On August 5, 2007 President Bush signed the Protect America Act of 2007, which provided sweeping new spying powers to the Executive Branch as an up-date to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Called the Protect America Act of 2007, it allows the government to eavesdrop on international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants. Little by little, problems with the bill have been coming to light. (See The Weekly Wonk, Problem with New Law, 8/11/07.) Now, according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the bill is so ambiguous, it may allow for domestic spying, too.

The CRS report analyzes the bill carefully and clearly shows that it was hastily passed, with little consideration for the details. It highlights just how vague it actually is. It says, “Thus, by its terms, it could conceivably be interpreted to cover some communications between parties in the United States . . . if the other requirements of the subsection were satisfied.” Another subsection says it, “might be seen to be susceptible to two possible interpretations.” And there’s this: “There appears to be some ambiguity in the language of section 105B, particularly as compared to 105C, as to what the procedures cover and what procedures are to be submitted to the FISC [the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court].” Section 105B pertains to the power given to the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to authorize surveillance without a court order. Section 105C deals with the determination of which activities must be submitted to FISC for approval. If there’s ambiguity between these two sections, it’s a real problem.

The law expires in six month. Bush has stated that his first priority when they get back in session in September is to amend the bill so that it gives retroactive protection to the telecommunications companies that are being sued for cooperating with the warrantless surveillance of the past few years. (See The New Surveillance Law and The Weekly Wonk, Helping Telecommunications, 8/25/07.) I think OUR first priority should be to get the bill repealed.