Talk:Protect America Act of 2007

Untitled

Reference link number 1 is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.12.183 (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Missing information on the renewal

Today I heard an ad stating that the Protect America Act (presumably the renewal) had "passed overwhelmingly" and needed to be supported to protect us from foreign terrorists. I think we desperately need to update the article with information on the movements to renew it. (It seems very odd that Wikipedia doesn't have this. Also it seems like those benefiting from the act would be smart enough and motivated enough to remove it. I think we need to update it with the information on the renewal/extension and lock the page to prevent any possible censorship. On the other hand if there is a different page for that I think we need to add the links to that under see also.

Can someone who either knows more than I do, or who has the time to do the legwork update it please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Networkingguy (talk • contribs) 14:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The Protect America Act Act had NOTHING to do with foreign terrorists. It NEVER mentions terrorism, and nothing about the activities requires even criminal behavior. The term "suspects" does not apply in the slightest.

This Act pertains to foreign intelligence information gathering. That can mean anything and everything which U.S. intelligence deems important to spy on. For example, over sixty per cent of CIA staff are devoted to economic espionage. None of those persons are working to catch terrorists, on the contrary, they might be spying on foreign economic data.

There was no "renewal". The "renewal" failed in the spring of 2008; a new FISA Amendments Act was passed which repealed the Protect America Act, with the exception of existing orders levied under the Protect America Act, which area allowed to continue under PAA rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.77.89.46 (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

thisweekincongress.com

I've just removed a citation from thisweekincongress.com that was attached to a quote from George W Bush. The owner of the site pointed out in an OTRS ticket that he didn't have this quote in the article cited so it doesn't make a lot of sense to attach the cite to that particular part of the article. —Sean Whitton / 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

cite to sunset provisions: 180 days from signing

Sunset provisions: 180 days from signing; see Section 6 (c) of the law.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
S.1927 as enacted. THOMAS, Library of Congress. (Public Law No: 110-55, Approved August 5, 2007) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110GtyGvs::

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROCEDURES.
(a) Effective Date- Except as otherwise provided, the amendments made by this Act shall take effect immediately after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Transition Procedures- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of such order, and, at the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable effective date of this Act. The Government also may file new applications, and the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act. At the request of the applicant, the court established under section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)), shall extinguish any extant authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical search entered pursuant to such Act. Any surveillance conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of this Act.
(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act, and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f)).

Is the current debate relevant?

Recent articles[1] are discussing a supposedly urgent debate over the passage of a permanent law by Congress to replace the sunset version. What isn't clear to me is whether this is a political issue with any real effect. Apparently the NSA is already trumpeting how they're losing intelligence and cooperating partners over the non-renewal of the bill. The precedent of the crypto export restrictions (Bernstein v. United States) seems to suggest that the president can say that the failure of congress to renew a bill is an "emergency" allowing him to direct its continuation unilaterally, and to keep renewing it no matter how many times the courts may say it is unconstitutional.

I'd like to see someone nail down facts on:

• Can Bush issue an executive order (United States) decreeing that this bill be extended, without agreement from Congress?
• Could Bush already have issued a National Security Directive that the bill be extended, without the knowledge of Congress or the public?
• Can Congress override a directive they're not allowed to know about? Wnt (talk) 05:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protect America Act of 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090117194044/http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2009/FISCR_Opinion.pdf?WT.cg_n=FISCROpinion_WhatsNew_homepage to http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2009/FISCR_Opinion.pdf?WT.cg_n=FISCROpinion_WhatsNew_homepage

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)