Whitewashing wiretapping

As the wiretap bill moves closer to passage it becomes increasingly unclear why any new law is necessary. The new additions to the law make clear that court review of the program would not give blanket authorization for the surveillance, and would require procedures to prevent the surveillance from targetting American citizens without a warrant. The problem is that we have a law that does those things already. FISA provides these same protections, and is less "murky" in the words of former FBI and CIA director William H. Webster, former FBI director William Sessions, and 12 other former national security officials.

What we need is a clear statement of who is targeted by this surveillance and how they are chosen, at least roughly speaking. Terrorists already expect they are under surveillance, but innocent Americans deserve to know whether they are being surveilled also.

More like this

We still don't know if we are experiencing a lull in flu or the virus has burned itself out for the season, but it's as good a time as any to reflect a bit on where we've been and where we still need to go.
Trust is not transitive, as someone recently pointed out, when reporting on the airline pilot who carried a gun into the cockpit and then a
Ever since the arrest of a bunch of suspects in the UK and elsewhere in a plot to bomb several airplanes, the White House and their apologists have been united in their talking points: A) that this proves the need for warrantless surveillance and B) that those who oppose warrantless surveillance
Yesterday DemFromCT had another in his continuing series at DailyKos on Flu and You (Part VIII).