She said there is little judicial or congressional oversight in the bill, giving free reign to the executive branch.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.
“The Protect America Act does away with court oversight and puts everything in the executive branch,” Boyda said. “People should be horrified of that.”
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.
What's alarming is that you are so in the pocket of your biggest campaign contributors that you will say anything to defend them.
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.”
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?