Dedicated to the proposition that Nancy Boyda is a one termer.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Did Boyda Even Read the FISA Bill?

After reading this article in the Joplin Globe, I've been assured that Nancy Boyda is only against the FISA bill because the trial lawyers (her husband Steve) tell her to be. Here is the relevant quote that proves Boyda-Pelosi (yes, it's appropriate when spouting the party talking points) is either clueless or running cover for the trial lawyers:
She said there is little judicial or congressional oversight in the bill, giving free reign to the executive branch.

“The Protect America Act does away with court oversight and puts everything in the executive branch,” Boyda said. “People should be horrified of that.”

This is simply not true. The legislation requires the administration to report regularly to the Congressional intelligence committees.
It even adds a requirement that when a U.S. citizen is the target of an investigation abroad, that the FISA court must review the intelligence community's procedures. Most constitutional scholars will tell you that this would not be required by a Supreme Court review of the law.

It also requires the FISA court be involved in the same ways as contemplated when a Democrat Congress and President passed this legislation in 1978. At that time, the legislation clearly intended that our intelligence community would be able to track terrorists without court orders overseas. The only changes the administration wants are to catch the law up with technology, i.e. if a terrorist call from Canada to another terrorist in Canada bounces off a cell tower in Buffalo, we should be able to trace it without getting a warrant.

Which makes the following quote read hollow if know the truth about the FISA law:
Boyda said the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act has been amended over the years so that it keeps up with changing technology.
This is simply not true. If Boyda had gone to any of the classified briefings, she would know this.

So, why would Nancy Boyda take such a public position she either knows to be untrue, or show that she was too lazy to read the legislation first? It's simple, because the trial lawyers want to file more frivolous lawsuits.

Boyda also said she doesn’t favor giving immunity to the telephone and communication companies.

“The president will not tell us what he wants immunity from,” Boyda said. “He wants blanket immunity. The American people should be alarmed.”

What's alarming is that you are so in the pocket of your biggest campaign contributors that you will say anything to defend them.

The President and the Administration have been very clear why these companies need immunity. The companies got a legal opinion from the Justice Department that these actions were taken in accordance with the law and to protect us from future terrorist attacks. Why should good actors be punished by allowing unlimited frivolous lawsuits and why should my phone bills go up because of it?

Had enough of Nancy being in the pocket of the trial lawyers?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The problem is, Mr. Hersh, these phone companies were letting the government tap people's phone lines WITHOUT WARRANTS despite the fact that FISA allows 1) warrants to be issued in secret court and 2) warrants to be issue retroactively (IE after the wiretap had already taken place) and the Bush Administration decided that little oversight was just too much of an annoyance. It's misleading to use the old law as justification for immunity when Bush didn't even follow the damn thing. If he was doing what he was supposed to and getting warrants from the FISA court, it would be a moot point, but he wasn't.

Anonymous said...

First, the party in charge can't blame the minority party for "letting a law expire." Sorry, you run the place now...YOU are the ones who control enough votes to get things done. If Dem's wanted to put a solution in place, they could have done it without Republican help. Republican's WERE for a permanent fix rather than yet another extension, but the Dem's are the ones who control whether it gets done. You can't have your cake and eat it too...if you want the minority back, we'd be happy to let you have it.

Second, on the immunity question. You are either for or against tracking terrorist's communication. If you're for it, you have to provide immunity. Otherwise, no telco company will let you access their lines. If you are against tracking terrorist's communications, then you are against immunity. Again, have your cake or eat it. Not both.

Kind of reminds me of Nancy...against earmarks, but requesting them until she is blue in the face and accepting lobbyist thank you's for them...then allowing FISA to expire AND blaming the minority party for what her caucus couldn't get done. Cake? Eat it? Both?

JOCOeveryman said...

This is great blog. We have to get this woman out of Congress. I'll check back often.

conservative said...

Part of a Recent letter signed by Attorney General Stephen Six (D-KS)

"As Attorneys General, we are our states' chief law enforcement officials and therefore
responsible for taking whatever action is necessary to keep our citizens safe. With S.
2248 still pending in the House of Representatives, our national security is in jeopardy.
We therefore urge the House of Representatives to schedule a vote and pass the FISA
Amendments Act of 2007."

Blog Archive

E-Mail Me

  • bounceboyda@yahoo.com

-