Container Top
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Search

Events Calendar

EVENT SEARCH:

In This Section


Most Read Stories


Blogs:


Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens

The Heldenfiles:
Friday Night Notebook

Patrick McManamon:
Browns vs. Lions live …

Akron Zips:
Akron trounces Howard to reach .500

Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster

Cleveland Browns:
Robiskie, Harrison inactive

Kent State Sports:
Kent State blown out in second half, loses to Temple 47-13

Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. Philadelphia 76ers

Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad

Varsity Letters:
Four area football teams play tonight

All Da King's Men:
The Sunday Sanity Challenge

Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?

Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (69) The Brookings Institute Study on "Bending the Curve" – Four General Strategies

See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic

Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED

Let's Talk Real Estate:
Silverdome Potentially SOLD!

Ohio Travels with Betty:
George is looking for a Thanksgiving buffet in Akron.

Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall

HRLite House:
A Random Rant on Testing

Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go

Improved surveillance

The long argument about eavesdropping after Sept. 11 should end. The U.S. House has struck a balance between liberty and security

Democrats and Republicans in Congress long have agreed about the need to update the nation's tools for conducting surveillance of terrorist suspects. The controlling law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) dates to the late 1970s. Much has happened since in communications technology, requiring intelligence agencies to keep pace, especially in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

The challenging question has been: What precise adjustments must be made? On Friday, the U.S. House approved legislation that effectively bridges differences of opinion. No surprise that the compromise features unsatisfying elements. Senators would do well to examine closely proposed flexibility for surveillance in urgent circumstances. This potential loophole may require narrowing.

On the whole, the legislation represents a marked improvement over the dangerous power grab conducted by the Bush White House. The president opted on his own to bypass secretly the legal framework for eavesdropping on the communications of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists. When word of the president acting outside the law surfaced in news accounts, a colossal legal and political argument ensued, one the compromise seeks reasonably to end.

Sen. Russell Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, called the proposal a ''capitulation.'' The deal would strengthen the ability of intelligence officials to eavesdrop on foreign targets. It recognizes that today international communications often pass through American switches, requiring more fitting warrant procedures. In emergencies, intelligence agencies would be allowed to conduct wiretaps without court orders for a week (the worrisome loophole).

More, the compromise opens the way to immunity for telecommunications firms that cooperated with the president's off-the-shelf surveillance. The companies face roughly 40 lawsuits. That avenue to White House accountability could be closed.

What do those rightly concerned about executive overreach get in return? The immunity isn't a certainty. A federal judge would determine whether the firms received a legitimate request from the federal government directing their participation.

That essential dose of checks and balances appears elsewhere in the compromise. House Democrats won agreement that the process is the ''exclusive'' means for such surveillance, reinforcing that this president and future presidents must not circumvent the law. Inspectors general in several agencies would have authority to review the wiretapping program. The court overseeing the program must give approval of the procedures in advance.

Worth emphasis is that the court still would have to grant a warrant if an American residing in this country is a target of the investigation.

House Democrats made a political calculation. They recognize the potential for the White House and its Republican allies to play the national security card, excessively and shamelessly. That isn't the full story. Almost everyone agrees the surveillance regime needs to be revamped. This compromise represents a worthy effort to accomplish the task. It seeks a balance between liberty and security. It marks a vast improvement over the recklessness first conceived and promoted by the White House.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress long have agreed about the need to update the nation's tools for conducting surveillance of terrorist suspects. The controlling law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) dates to the late 1970s. Much has happened since in communications technology, requiring intelligence agencies to keep pace, especially in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Get the full article here.


Story tools

Email  Email   Print  Print   Save  Save   Reprint  Reprint   Popular  Most Popular   Reprint  Subscribe

Share this story

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
















Most Commented Stories