. In truth, it is Ms. Shea-Porter who is engaging in “scare tactics”, not the Bush Administration, and her opposition has less to do with a concern for civil liberties than with big money for and from trial lawyers, more about which later.

In order to understand why the PAA statute was (and is) so vital, it is first necessary to summarize the deficiencies of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) it was designed to remedy. FISA, which was passed in 1978, served to distinguish foreign from domestic intelligence, and did so by reference to then-existent technology. Because non-US citizens acting outside US borders do not have privacy protection under US law, our intelligence agencies are explicitly authorized to monitor conversations between such actors where US interests are perceived to be at risk.

However, FISA protects domestic communications between Americans and even non-citizens from unauthorized surveillance, each instance of which must be justified and approved in advance by a secret FISA court. Anyone concerned with civil liberties would agree that such protection was, and remains, necessary.

Now here is the problem: FISA was designed at a time when communications technology was much as it had been since the Cold War days of the 1950s. As such, instead of specifically referring to “domestic” and “foreign” intelligence, FISA refers only to “wire” and “radio” communications, with domestic telephone calls falling under the “wire” label, and therefore justifying strict scrutiny. Our intelligence agencies were free under FISA to intercept radio and/or microwave signals, but had to draw the line at telephone calls.

With today’s technology this distinction no longer makes sense. A phone call that originates in Iran on its way to, say, Paris, may first pass through a United States communications switch. A terror suspect in Afghanistan using a computer to send an email to a mate in Iraq may have his message instantly routed through a hub in California or New York on its way back to the Middle East.

The Protect America Act became necessary when a FISA judge ruled that such transmissions fell within the meaning of “wire” communications. Regardless of the fact that no Americans were involved and that the link was foreign-to-foreign, it would have to be approved in advance by a court – a time-consuming process in an arena where seconds and minutes count.

So, to summarize: PAA was necessitated by technological advances that the original FISA statute could not have anticipated, but which our foreign enemies have proven eager to exploit. Nonetheless, Democrats have been tripping over themselves in a frenzy to politicize the issue, and for narrow-minded advantage at that.

House Democrats refused to pass the bill without first stripping a provision that protects telecommunications companies that cooperate in good faith with the US government in intelligence gathering, even where the companies are first given written assurances that such activities are within the law. Why? Because the Trial Lawyer Lobby, having donated hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrats, wants to preserve their right to sue the big telecoms for billions in damages whenever anyone claims their “rights” have been “violated”.

Here is a little perspective for all of you, and please listen to me very carefully. That’s right, take off the iPod headsets first. Thank you. Now: George Bush is not spying on your mother. Karl Rove is not now sitting in his subterranean bunker gleefully rubbing his sweaty palms while listening to your Aunt Harriet divulge her cinnamon cookie recipe to her neighbor (who might be a Democrat). Dick Cheney is not checking the contents of your web browser’s history to see if you’ve been going to “naughty” places.

But – at least until recently – highly-trained intelligence operatives are listening to conversations originating overseas from people known or reasonably suspected to have ties to terrorists. And in order to do their job, our agents need to know that telephone companies will be willing to cooperate in this effort.

Our intelligence community can no longer count on such cooperation, because… well, here’s a clue: pull out a copy of the Yellow Pages. It doesn’t matter which one, any city or town will do. Turn it over and look at the back cover. You’re looking at a trial lawyer, aren’t you? Of course you are! – and so is every Democrat congressperson up for reelection, and guess who their biggest contributors are? The very same ones who want to preserve the right to sue the phone companies for billions over “privacy rights” for terror suspects.

Think about that next time you vote, New Hampshire.

Andrew Kone is a member of the Bedford Republican Committee.

Consistency & Common Sense

One thing we rely upon is the expectation of consistency and a certain degree of common sense. We like the idea that certain things can be counted upon and that they will make sense to us if we consider them carefully.

Businesses understand this. That’s why fast food chains make their meals the same regardless of the location, why restaurants strive for a consistent presentation of food and service, and transportation companies strive to achieve on-time service. When a company consistently offers a product or service that makes sense, people will continue to use it.

The same should be true when we deal with government. Government services should make sense and perform as predicted. We expect, for example, that traffic laws will be clear and equally enforced, that contracts will be respected and that regulations will be consistently applied.

When people (and governments) develop cooperative arrangements for working together (or competing in a structured manner), a fundamental expectation is that one’s position can be explained, that it will make sense, and that one will act consistently with that position.

A reputation for common sense and consistency (doing things in a predictable manner) is close in importance to a reputation for honesty and integrity.

When we look at candidates and the political parties, it’s natural to look for these traits. How they voted in the past, the values and principles they acted upon or tried to implement, and the clarity of their ideas, are important predictors of what we can expect in the future.

The debates still occurring between Democratic candidates offer an opportunity, when combined with their past history, to assess their potential should they be elected.

Both Democrat candidates have stated that they would disengage from Iraq.

“The most important part of Hillary’s plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq’s civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home.”

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

“Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

In the most recent debate, both Democratic candidates were asked whether they would return troops to Iraq if al Qaeda reestablished a presence there after we withdrew. Senator Clinton declined to respond to this “hypothetical” question. Senator Obama said that he would send troops back.

They both also say they would keep troops in Iraq (or, per Obama, return them there) to fight al Qaeda.
And both say al Qaeda is currently in Iraq (because George Bush invaded Iraq!).

Let’s think about those statements. If al Qaeda is currently fighting us in Iraq, and fighting al Qaeda in Iraq would be worth sending troops back to Iraq, why does it make any sense for Clinton and Obama to remove the troops currently fighting al Qaeda?

Would it make sense to our allies? Or is it just political posturing.

If we’re seeking some common sense and consistency here, it’s not obvious.

Both Democratic candidates have stated they will make affordable health care available to all.

“Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. If you are one of the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance, you will have it after this plan becomes law.”

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/

“Hillary’s American Health Choices Plan covers all Americans and improves health care by lowering costs and improving quality. If you want to change plans or aren’t currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare.”

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

It’s clear that the costs of health insurance are an increasing problem for families and businesses, but proposing government managed health care doesn’t make sense.

Do we really want the government (which brought us FEMA, the IRS, and Amtrak) making decisions on our health care? Does it make sense that government will excel in such a complex and rapidly evolving field as health care?

Regarding consistency, Hillary Clinton was leader of the 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reform. It met in secret, was successfully sued to force disclosure of its deliberations, and its recommendations were not accepted by the majority Democratic Congress.

Albert Einstein described insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Next we should consider what to expect should New Hampshire voters return a Democrat majority to Concord in the next election. What would it do with spending and taxes, assuming that it would be consistent with the performance in the current session and also with the promises made on the NH Democrat Party website?

Ray Chadwick is the Chairman of the Bedford Republican Committee.