Ian S. Thompson – 8/9/07

This page was last updated on August 23, 2007.

Casey and Altmire caved in; Ian S. Thompson; Beaver County Times; August 9, 2007.

As background, Mr. Thompson began writing letters as a Penn State student. His fields of study were English and international politics and he graduated in 2005 with a B.A. in International Politics. In letters to the Penn State Daily Collegian, Mr. Thompson identified himself as the political director of Allies, a PSU organization now known as SpeakOut. The mission statement of SpeakOut reads, “Works to organize the family, friends, supporters and members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and ally (LGBTA) community at PSU and is committed to a safe and social network open to all students, political and social education, and to increasing visibility and fostering a positive climate for LGBTA students at PSU.” When he “signed” an anti-landmine “treaty” on the web, Mr. Thompson indicated he was a member of Amnesty International.

If you’ve read Mr. Thompson’s letters since at least mid-2004, you know he’s a full-blown socialist (“a proud progressive” in his own words from 2003) who tends to resort to name-calling and unsupported talking points. This letter is no exception.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“I once heard a saying that those who stand for nothing will fall for anything.”

[RWC] When you reach the end of Mr. Thompson’s letter, you’ll note not once did it correctly describe the law it rails at. Don’t take my word for it; read the law (link below) and make up you own mind.

“Perhaps they had Beaver County’s congressional delegation in mind because it certainly applies to each one of them.

“U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter (R) and Bob Casey (D) and U.S. Rep. Altmire (D) recently voted to authorize a vast and dangerous new expansion of President’s Bush’s ability to spy on the communications of Americans without meaningful oversight by either the courts or Congress.”

[RWC] “[V]ast and dangerous?” Read the amendment (link below) and you’ll likely find your definitions of “vast and dangerous” differ from those of Mr. Thompson.

“This for an administration that has demonstrated nothing but contempt for our Constitution and the rule of law.

“One of the most shocking aspects of the Orwellian ‘Protect America Act’ is that it removes the power to issue warrants on international communications from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court and places this authority in the hands of disgraced Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Hollywood could not make up a more outrageous plot if it tried.”

[RWC] How has AG Gonzales been “disgraced?” Regarding the Hollywood comment, I believe the yarn spun in Mr. Thompson’s letter may mean he has a future in Hollywood himself.

“Washington, D.C., can be such a topsy-turvy world. Impeachment is off the table, but unchecked expansions of power to an administration that has abused it like none before is a-OK.

“What is most disappointing about this whole affair is how easily Casey and Altmire caved in to the administration’s fear-mongering. Now is not the time for Democrats to roll over and play dead while the Bushies continue to stampede over our ever-diminishing civil liberties.”

[RWC] Note Mr. Thompson doesn’t list “our ever-diminishing civil liberties.”

“If they are unwilling or too afraid to stand up and defend our Constitution and an America we can all be truly proud of, then they should give up their seats to individuals who will.”

[RWC] Let’s clarify what upsets Mr. Thompson.

First, though, it’s important to note the description of the FISA amendment is “CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.” Let me repeat, “PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.”

FISA was intended to cover at least some communications between foreign governments and persons within the U.S., but not communications conducted completely outside the U.S. For example, communication between the U.K. and someone in the U.S. may be covered by FISA, but communication between someone in the U.K. and someone in Brazil was not.

At the time we enacted FISA in 1978, communications between two foreign countries rarely went through the U.S. Today, however, it’s common for communications between two foreign countries to transit servers, switches, et cetera in the U.S. Therefore, under a strict interpretation of FISA, this meant we now had to obtain warrants for communications between foreign countries only because the communications transited switching equipment on U.S. soil. This means the FISA court was swamped with requests for warrants. As a result, it was alleged the warrant backlog resulted in a significant decrease in actionable intelligence obtained from purely extra-U.S. communications.

The FISA amendment (S.1927; Public Law No: 110-55) recognizes this problem and states, “Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine.” The amendment then lists a bunch of requirements to be met, including a requirement that the AG “transmit as soon as practicable under seal to the court established under section 103(a) a copy of a certification” that the amendment’s requirements were met. If a FISA court judge finds the surveillance ordered by the DNI and AG doesn’t meet the amendment’s requirements, he can set aside the directive and stop the surveillance.

The amendment also provides for additional oversight by the courts and Congress.

Maybe it’s just bias on my part, but Mr. Thompson’s presentation of the issue doesn’t seem to match up well with the facts.