March 21, 2008
A panel discussion featuring prominent members of the U.S. intelligence community was attended by nearly 50 people on Thursday evening on the University of Texas at El Paso campus.
The event was moderated by U.S. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D – Texas), the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and included four panelists: Wyndee Parker, deputy staff director and general counsel for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; Chris Thuma, deputy general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; Mike German, national security policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union; and, Dr. Gregory Rocha with the UTEP political science department.
In his opening remarks, Reyes pointed out our close proximity to Mexico.
“Take note that right outside these windows is our sister city of Juarez (Mexico),” he said. He stated that in being so close to another country we often consider ourselves to be neighbors and that citizens from both nations often make international calls to one another.
“Really, to us, it’s not an international call,” he said.
Those calls, though, are an integral part of a government-spying program that has recently come under scrutiny.
At the center of the forum was the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, an updated version of which was recently passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate will now debate its own version of the bill before sending a joint bill to President George W. Bush for approval. Reyes admitted in the forum that the bill faces a veto threat from Bush.
The act was originally signed into law by President Jimmy Carter and provides protection to American citizens against federal national security surveillance practices usually aimed at foreign nationals. Since 1978, FISA has been amended more than 30 times, with current modifications being done in reaction to the Bush administration’s warrant-less wiretapping program, according to information provided by Reyes’ office.
One of the key provisions of the last bill is liability protection and immunity for the telecommunications companies that provided customer communication information to the Bush administration in its anti-terror policies in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
Originally, the bill would have given legal immunity against liability suits to telecommunications companies for having provided customer data to the Bush administration. Under the bill passed by the House, those companies would not receive such broad protections but would be allowed to defend their actions through established FISA courts in which privileged information could be disclosed.
Previously, the companies were not able to defend themselves from such lawsuits as the government deemed the information they provided the be state secrets, which prohibited the companies from divulging details on what type of information they made available to the Bush administration.
Democracy For America, a liberal political organization, attempted to pressure Reyes to drop his support of offering immunity to telecommunications companies, but he said that the campaign amounted to only about 40 phone calls to his office about the issue. He said he has had opposition from both ends of the ideological spectrum for his work on the bill.
“I know I’m doing a good job when both sides are angry at me,” he said.
Reyes said the bill would ensure “individual Americans’ right were protected” in regard to government surveillances programs aimed at foreign targets. He also said it would give the U.S. House the footing needed to stand against the Bush administrations policies.
“I believe the Congress should not be just a rubber stamp for President Bush’s policies, as we have in the past,” he stated.
Parker echoed Reyes’ remarks, adding that the current House bill in particular would give Americans protection from unwarranted searches and seizures.
“FISA is designed to ensure protections against an overreaching executive,” she said.
She stated that the current House bill would also provide a greater role for courts to decide what immunity should be offered to telecommunications companies.
Thuma said the House bill would not provide liability protection to telecommunications companies and would also delay government action against possible terrorist targets.
German, though, proposed that FISA was often overreaching in its authority.
Relating the situation to that of a room in your house which is used to store junk when company comes to visit, German stated, “Because so little is seen, people don’t get to see behind that door and the mess isn’t cleaned up.”
He also stated that since the government collects a vast amount of information, that information is often thrown into “haystacks . . . which actually makes it hard to find these needles that are important.”
Rocha spoke about the various balances that each of the other panelists referred to in their remarks. He noted that Reyes pointed out the balance needed between civil liberties and national security. He also pointed out the balance referred to by Thuma regarding the government’s efforts to obtain information and the “ongoing evolution of in technology.”
Rick Provencio, a self-proclaimed “practicing citizen but not a professional ankle-biter,” questioned the panel as to why the various federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies employ so many lawyers. The question brought surprised, and slightly nervous, smiles to the faces of Parker and Thuma, both of whom work as government lawyers, as well as German, who in the past worked as counsel within the FBI.
Provencio attended the symposium in support of Reyes, whom he said has always listened to his questions and concerns in the past.
“We need to support him when he does stuff like this,” he said.
However, Provencio did not support the federal government’s attempt to gain more access to the information of private citizens.
“I agree that we need to be protected, not at the expense of my or my children’s civil liberties,” he stated.