Defense of Democracies Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization. Its mission is to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism.
For more information on our recent ads, please contact Brian Wise at media@defenseofdemocracies.org or via phone at (202) 375-8027.
The House still refuses to restore our intelligence officials’ ability to monitor the communications of foreign terrorists. What can you do? Watch the ad above and call your member of Congress. Ask them to support the bipartisan Senate bill, before it’s too late.
House continues to play politics instead of restoring authority to spy on foreign terrorists
Washington D.C. April 22, 2008 - Defense of Democracies Action Fund, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, today launched new radio ads in 9 congressional districts across the country in a renewal of its call on the House of Representatives to pass a bipartisan bill that will authorize U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside of the United States.
It has now been two months since the House of Representatives allowed the law authorizing U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside of the United States to expire. As a result, intelligence has been lost and America is less safe, according to intelligence professionals and members of both political parties.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – a retired Vice Admiral in the Navy who served as President Clinton’s Director of the National Security Agency–said that “we have lost intelligence information…as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act.”
25 State Attorneys General, in a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said, “Passing [the bipartisan Senate bill] would ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to conduct real-time surveillance. As you know, prompt access to intelligence data is critical to the ongoing safety and security of our nation.”
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-VA), Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, made this statement prior to the expiration of the Protect America Act: “The quality of intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest.”
“For more than two months, the U.S. House of representatives has refused to pass legislation needed to keep America safe,” said Clifford D. May, president of the Defense of Democracies Action Fund. “They refused to listen to our nation’s top intelligence official, who has reported that we have already lost information. And they refused to listen to law enforcement, military, and policy leaders – both Democrat and Republican – who warn that our national security is at risk. It’s time for the House of Representatives to stop playing politics with our national security and support the bipartisan Senate bill.”
Under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives refused to take up the bipartisan Senate bill. Instead, it left for two recesses, leaving America’s espionage capabilities severely weakened, and sided with the trial lawyers to pass a sham partisan bill that has no chance of becoming law.
Defense of Democracies Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization. Its mission is to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism.
Ads Run in Districts of “Blue Dog Democrats” Who Backtracked on Support for Senate Bill
Also Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Who Has Opposed Terrorist Surveillance
Washington, D.C. (March 28, 2008) – With intelligence and law enforcement officials warning of increased danger as a result of the House’s failure to act on bipartisan terrorist surveillance legislation, Defense of Democracies Action Fund, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, launched new radio ads in 12 congressional districts across the country – 11 of the “Blue Dog Democrats” that backtracked on their earlier support for the bipartisan Senate bill, and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), who has consistently voted against terrorist surveillance legislation.
The ads call on the House to pass a bipartisan bill that authorizes U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside of the United States. In January, 21 “Blue Dog Democrats” wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to urge a vote for the bipartisan Senate version of the terrorist surveillance bill. On March 14, 2008, however, 14 voted for a partisan House bill (and one voted “present”) that will not give the intelligence community the tools it needs to keep America safe and is significantly weaker than the bipartisan Senate version.
The letter from 21 “Blue Dog” Members of Congress to Speaker Pelosi can be found at DefenseofDemocracies.org. It reads in part: “[W]e would fully support [the bipartisan Senate bill] should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country.” It continues: “[T]he consequences of not passing such a measure could place our national security at undue risk.”
“Disappointingly, these Members of Congress did not show the courage of their convictions, did not heed their own warning. As a result, America’s national security has been placed ‘at undue risk’ – another way of saying that American lives are in more danger than they should be,” said Clifford D. May, president of Defense of Democracies Action Fund. “This refusal to oppose the bogus House bill ensures that vital intelligence is being lost and that America’s intelligence community does not have the tools needed to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. These Members of Congress must do the right thing — stand up to Speaker Pelosi and demand that the House be allowed to vote on the bipartisan terrorist surveillance bill, to keep us all safer. If there is a vote, the bill will pass in the House, as it did in the Senate, with a bipartisan majority.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been blocking the House of Representatives from taking up the bipartisan Senate bill designed to close dangerous gaps in U.S. intelligence law, including critical surveillance authority that lapsed on February 16. Instead, Speaker Pelosi sent House members home for a recess, leaving America’s espionage capabilities severely weakened. The House hastily passed its much weaker version on March 14 before leaving for another two week recess. The Senate is unlikely to ever take up this bill, and President Bush has promised to veto it should it reach his desk.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal terrorism prosecutor and director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said: “At best, the House bill — which everyone knows has no chance of ever becoming law — was camouflage to enable members to pretend that they’d dealt with our national security crisis before going on yet another vacation. At worst, it elevates the financial interests of trial lawyers over the security interests of Americans while granting unprecedented rights to foreign terrorists and gouging telecommunications companies that patriotically helped the intelligence community in the emergency conditions that existed after 9/11.”
Defense of Democracies Action Fund is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy organization. Its mission is to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism. For more information, please visit DefenseofDemocracies.org.
Contact:
Brian Wise
media@defenseofDemocracies.org
(202) 375-8027
Sample Script: FINAL DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACIES RADIO :60 – “INCREASED-SPACE”
Since 9/11, the terrorist threat to America has increased.
But since February 16th…our ability to stop that threat has been interrupted.
The law allowing us to intercept communications from new terrorist groups has expired – risking vital intelligence that has helped stop attacks.
Senate Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly for a bipartisan compromise to extend terrorist surveillance.
And twenty-one House Democrats signed a letter supporting the Senate’s plan — because failing to pass it, quote “could place our national security at undue risk.”
But over a month later Nancy Pelosi and some House Democrats still refuse to bring the Senate’s bill to a vote.
Instead, they passed a sham bill that fails to restore the capabilities our intelligence agencies need.
It’s time Zack Space and the House did its job.
Call: 740-779-1636.
Tell Congressman Space to pass the Senate’s Terror Surveillance Bill.
Paid for by Defense of Democracies Action Fund.
House of Representatives refuses compromise legislation, heads home after passing bill that will be “dead on arrival” in the Senate
March 17, 2008 — Washington DC – When House Democratic leaders refused to allow a vote on the bipartisan Senate terrorist surveillance bill, they ignored the advice of law enforcement agencies, the intelligence community, veterans groups and policy leaders who overwhelmingly supported its passage.
Instead, they passed their own legislation, acknowledged to be “dead on arrival” in the U.S. Senate, and recessed for two weeks while national intelligence agencies were denied important tools to intercept terrorist communications.
“The Senate bill was a fair compromise, one that would protect our national security while preserving the individual liberties of Americans,” said Clifford D. May, president of Defense of Democracies Action Fund. “Instead of protecting Americans, Democratic House leaders decided to put partisanship ahead of national security and sided with trial lawyers over intelligence and law enforcement professionals. Their refusal to even consider the Senate anti-terrorist surveillance bill – a bill supported by Republicans and Democrats alike - has made us far less safe and more vulnerable to a devastating attack.”
The following is a sample of the overwhelming bipartisan and non-partisan support for the Senate bill:
“The quality of intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded. It is going to be degraded. It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest.”
“[T]he expiration of the authorities in the Protect America Act would plunge critical intelligence programs into a state of uncertainty which could cause us to delay the gathering of, or simply miss, critical foreign intelligence information.” (February 5, 2008)
“We have lost intelligence information ... as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act.” (February 22, 2008)
“It is imperative that our intelligence agencies retain the tools they need to collect vital intelligence information.” (February 22, 2008)
“I do believe strongly that [telecoms] should be granted that immunity.”
“They were told to [cooperate] by the appropriate authorities that were operating in a legal context.”
“[T]he electronic surveillance for law enforcement and intelligence functions depends in great part on the cooperation of the private companies that operate the nation’s telecommunication system.”
“The provision of retroactive immunity would help ensure that these providers who acted in good faith to cooperate with the government when provided with lawful requests in the future.”
“The American people expect Congress to protect America, not the lawsuit lobby. This surveillance is aimed at terrorists who want to kill innocent Americans.”
“Americans are protected from illegal search and seizures by the Fourth Amendment, but critical legislation is now being delayed because some would extend these same constitutional protections to those who want to harm America.”
“With S. 2248 [Senate FISA modernization bill] still pending in the House of Representatives, our national security is in jeopardy.”
The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) modernization bill S. 1228 on February 12, 2008 by a vote of 68- 29. 19 Democrats, 48 Republicans, and 1 Independent voted for the bill.
Recesses without restoring key intelligence capabilities
March 14, 2008 Washington DC – The leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives has once again put the American people in danger by refusing to allow the Senate version of the FISA modernization bill. They instead voted on a bill that has little chance of passing in the Senate and which the President has vowed to veto.
The support for the Senate version of the bill has been overwhelming from both bipartisan and nonpartisan sources. A bipartisan delegation of 25 State Attorneys General wrote a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi urging a vote and describing the importance of the legislation to keeping America safe. In addition, organizations representing law enforcement officers from throughout the country have voiced their strong support for the Senate version of the bill. In a vote on Friday for a competing, though dangerously inadequate version of the FISA bill, the House of Representatives approved a bill that even an aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid believes could not pass the Senate and may not even be considered.
“The House continues to put American lives in danger by passing a bill that everyone knows has no chance of becoming law,” said Defense of Democracies President Clifford May. “The House needs to show the same bipartisan cooperation that has been seen in the Senate. This should be about keeping America safe, not political posturing.”
The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan FISA modernization bill which addresses the concerns of all parties. The strong support that the Senate bill received demonstrates the bipartisan nature of this issue. The Senators who voted for the bill understand what the veterans, law enforcement, intelligence community and national security communities have been saying about the need for a strong terrorist surveillance bill.
Bipartisan Senate bill would restore authority to the U.S. Intelligence Community
Bipartisan support exists in the House as well — Defense of Democracies Action Fund asks Speaker Pelosi to let legislators do their jobs
Washington, D.C. (March 10, 2008) – Defense of Democracies Action Fund, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, will begin airing a new ad on cable networks throughout the country calling on Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to listen to the professional intelligence community and state attorneys general from both parties and across the nation and bring the Senate version of the FISA reform bill to a vote.
The ads will run on cable networks throughout the country and can be viewed at the website DefenseofDemocracies.org. This follows previous ads that have made similar calls on the House Democratic leadership to allow a vote on a bi-partisan bill that will authorize U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected foreign terrorists outside of the United States.
With intelligence and law enforcement officials warning of increased danger as a result of the House’s failure to act, Defense of Democracies has developed a new ad that asks Speaker Pelosi to pass legislation that is critical to strengthening national security and keeping America safe.
“For almost a month now, we have been losing vital intelligence,” said Clifford D. May, president of Defense of Democracies. “The Director of National Intelligence and 25 attorneys general – both Democrat and Republican - have warned us that our national security is increasingly at risk. It is not responsible of Speaker Pelosi to continue blocking the democratic processes of the House.”
Led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives has refused to take up a bipartisan Senate bill to close dangerous gaps in U.S. intelligence law, including critical surveillance authority that expired on February 16. Instead, the House left for a recess, leaving America’s espionage capabilities severely weakened. Since returning on February 26, the House leadership has rejected efforts to bring the bipartisan Senate bill for a vote, and instead sided with trial lawyers and special interests – among them the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) that oppose the bill.
Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell – a retired Vice Admiral in the Navy, and a veteran intelligence officer who served as President Clinton’s Director of the National Security Agency–says that “we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act.”
On Tuesday, 25 state attorneys general wrote to House Speaker Pelosi, warning that the House’s failure to act imperils national security: “Passing [the bipartisan Senate bill] would ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to conduct real-time surveillance. As you know, prompt access to intelligence data is critical to the ongoing safety and security of our nation.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal terrorism prosecutor and director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said: “Opponents of the bipartisan compromise stubbornly insist that their failure to act has no impact on national security. Nothing could be further from the truth. Efforts to gather new intelligence are severely weakened and our nation is at increased risk. The House must schedule a vote without further delay.”
Defense of Democracies is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization. Its mission is to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism. For more information, please visit DefenseofDemocracies.org.
Contact:
Brian Wise
media@defenseofdemocracies.org
(202) 375-8027
“We have lost intelligence information”- Director of National Intelligence
“…our national security is in jeopardy”- 25 State Attorneys General
Washington, D.C. (March 5, 2008) – Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, today renewed its call on the House Democratic leadership to allow a vote on a bi-partisan bill that will authorize U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside of the United States.
With intelligence and law enforcement officials warning of increased danger as a result of the House’s failure to act, Defense of Democracies extended its national television ad buy and launched new radio spots in 15 congressional districts.
“For more than two weeks, the U.S. House of representatives has refused to pass legislation needed to keep America safe,” said Clifford D. May, president of Defense of Democracies. “They are refusing to listen to our nation’s top intelligence official, who has reported that we have already lost information. And now they are refusing to listen to 25 state attorneys general – both Democrat and Republican – who warn that our national security is at risk.”
Under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives refused to take up a bi-partisan Senate bill to close dangerous gaps in U.S. intelligence law, including critical surveillance authority that was due to lapse February 16. Instead, it left for a recess, leaving America’s espionage capabilities severely weakened. Since returning on February 26, it has rejected efforts to bring the bi-partisan Senate bill for a vote, and instead sided with trial lawyers who oppose the bill.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – a retired Vice Admiral in the Navy who served as President Clinton’s Director of the National Security Agency–says that “we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress’ failure to act.”
On Tuesday, 25 state attorneys general wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, warning that the House’s failure to act imperils national security: “Passing [the bipartisan Senate bill] would ensure our intelligence experts are once again able to conduct real-time surveillance. As you know, prompt access to intelligence data is critical to the ongoing safety and security of our nation.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal terrorism prosecutor and director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said: “Opponents of the bipartisan compromise stubbornly insist that their failure to act has no impact on national security. Nothing could be further from the truth. Efforts to gather new intelligence are severely weakened and our nation is at increased risk. The House must schedule a vote without further delay.”
Defense of Democracies is a 501(c)(4) non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization. Its mission is to support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism. For more information, please visit Defenseofdemocracies.org.
Radio Script (more…)
Failure of House of Representatives to Act on Bipartisan Bill Endangers American Lives
Washington, D.C. (February 21, 2008) – Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan, non-profit 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, is calling on the US House of Representatives to pass a bi-partisan bill that will allow U.S. intelligence agencies to monitor communications between suspected terrorists outside of the United States. This national ad buy will be seen on cable and satellite stations throughout the country and is also seen locally in 15 congressional districts across the United States.
“Terrorists could be plotting a major attack now, but without this legislation, our intelligence agencies may not be able to listen in,” said Clifford D. May, president of Defense of Democracies. “Regrettably, the Democratic leadership of the House of Representatives has put our lives in more danger by playing politics with this bill.”
Under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives refused to take up a bi-partisan Senate bill to close dangerous gaps in U.S. intelligence law, including critical surveillance authority that was due to lapse February 16. Instead, it left for a recess, leaving America’s espionage capabilities severely weakened.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – a retired Vice Admiral in the Navy who served as Director of the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton – says that the country is in “increased danger” as a result, and that the danger will increase “more and more as time goes on.” DNI McConnell has further explained that before Congress acted to provide the surveillance authority that lapsed this weekend, the U.S. intelligence community “lost … about two-thirds of our capability” to collect information.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former Federal terrorism prosecutor and director of the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said: “The expiration of the Protect America Act has opened a huge gap in surveillance coverage. Previously, our intelligence agencies were permitted to collect foreign-to-foreign communications without restrictions. As of February 16, they must seek court authorization by proving probable-cause, a standard that is not required by the Constitution and will in many instances be impossible to meet. It is absurd to suggest that this huge drop-off in collection will have no impact on our security.”
“Democrats and Republicans in the Senate joined together to pass a sensible intelligence reform bill that preserves essential surveillance authority. President Bush is prepared to sign it,” added Cliff May. “Only the House of Representatives stands in the way.”
Defense of Democracies is running ads calling on Democratic members of Congress to immediately reverse course and pass the bipartisan Senate bill restoring the full power of our intelligence agents to monitor overseas terrorist communications.
Defense of Democracies is affiliated with the non-profit, non-partisan Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focused on defeating terrorism and promoting democratic values.
A transcript of the ad is below: (more…)
Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy responds to claims in the ACLU radio ads
March 6, 2008 — The ACLU is going to bat for its trial lawyer friends and the members of Congress who’ve put multi-million dollar pay-days for attorneys above American national security by not closing a dangerous gap in our intelligence laws.
In the crisis period after nearly 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11, our intelligence and law-enforcement communities feared additional waves of attacks. President Bush authorized a Terrorist Surveillance Program designed to detect and prevent further terrorist strikes. The program required the cooperation of telecommunications companies. (Full disclosure: My wife works for a telecommunications company; at the time of the 9/11 attacks, I was a federal prosecutor in New York helping lead the investigation and the effort to prevent further attacks.)
While an ACLU ad suggests the Terrorist Surveillance Program was a private arrangement between the Bush administration and the telecoms, nothing could be further from the truth. While the program was underway, top members of Congress from both parties—the top-ranking Republican and Democrat leaders in the House and Senate and the chairmen and ranking members of the intelligence committees in the House and Senate—were briefed on its details.
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is comprised of eight Democrats and seven Republicans, has carefully examined the classified records of the program. After doing so, they voted by an overwhelming bipartisan margin of 13-2 in favor of a provision that would give the telecommunications companies limited, targeted immunity from lawsuits arising out of the telecoms’ cooperation with the program.
The immunity is necessary because, as the Senate Intelligence Committee explained in its report, the telecoms cooperated in good faith. They were given written assurances by the government that the program had been reviewed and determined to be lawful. Yet, due to their compliance with these government requests, they have been subjected to dozens of lawsuits, seeking hundreds of billions of dollars in damages.
The ACLU doesn’t mention this in its ad, but it is a key participant in some of those lawsuits. Meanwhile, lawyers pursuing the dozens of suits filed against the telecoms stand to make tens of millions of dollars (or more) in fees if the suits are permitted to go forward. No surprise then, that according to press reports, many of the lawyers prosecuting those lawsuits have contributed very heavily to members of Congress in a position to affect the immunity legislation.
The immunity proposed in the Senate bill is limited and targeted. A company does not qualify for it unless the Attorney General certifies that the company was asked to provide assistance in connection with an intelligence activity that involved communications and that was designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack against the United States.
Even if those requirements are met, the company still does not get immunity unless the Attorney General also certifies that the company was told, in writing, that collection of intelligence involved was (1) authorized by the President and (2) determined to be lawful. The only other way a company gets immunity is if the Attorney General certifies that the company provided no assistance.
If the intelligence activity did not involve communications, or if a company gave assistance without receiving written assurances about lawfulness, it would not get immunity. And the immunity extends only to telecoms which meet the requirements set forth above. It does not affect lawsuits that have been brought against the government. I happen to believe the program was lawful, but that is neither here nor there. The Senate Intelligence Committee made no judgment about whether the program was lawful or unlawful, and the immunity at issue would not end lawsuits against the government.
By a sweeping bipartisan majority, the Senate Intelligence Committee recognized that to permit ruinous lawsuits against companies which cooperated in good faith during a national crisis would be both unfair and counterproductive to national security. To keep Americans safe, the intelligence community must have the assistance of telecommunications service providers—both to carry out lawful surveillance and to volunteer their expertise to our intelligence and law enforcement agents. That’s what maintains our technological edge over terrorists, who are very adept at using modern communications—and don’t need to worry about billion dollar lawsuits.
Limited, targeted immunity is the only fair thing to do, and the only smart thing to do. That is why responsible Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee overwhelming approved it. It’s also why responsible Democrats and Republicans in the full Senate passed intelligence reform that would preserve vital surveillance authority by a two-to-one bipartisan majority. We can listen to them, or we can listen to the trial lawyers.
The following assertions by FactCheck.org were reviewed and responded to by former terrorism prosecutor and legal commentator Andrew C. McCarthy, who has years of experience with FISA and federal anti-terrorism law and policy.
FACTCHECK.ORG: “The law” allowing government eavesdroppers to intercept al Qaeda communications has expired. But the main, 30-year-old law that lets them listen in, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is still on the books. It’s a law amending FISA, making it easier for intelligence-gatherers to eavesdrop on communications that might include Americans, that has expired.
ANDREW C. McCARTHY: Fact-Check is misleading the public here. For its first 29 years, FISA was never “the law” for intercepting terrorist communications overseas — or, indeed, monitoring anyone overseas — terrorist or not — who was communicating with others overseas. FISA took pains to carve foreign-to-foreign communications out of its arduous, probable-cause framework, which was designed to give protection to Americans inside the United States. It took a radical court decision to apply FISA outside the U.S. The Protect America Act was “the law” that Congress enacted to reverse the court decision and reaffirm that FISA (and its requirements of court-supervision and probable-cause triggers) should not apply to foreign-to-foreign communications.
FACT CHECK: “[T]he House refuses to vote” to replace the lapsed law. Actually, the House passed its own version of the legislation months ago. The House and Senate are now in conference to resolve the differences in their bills, which is the normal legislative process.
ANDREW C. McCARTHY: The House bill has long been known to be unacceptable — the Administration announced that the president would not sign it and the Democrat-controlled Senate overwhelmingly supported the necessity of immunizing the telecommunications industry for prior good-faith cooperation with the government, a provision the House bill rejected. The House also insists that FISA court permission should be required for foreign-to-foreign communications — essentially codifying the radical FISA court decision, though it would streamline the process. This would mark a dramatic alteration of FISA and the Constitution’s separation of powers, in which the accountable executive branch, not the unaccountable judiciary, is charged with ultimate responsibility for foreign intelligence collection. And there is nothing “normal” about a legislative process in which key authority necessary for protecting the American people is permitted to sunset.
FACTCHECK.ORG: “[N]ew surveillance against terrorists is crippled.” The administration has admitted that surveillance authorized under the expired bill will extend at least into August. It has also admitted that when a new member of a known terrorist organization is discovered, that person can be surveilled via authorizations granted under the expired law. And at any rate, FISA itself hasn’t expired, and any time the government has strong evidence that someone is a member of a terrorist organization, it can still get a court order to eavesdrop on that person.
ANDREW C. McCARTHY: Again, Fact-Check is twisting the facts. Surveillances begun under the bill can continue for a year from the date they were begun, but new targets can be added only if there is evidence tying them to KNOWN terrorist organizations. If they are connected to previously unknown terrorist groups — or if, as in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the intelligence community does not believe it yet has evidence tying them to known terrorist groups — the surveillance authority of the expired bill cannot be used. The intelligence community, instead, must conform to the arduous procedures of FISA, including the probable cause showing that is not intended to protect aliens outside the United States. Fact-Check’s argument, moreover, ignores that we are supposed to be able to conduct surveillance overseas without restrictions or court interference since we are dealing with people who do not have American rights. Only by doing that — by casting a wide net — can we discover emerging threats. If you have probable-cause, that means you already know someone is dangerous; the challenge in our current threat environment is to find out who outside our country might be dangerous to Americans.
Washington, D.C. (February 27, 2008) – Defense of Democracies, a non-partisan 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, today praised Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) for supporting a bipartisan terrorist surveillance bill on the House floor.
Defense of Democracies has been running ads nationally and in 15 markets around the country, including South Bend, urging passage of bill, which was approved by the Senate on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 68 to 29 vote.
On Tuesday, Donnelly joined with six other Democrats and 191 Republicans to vote to allow an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. The move, however, was rejected by 212 House Democrats who opposed bringing the terrorist surveillance bill to the House floor for a vote.
“Rep. Donnelly deserves praise for his principled stand – for resisting political pressures and supporting this much-needed terrorist surveillance bill,” said Defense of Democracies President Clifford May. “Our intelligence professionals need powerful tools and clear authority to do their jobs – to uncover terrorist plots before they are carried out against Americans. We hope that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others in the House Democratic leadership will listen to what Rep. Donnelly is saying and allow all House members the chance to vote on this bill. If she does, there is every indication that it will pass.”
Under the leadership of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the House of Representatives allowed critical surveillance authority to expire on February 16 when it refused to bring the Senate bill up for a vote and instead left for a recess, leaving America’s espionage capabilities severely weakened.
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell – a retired Vice Admiral in the Navy who served as Director of the National Security Agency under President Bill Clinton – says that the country is in “increased danger” as a result, and that the danger will increase “more and more as time goes on.” DNI McConnell has further explained that before Congress acted to provide the surveillance authority that lapsed this weekend, the U.S. intelligence community “lost … about two-thirds of our capability” to collect information.
Defense of Democracies, a 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, supports and encourages policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism. It is affiliated with, but separate from, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. For more information on Defense of Democracies please visit www.defenseofdemocracies.org.
For more information, or to schedule an interview, please contact Brian Wise at (202) 207-3698 or media@defenseofdemocracies.org.
Today, Defense of Democracies is also providing a response to a press release issued by the Congressman’s office yesterday – and offering to engage the Congressman in a free and open debate on vital national security issues.
The responses are from Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal terrorism prosecutor affiliated with Defense of Democracies. Mr. McCarthy is widely recognized for his expertise in anti-terrorism legislation, both as a practitioner and a legal scholar. He has been involved in numerous terrorist prosecutions, most notably the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing (see bio below).
The paragraphs below are quoted directly from Rep. Walz’s 2/23 press release.
The ad can be viewed here.
Mr. McCarthy is available to discuss his responses in more detail with reporters seeking clarification on any issues raised by Rep. Walz. He also takes this opportunity to offer to debate the issue with Rep. Walz, so that the people of Minnesota may hear all the facts and make their own judgments.
On the National Security Implications of the House’s Failure to Act
Rep. Walz: “This ad is reckless with our national security. Implying that America’s surveillance against terrorists is crippled is a lie. What’s worse, this group has encouraged terrorists to think our country’s surveillance system is weak, when nothing could be further from the truth. Why on earth would any group go on television and claim that America’s intelligence agencies can’t do their job?”
Mr. McCarthy: Prior to February 17, when Congressman Walz and his colleagues in the House Democratic caucus allowed the Protect America Act to lapse, the intelligence community was permitted to monitor any non-American outside the United States without limitation. Because of the House (in)action, the intelligence community must demonstrate probable cause to a secret federal court in Washington in order to monitor any alien outside the United States who is not already covered by the scope of a surveillance order under the now-lapsed statute. It is frivolous to contend that this dramatic shrinkage in coverage—which the nonpartisan Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell (formerly the Director of the NSA during the Clinton administration), predicts will degrade our overseas intelligence capacity authority by two-thirds—does not imperil the American people.
Simply stated, the Congress enacted the Protect America Act last August because it correctly perceived that our intelligence collection efforts would be crippled without it. The House has nevertheless chosen to let the Protect America Act lapse. It is absurd to suggest that the lapse is without significant consequence. If that were true, the Protect America Act would never have been passed in the first place.
On Minnesota’s Experience with Terrorist Surveillance
Rep. Walz: This lobbying group’s so-called ‘issue ad’ is a new low,” added Walz. “Citizens in southern Minnesota aren’t fooled by this fear-mongering but they do deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and where they are from.”
Mr. McCarthy: How ironic that Congressman Walz has the audacity to make such assertions in Minnesota. We suspect the citizens of southern Minnesota remember that it was in their state that the FBI elected not to seek national-security search authorization for Zacarias Moussaoui because the Bureau did not believe they had enough evidence to convince the FISA court to grant such an application. Moussaoui, of course, was complicit in the 9/11 atrocities. That he was a likely terrorist was obvious to both his flight school instructors and the investigating agents. Yet, the FBI thought the same evidence would be found wanting by a FISA judge. According to Rep. Walz and his colleagues, however, we needn’t worry about the lapse of the Protect America Act because we can go back to seeking FISA court authorization for any new surveillance targets—including aliens overseas who communicate with other aliens overseas, which is to say, targets FISA was never intended to cover.
On the Urgent Need to Enact Intelligence Reform
Rep Walz: Prior to this Congressional recess, Walz urged the President and Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle to stay in Washington and reach an agreement to permanently modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), properly balancing the government’s intelligence gathering needs with safeguarding the very liberties that millions of Americans have fought and died for.
Mr. McCarthy: Whatever Rep. Walz may have urged, he was not persuasive enough to convince his leadership, which elected to go on vacation rather than enact FISA reform. We note however that, if Rep. Walz really was passionate in urging his colleagues to stay in Washington to protect the American people, it is specious for him to claim, as he does above, that the American people have not been imperiled by the failure of the House to even schedule a vote on the bill that passed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
On Whether We Still Have the Tools In Place to Protect Ourselves
Rep. Walz: “As a 24 year veteran of the National Guard, I understand better than this group that this is a dangerous world,” concluded Walz. “My message to those terrorists who seek to do our country harm is: We still have the tools in place to intercept and disrupt what you may be planning –and we can act lightning fast — because there is no disagreement in our country about protecting the America people.”
Mr. McCarthy: As a federal prosecutor who actually worked on terrorism investigations, I understand better than Rep. Walz that the tools currently in place for investigating those who would kill Americans are inadequate. A probable cause standard, which Rep. Walz is evidently comfortable imposing on our intelligence community overseas, is unworkable. It permits us to monitor only those we already know are dangerous. It does not allow us to discover the new terrorist threats (we did not, for example, have probable-cause evidence against Mohamed Atta on the morning of September 11, 2001). Intercepting and disrupting threats requires connecting dots. Dots cannot be connected unless they are first collected. The (in)action of the House is preventing the intelligence community from collecting information. It is that simple—and the fact that it needs to be said demonstrates that there is deep disagreement in our country about protecting the American people.
A brief biography of Andrew C. McCarthy is available here.
