Spy czar urges extension of warrantless-wiretap law

WASHINGTON--Under grilling from congressional Democrats on Tuesday, the nation's intelligence chief said he doesn't know how many Americans' phone and e-mail conversations have been inadvertently overheard in the process of foreign-oriented snooping.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has previously said only about 100 Americans have been "targeted" for electronic surveillance, and he emphasized at a hearing here Tuesday that none of that eavesdropping has occurred without a court order. Doing so would be illegal, he added.

But when pressed by House of Representatives Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and other Democrats to estimate how many Americans who weren't necessarily "targets" have had their communications scooped up through the government's surveillance efforts, McConnell couldn't say.

"I don't have the exact number," McConnell replied, adding, "It is a very small number considering that there are billions of transactions everyday." He said he would look into getting that number and brief the committee in a non-public session.

The sworn testimony from McConnell came as the Bush administration kicked off a new push in Congress for permanent expansion of warrantless-wiretapping powers, drawing skepticism from Democrats and more vocal sympathy from Republicans. McConnell is also scheduled to appear before the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday and the Senate Judiciary Committee next week. And President Bush plans to visit the National Security Agency's Maryland headquarters on Wednesday to get an update on how they have been using the temporary law, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Before leaving for the August recess and under intense pressure from the White House, Congress approved the Protect America Act, a highly contentious temporary law that amends a 1978 wiretapping law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The White House has been fighting for permanent legal changes because it argues recent interpretations of the earlier version of FISA have hamstrung efforts to snoop on foreign terrorists. Set to expire six months after its passage, the Protect America Act dropped a requirement that investigators obtain a secret warrant before intercepting phone conversations and e-mails that pass through the United States, provided that they "concern" foreigners.

The Bush administration says that's consistent with the intent of FISA, which was to allow surveillance of foreigners without a warrant. But civil liberties advocates and many Democrats say the changes have gone too far and are worded broadly enough to allow the government to monitor domestic phone calls and e-mails without a warrant.

There's generally no disagreement that listening in on conversations between foreigners doesn't require a warrant under U.S. law, but "the administration wrote their bill so broadly and loosely that it permits the government to intercept any and all electronic communications from U.S. citizens to anyone even thought to be abroad at the time," Conyers said Tuesday.

Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-Texas), by contrast, said the changes make sense and called for enactment of all the Bush administration's proposals, which date back to April. "Requiring a court order for every phone call from a foreign target to a person inside the United States is contrary to FISA and common sense," he said.

Republicans on the committee repeatedly attempted to demonstrate the importance of the legal changes. For instance, if Osama bin Laden was making a phone call to someone outside the country, say, from a hotel in Florida, then U.S. investigators wouldn't be allowed to snoop on his conversation without getting a warrant, McConnell confirmed in response to a question from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).

If Congress reverts to the original interpretation of FISA, "we'd lose about two-thirds of our capability and we'd be losing steadily over time," McConnell said. (That conflicts with an estimate he offered at a Senate hearing last week: the nation's intelligence gathering tools related to terrorism would be diminished by 50 percent.)

McConnell and Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein also spoke again of the need to immunize telecommunications companies that "allegedly" assisted the government in their surveillance operations. The Protect America Act offers that immunity going forward but doesn't apply to relationships that may have existed before the law was passed in August.

But some Democrats questioned what exactly the telephone companies need protection from.

"If no one has done anything illegal, it's not clear to me why we need to immunize past behavior," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.). "And it seems to me that at a minimum, if we are going to do that, we ought to know specifically what the behavior it is that we are immunizing."

McConnell said he would be willing to offer more details on that front in a "closed session."

More from News.com on this story's topics

United States

RSS feed

Government

Create an email alert | RSS feed

Privacy

Create an email alert | RSS feed

See more CNET content tagged:
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, warrant, foreigner, Democrat, Bush Administration

Add a Comment (Log in or register) 22 comments (Page 1 of 2)
what a surprise
by Dalkorian September 18, 2007 2:54 PM PDT
Only roughly a hundred citizens have been targeted with warrantless wiretaps (remind me which constitutional admendment allows this???), but we don't know how many have been *accidentally* targeted - we'll tell you later in a closed session (I'm guessing not under oath either). Current FISA laws would diminish our capabilities to spy on terrorists by half, maybe it's two thirds. I bet they say three quarters next week. No laws have been broken, but we need to protect the telecommunications companies against lawsuits regarding laws that have been broken. This protection needs to be retroactive, going back into the past when we still weren't breaking any laws. (Read this one again, if it makes any sense to you stop taking acid, wait a day or so to come back down and try again.) If we allowed Bin Laden back into the country and he rents a hotel room in Florida, we couldn't tap his phones without a warrant, we'd be hamstrung. (Never mind the obvious question as to why he was allowed back to begin with). Talk about stay the course - if we keep the people of this nation terrorised enough, they'll give up their freedom and liberties. Then we can be like Hitler, but with nukes. My. God. Are the people of this nation really this stupid? Is it really possible that after 7 years of outright lies anyone is still trusting this regime? Hello? We suffered impeachment proceedings against President Clinton for *FAR* less than this (no one died when Clinton lied). How is this nazi-con able to get away with junk like this?
Reply to this comment
By fighting terror some nations are becoming terror states
by MacHeads September 18, 2007 3:24 PM PDT
Through the culling of civil liberties and the generalization of surveillance technologies in our daily lifes our societies are becoming more and more paranoid. This ultimately can lead democracies to become assieged fortresses and by isolation/ nationalism can push those nations into the practices of terror states. The ultimate goal of a terrorist isn't reaching far flung political objectives far from it but to plunge the target into a state of terror , this state achieved , the target is MUCH more maleable. Now we are down to normalizing surveillance ; what step is next ? Debriefings before landing to and from a foreign country , these were the techniques of totalitarian regimes the free world has been fighting since the end of WWII. The day we forget the principles that govern our democracies for limited safety (would be terrorist communicating in the CLEAR ???) we are entering a very slippery slope. I do not condemn surveillance of key targets far from it , but the systematism these measures installs is more something we thought dissappeared with the soviet era. As a side thought there are graver concerns than phone communications and the focus being brought upon these actually shift the focus from fronts we are definitly losing ground upon (Defense systems security , internet communications, decryption capabilities). Facing an asymetrical foe always end up badly if we play symetrical tactics we are using now and ends up backfiring badly at the worst moments.
Reply to this comment
McConnell is a fascist stooge
by unknown unknown September 18, 2007 3:57 PM PDT
His solution to everything is more surveillance and more government intrusion into peoples lives.
Reply to this comment
just one question?
by dondarko September 18, 2007 4:41 PM PDT
If we're stripping all of our freedoms that "we're fighting" for, what are we going to be fighting after they're all gone? OK, maybe two questions... Don't terrorists win if we destroy all of our freedoms for the sake of protection? After all that's what we've been told why they're fighting us. here are some quotes to remind people of what we should be standing for b/c those are the principles this country was founded on: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." Benjamin Franklin "give me liberty or give me death" patrick henry "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." Dwight Eisenhower "Live free or die!" NH state motto let me know if you need more lecture on what it means to be free..
Reply to this comment View reply
What a way to fight terrism
by aka_tripleB September 18, 2007 6:09 PM PDT
Take away the rights of citizens to take away the rights for foreigners. I'm fairly certain that they don't have to take away rights of everyone to get to a few. And while we're at it, how about we make it harder - not easier - to enter the country. And actually deport those who enter the country illegally. Sure that will anger a lot of people, but it will actually protect the people that deserve it, not criminals.
Reply to this comment
Running out of options...
by lampietheclown September 19, 2007 7:47 AM PDT
I've said it before, but with the damage to our ability to catch terrorists now projected to drop by a whopping two thirds, it deserves repeating. Using this latest number, that would mean that when the law was passed, our ability to catch terrorists went up by 200%! That amazing increase was used to catch... nobody. The administration wants very badly to show us a result for this law, so they lied and told us the Germans caught 3 terrorists with the help of information this law obtained. It turns out that the 3 guys in question were caught 10 months before the law was put in place. So if this law hasn't caught any terrorists, then having 200% more ability isn't what we needed, is it? Maybe there aren't any terrorists left? Or maybe this isn't about terrorists at all, since we got our rights trampled but the borders didn't get secured. If the democrats cant do anything with the majority, and the republicans do bad things with the majority, and the independents cant have the majority, what is the solution? Lampie The Clown
Reply to this comment View reply
Getting it straight
by majarosh September 19, 2007 9:34 AM PDT
really isn't that hard: (1) Dalkorian, "Only roughly a hundred citizens have been targeted with warrantless wiretaps (remind me which constitutional admendment allows this???), " From the Article: Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has previously said only about 100 Americans have been "targeted" for electronic surveillance, and he emphasized at a hearing here Tuesday that none of that eavesdropping has occurred without a court order. ========================= (2) Dalkonian, "If we allowed Bin Laden back into the country and he rents a hotel room in Florida, we couldn't tap his phones without a warrant, we'd be hamstrung. (Never mind the obvious question as to why he was allowed back to begin with.)" From the Article: Republicans on the committee repeatedly attempted to demonstrate the importance of the legal changes. For instance, if Osama bin Laden was making a phone call to someone outside the country, say, from a hotel in Florida, then U.S. investigators wouldn't be allowed to snoop on his conversation without getting a warrant, McConnell confirmed in response to a question from Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.). Obviously a hypothetical question ============================ (3) Dalkonian asks, "My. God. Are the people of this nation really this stupid?" Evidently some are.
Reply to this comment
Quotes to ponder
by sandkicker September 19, 2007 10:57 AM PDT
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790) "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." ~Abraham Lincoln "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." * Thomas Jefferson We have only ourselves to blame.
Reply to this comment
Ummm...
by volterwd September 19, 2007 6:30 PM PDT
"For instance, if Osama bin Laden was making a phone call to someone outside the country, say, from a hotel in Florida, then U.S. investigators wouldn't be allowed to snoop on his conversation without getting a warrant" Question 1: What judge wouldn't automatically provide this warrant? Question 2: Why would they tap his phone and not just knock the door down and kick some ass? It's absurd examples like this that egg on idiots without intelligence.
Reply to this comment View all 2 replies
surprised ?
by rashinal September 19, 2007 9:55 PM PDT
Of course Mike McConnell ?urges extension of warrantless-wiretap law? .. for one,he?s an idiot for two, he?s a bushie, a crony, a spineless neocon, loyal to his political career, not the american people or the constitution. for three, he?s hoping to maintain his privileged, elitist status in the new world order so not to have to grovel with the rest of us. Does this really come as a surprise to anyone ? Isn?t it right on time, again.. the fear mongering , the urgent pleas to give up more ?cause the ?evil terrorists? at the door, ready to pounce ? why, they?re just minutes from taking over our country, raping our daughters, bombing our churches and stealing our wine ? ?the situation is critical, everything is at stake, the very fate of the world as we know it hangs in the balance? Haven?t we had enough of this crap ? Haven?t we had enough of these guys ? And does anyone really believe any of their rhetoric anymore ? I mean, I can ?t recall a single statement regarding their ?policies? and actions or programs that hasn?t been a lie.. And even when they?re caught in the lie, they lie about the lie and then the admission of the what?s ?really true ? turns out to be a lie. (and,of course, the be all, end all justification : ?well Clinton lied !) and meanwhile, no one has done more to further the terrorists agenda .. diminishing our democracy, destroying our liberties, systematically removing freedoms, devastating our economy, dividing our people, killing and wounding Americans, turning the world against us.. no one has done more to these ends than Bush and Cheney et al .. and wait, who are we supposed to fear ? ?give up your freedoms so we can protect you from those who would take your freedoms?
Reply to this comment View reply
1 | 2 | Next 10 Comments >>
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
Click Here
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News.com to your homepage or feedreader.
Google
Yahoo
MSN
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Today's Top Stories
Yahoo tries to conceal lawsuit documents
Social graphs just wanna be free, but will they?
HP to launch fall line of teen-designed products
Conde Nast buys Ars Technica
Google to host 'Factory Tour' Monday morning
Most Popular Stories
Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop
Photos: Cracking open the Atari 2600
This VC forecast scares the pants off of me
End of Intel, AMD duopoly near? Via readies Isaiah chip
Photos: Microsoft previews 2008 Xbox games
Resource center from News.com sponsors
You can do more when your phone runs Windows®
Windows Mobile

See it all at StartDoingMore.com Start Doing More

Start doing more
Get More Done with Windows Mobile

There's so much more you can do when your phone runs Windows. StartDoingMore.com>

Familiar Microsoft Software and Services

With a Windows Mobile phone, your easy-to-use Microsoft software go wherever you go.

Choose the perfect phone for you

Side, flip, qwerty, touchscreen? See More>

Markets

Market news, charts, SEC filings, and more

Related quotes

Dow Jones Industrials (-0.05%) -5.86 12,986.80
S&P 500 (0.13%) 1.78 1,425.35
NASDAQ (-0.19%) -4.88 2,528.85
CNET TECH (0.05%) 0.88 1,783.62
  Symbol Lookup
Update your drivers with Version Tracker Pro
Learn more about Version Tracker Pro

advertisement
On MovieTome: SEX AND THE CITY clips are here!
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: