Carol Shea-Porter Emboldens America’s Enemies In Order to Protect Her Friends
by Andrew Kone
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.