Extend the Protect America Act

A group called Defense of Democracies, apparently related to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has begun airing a television commercial attacking Democrats for failing to vote on extending the Protect America Act.



Other versions, as I understand it, are being run attacking specific Democratic members of the House. The FDD was considered to be a “nonpartisan policy institute dedicated exclusively to promoting pluralism, defending democratic values, and fighting the ideologies that drive terrorism.” However, as a result of running this commercial many prominent Democrats are leaving there board of directors, including former Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile. You can read her statement here.

I first came across the video on a blog called Media Morgue. It comments on the blog thusly:

From their website, Defense of Democracies says that their mission is to "support and encourage policies, procedures and laws necessary to defeat terrorism." In other words, they think the government's efforts to spy on its citizens is a good thing and that not being allowed to is tantamount to treason.

It goes on to say:

Of course, it can ALSO be argued that were it not for our fearless leader banging the war drum and conning the US into an unjustified war in a country that, prior to our deployment, had little to no terrorist activity to begin with, we probably wouldn't have to worry so much about the state of our national security now.

As you might imagine, I have a few disagreements. First, the Protect America Act had nothing to do with “the government's efforts to spy on its citizens.” It dealt with FOREIGN, not domestic surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) limited DOMESTIC spying. Under FISA the government needs probable cause that an individual is an agent of a foreign power before their communications may be intercepted. Foreign surveillance has always been exempt from these requirements. Surveillance on individuals overseas suspected of ties to terrorism only came under FISA because many entirely foreign communications flow through servers physically located in the U.S. A FISA court ruled, incorrectly in my opinion, that this made these communications domestic and thus subject to FISA’s warrant requirements.

As to the argument that there was little to no terrorism in Iraq prior to invasion, he may have a point given that Iraq was a police state under Saddam Hussein, but the government was there to terrify the Iraqi people. But is this blog really trying to argue that we only face a terrorist threat because of “our fearless leader banging the war drum and conning the US into an unjustified war.” That is ridiculous of course.

Terrorists were a threat to the United States long before we invaded Iraq, or even before George W. Bush took office. The September 11, 2001 attacks were two years before we invaded Iraq. The first WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers bombing, and the attack on the USS Cole all occurred when Bill Clinton was president. George Bush did not create the terrorist threat; he was simply the first president to take it seriously enough.