The controversy surrounding a bill that would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is dividing Congress and enflaming civil liberties groups.

"I am adamant about protecting the Constitution. They're giving nothing in return for it. We're not getting any more security and they're shredding the Constitution," said U.S. Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Second Dist.

The fourth amendment to the Constitution protects Americans from unreasonable search and seizure, requiring probable cause for issuing search warrants.

FISA was adopted in the wake of Watergate to protect American citizens from warrantless wiretapping, while allowing the government to conduct surveillance of foreigners. Under the act, wiretapping must be approved by special federal judges who retain anonymity so they cannot be pressured or influenced by other members of government. FISA required wiretap seekers to show probable cause.

The Senate recently passed a bill, SB-2248, that updates FISA for the 21st century. One of the more controversial aspects of the bill is granting immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the government after Sept. 11, 2001, providing information under the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

The new bill is designed to replace a stopgap measure — the Protect America Act — which lapsed several weeks ago.

"What shocks me is how members of Congress from Kansas would so readily give up 230 years of our Constitution without gaining any additional security," Boyda said.

The Senate bill passed, 68-29, with both Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Dodge City, and Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Topeka, supporting the bill. Of the 29 who objected, all but one were democrats.

"This legislation is of extreme importance to our future intelligence gathering initiatives," Sen. Roberts said. "As former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I understand the implications not passing an updated FISA Amendments Act has on our efforts in the Global War on Terror."

A knowledgeable source on intelligence issues, who declined to speak on the record concerning a sensitive topic, said that current FISA legislation worked, but was not expeditious. Targets of opportunity were difficult to pursue under current FISA guidelines.

Full article here.