Gabby Giffords Plays Politics With Our National Security

Added: March 27, 2008
Gabby Giffords votes for faulty FISA legislation, while padding the wallets of trial lawyers

The Washington Post picked up on this video this afternoon:

Posted at 04:00 PM ET, 03/27/2008

Congressional Republicans Attack With Video

The GOP's House and Senate campaign committees have posted several items in the past few days designed to sitr up support, and favorable news coverage.

The NRCC has posted a video attacking Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) for voting for "faulty legislation that jeopardizes our terrorist surveillance program." Giffords faces Arizona State Senate president Tim Bee (R) in November.

Blue Dog in Name Only: Giffords Sides with Liberals in Terrorist Surveillance Debate

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 5, 2008
Contact: Paula Maxwell
Office: (520) 321-1492

Gabby votes with liberals, trial lawyers over national security

TUCSON, AZ – Negotiations between and House and Senate Democrats could produce a bill that would be sent to President Bush as early as next week on the issue of extending and modernizing federal laws on monitoring terrorists’ conversations, but Gabby Giffords’ previous votes on the subject indicate she’ll side with liberal Democrats.

According to a report in The Washington Post, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is attempting to broker a deal between his caucus’ liberal and moderate wings over the issue of whether to shield telecom firms that cooperate with the Department of Justice from lawsuits, with the “liberal camp pushing to do nothing and the moderate wing supporting a provision in Senate-passed legislation granting immunity for the telecommunications industry.” [“Wiretap Compromise in Works,” Washington Post,” March 4, 2008.]

“Gabby Giffords’ voting record on terrorist monitoring places her
solidly in the liberal camp of her party,” Pima County Republican Party Chair
Judi White said. “Gabby might claim to be a moderate, but a look at her
record on national security tells a different story.”

In February Giffords voted on three occasions to oppose the Senate version that strengthens the monitoring law and gives the telecom firms the lawsuit protection needed to prevent a trial lawyer feeding frenzy. (Roll Call votes 53, 54 and 73).

A bipartisan Senate majority passed a version of the bill last month, 68-29. [Roll Call here.]

“With the likes al Qaeda making clear that they’ll stop at nothing
to carry out their evil agenda, law enforcement needs all the tools at their
disposal to monitor terrorist communications,” White said. “When given a
choice to stand strong for national security or trial lawyers, Gabby Giffords
stood up for the lawyers. Voters will remember that in
November.”

The American Association for Justice, the PAC for the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, has given Giffords $5,000 this election cycle and $10,000 last election cycle.
[2008 election; 2006 election.]



# # #



Paid for by the Pima County Republican Party
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate committee

Setting The Record Straight On Speaker Pelosi

Despite Speaker Pelosi's Misleading Claims, FISA Is No Substitute For The Bipartisan Senate Bill; Speaker Pelosi's Continued Refusal To Permit A Vote On The Senate Bill Is Weakening Our Ability To Protect The Country From Terrorist Attack

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claims that "under FISA, the Attorney General can approve surveillance in minutes. Surveillance can begin immediately and approval of the FISA Court can be obtained within three days." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

· Contrary to Speaker Pelosi's misleading statement, FISA's requirements, unlike those of the Protect America Act and the bipartisan Senate bill, impair our ability to collect information on foreign intelligence targets located overseas. In their letter to the House Permanent Select Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Mike McConnell explained, "FISA was designed to govern foreign intelligence surveillance of persons in the United States and therefore requires a showing of 'probable cause' before such surveillance can begin. … The process of compiling the facts necessary for such a determination and preparing applications for emergency authorizations [approved by the Attorney General] takes time and results in delays." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

· Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell also explained that "our intelligence professionals need to be able to obtain foreign intelligence from foreign targets with speed and agility." "If we revert to a legal framework in which the Intelligence Community needs to make probable cause showings for foreign terrorists and other national security threats located overseas, we are certain to experience more intelligence gaps and miss collecting information."

· Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell further explained that "because of the hurdles under FISA's emergency authorization provisions and the requirement to go to the FISA Court within 72 hours, our resource constraints limit our use of emergency authorizations to certain high-priority circumstances and cannot simply be employed for every foreign intelligence target."

Speaker Pelosi also misleadingly states that "the FISA Court can approve surveillance orders quickly." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

· Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell have made clear that the FISA Court requires a showing of probable cause before it will authorize surveillance and satisfying the probable cause requirement will result in unacceptable gaps and delays in monitoring communications of foreign terrorists overseas. "Imposing this requirement in the context of surveillance of foreign targets located overseas results in the loss of potentially vital intelligence by, for example, delaying intelligence collection and thereby losing some intelligence forever." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

· Attorney General Mukasey and DNI McConnell also stated that "it makes no sense to require a showing of probable cause for surveillance of overseas foreign targets who are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment protections guaranteed by our Constitution." "[Probable cause] makes sense in the context of targeting persons in theUnited States for surveillance, where the Fourth Amendment itself often requires probable cause and where the civil liberties of Americans are most implicated."

Speaker Pelosi misleadingly asserts that "there is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

· Attorney General Mukasey and DNI Mike McConnell reported, "we have lost intelligence information this past week as a direct result of the uncertainty created by Congress' failure to act." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

· The Intelligence Community and Department of Justice have worked over the past week with our private partners – whose assistance is essential to our intelligence collection efforts – to mitigate this problem caused by Congress' failure to act, but we have nonetheless missed intelligence information that we could have been collecting to protect the country. "We appreciate the willingness of our private partners to cooperate despite the uncertainty [caused by Congress' failure to pass long-term FISA modernization]. Unfortunately, the delay resulting from [efforts to gain the cooperation of the private sector after Congress failed to act] impaired our ability to cover foreign intelligence targets, which resulted in missed intelligence information." (Department of Justice and Office of The Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

Speaker Pelosi also misleadingly claims "under FISA, telecommunications companies can be compelled by the FISA court to help with surveillance and have legal protection for compliance." (Nancy Pelosi, "Statement On FISA Negotiations," 2/22/08)

· The Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence explained that, "[e]ven prior to the expiration of the Protect America Act, we experienced significant difficulties in working with the private sector because of the continued failure to provide liability protection for such companies." "These difficulties have only grown since expiration of the Act without passage of the bipartisan Senate bill, which would provide fair and just liability protection. Exposing the private sector to the continued risk of billion-dollar class action suits for assisting in efforts to defend the country understandably makes the private sector much more reluctant to cooperate. Without their cooperation, our efforts to protect the country cannot succeed." (Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director Of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, Letter To Chairman Of The House Permanent Select Committee On Intelligence, 2/22/08)

· According to a statement from the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence: "[A]lthough our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the on-going uncertainty and have indicated that they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists." "Even with the cooperation of these private partners under existing directives, our ability to gather information concerning the intentions and planning of terrorists and other foreign intelligence targets will continue to degrade because we have lost tools provided by the Protect America Act that enable us to adjust to changing circumstances." (Department of Justice and Office of The Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

· As our Nation's intelligence professionals have explained, "other intelligence tools [like FISA] simply cannot replace these Protect America Act authorities. The bipartisan Senate bill contains these authorities, as well as liability protection for those companies who answered their country’s call in the aftermath of September 11." (Department of Justice and Office of the Director Of National Intelligence, Statement Regarding Cooperation With Private Partners, 2/23/08)

Think Right Arizona has a great story on Gabby Pelosi's Favorite Newspaper Writer

TR over @ Think Right Arizona has a excellent take on a local, Liberal Tucson reporter and his pro-Gabby Giffords writing.

Click Here to read the full story