Why Kucinich voted “nay” on FISA Amendments Act
March 14, in the House of Representatives:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.
This legislation is a commendable improvement over the irresponsible Protect America Act passed by this body in August. I am thankful that this new bill does not include retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies. However, the bill still falls short of ensuring the protection of the fourth amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
Blanket warrants, institutionalized by the Protect America Act, will continue with the enactment of the FISA Amendments Act. There is a legitimate concern that surveillance of persons abroad can potentially infringe on the fourth amendment rights of U.S. citizens.
These blanket wiretaps make it impossible to know whose calls are being intercepted by the National Security Agency, which increase the likelihood that the civil liberties of innocent U.S. citizens will be violated.
Specifically, in Section 101(702)(i) appears to include a review process of “Certifications and Procedures” but these procedures are of a broad nature, make no connection to specific individuals, provide for no showing of wrongdoing and contain no explanation of how collection procedures will actually work. Consequently, the bill fails to uphold standard fourth amendment judicial involvement.
Section 101 (702)(g)(3) states that “a certification made under this subsection is not required to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property at which the acquisition authorized under subsection (a) will be directed or conducted.”
Our county’s fourth amendment provides that targets of search and seizure should be stated with particularity. The particularity requirement limits the scope of the search by assuring U.S. citizens whose property is subject to a search is, according to the Congressional Research Service, “being searched of the lawful authority of the executing officer and of the limits of his power to search. It follows, therefore, that the warrant itself must describe with particularity the items to be seized, or that such itemization must appear in documents incorporated by reference in the warrant and actually shown to the person whose property is to be searched.”
Under current law, reviews conducted by the FISA court do not receive names of targets or organizations which already places some limitation on particularity. But this bill appears to allow the Government to go even further by applying for very broad, year-long authority to issue directives to companies to comply with Government searches as they see fit. This broad authority is reminiscent of the current administration’s secret spying program.
Furthermore, Section 101(702)(g)(2)(v) states that a requirement of certification for the targeting of certain persons outside of the United States is that “a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information. ”FISA warrants already have a lower threshold of “probable cause” than criminal “probable cause” because the targets are assumed to be terrorist. The language in this section of the bill eliminates the need to find any wrongdoing whatsoever. Because, in the words of the Congressional Research Service, “[t]he concept of “probable cause” is central to the meaning of the warrant clause” of the fourth amendment, there are grave concerns about the erosion of our civil liberties.
In sum total, allowing the administration to run a surveillance program of such a broad and undefined nature qualifies as “unreasonable” under the fourth amendment. Although the purpose of the bill is to target foreigners abroad, by picking up calls coming into and out of the U.S., the program is not targeted at individual terrorists and individualized court orders are not required. The bill ensures that all targeted international communications are not covered by the fourth amendment even if a U.S. citizen is involved. The rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment dictate that the Government must have cause to spy on U.S. citizens. But the language in this bill ensures that the Government can spy on U.S. citizens who participate in international communications if there is no cause. If we permit our constitutional rights to be watered down out of fear, we have given up our democracy. Congress must stand firm and defend the Constitution.
