“it uses smart technical analysis and crisp writing to put the reader inside the room with the watchers and to help better understand the mind-set that gave rise to the modern surveillance state.”

“At its best ‘The Watchers’ provides an insightful glimpse into how Washington works and how ideas are marketed and sold in the back rooms of power, whether the product being peddled is widgets or a radical model for intelligence gathering.”

You can view all my NSA reporting here.

Sound like a familiar complaint? It should, if you’ve been following the debate to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. But this quote comes from one of our neighbors to the north.

Jack Hooper, a former deputy director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service—basically, their CIA—says that the nation’s wiretapping law is outdated, and that it’s inhibiting Canadian intelligence’s ability to monitor suspects abroad.

In something of a twist on the U.S. debate, a Canadian Federal Court judged ruled that a number of suspects CSIS wanted to monitor were enough of a threat to bug in Canada, the court had no authority to order a wiretap of Canadian citizens abroad.

According to the Globe & Mail, whose Colin Freeze (btw, how cool is that name?), interviewed Hooper, “Counterterrorism agencies have spent years hoping to run wiretaps against Canadian suspects who live abroad. Yet a lingering loophole means the spies continue to go ‘blind and deaf’ whenever Canadian targets board outbound planes.”

“Technically we can do it, but legally we can’t,” Hooper says.

Listen to all the parallels between the Canadians’ conundrum and the Americans’.

Mr. Hooper argued that the country’s spying laws are legacies of an analog age, hampering investigations in an era of mobile phones, the Internet, cheap jet travel and so-called “homegrown” terrorist threats.

“God forbid. If something really bad happens, the question will be asked: ‘What were you doing with this guy when he was in Country X?’” he said. “And we’ll say ‘Well we could have covered him, but we were proscribed by law.’ “

Canada’s equivalent of the National Security Agency apparently can lend a hand sorting through signals intelligence to domestic law enforcement agencies. As long as the intel was obtained legally, the cooperation is allowed. As the Globe & Mail reports, CSIS’ attempt to get a warrant for overseas surveillance “was an attempt to further marry the sister agencies’ capabilities.”

Voice of America has a roundup of member positions this morning, and quotes Hoyer.

Hoyer asserted to reporters that even if the foreign intelligence surveillance law [PAA] expires, Americans will not be in danger and the intelligence community will be able to continue intercepting communications of suspected terrorists.

Expressing disappointment with the vote [yesterday not to extend PAA for 21 days], Hoyer does not expect Democrats will attempt another short-term extension, although he wouldn’t rule this out, saying Democrats will use coming weeks to work on a bipartisan bill acceptable to President Bush. “In the event that the Protect America Act is not extended, we nevertheless intend to use the next 21 days for the same purposes, that is to try to see if we can reach agreement between the House and the Senate, on a bill that would enjoy broad support in the House and the Senate,” he said.

Interesting. I had predicted that the Dems would vote for the Senate bill that passed earlier, but Hoyer is certainly putting another route out there. This move would, of course, inspire the wrath of Republicans and the White House, but that would presumably inspire Democrats to work quickly on a new law. I still think the Dems will vote to pass the bill this week, but we’ll see.

IN THE WEEDS CONTENT: To clear up some of this business about whether surveillance activities will be put at risk if the PAA is allowed to expire. Here’s how this works. Under the law, surveillance activities are conducted per the authorization, or certification, of the attorney general and the director of national intelligence. Essentially, they identify targets, and the intelligence community starts monitoring them. That surveillance is allowed to continue uninterrupted for one year. It does not expire when the PAA expires.

So, for example, if the government begins a new surveillance today, that surveillance can continue until February 14, 2009. It would not have to be shut down at the end of this week, when the PAA expires. And it’s important to note, what’s included in said surveillance is classified. But based on the law, and a lot of reporting, we know that the intelligence community is looking at whole groups of communications; we’re not only talking about single wiretaps here.

Now, if the PAA expires, the government would have to begin any new foreign intelligence surveillance under FISA. In other words, they’d have to go to a judge before they begin surveillance, which would be limited to individual targets and would be subject to the same rules of the road that were guiding surveillance before PAA was enacted. When intelligence officials say that without PAA their efforts will be hindered, that’s because they would be slowed down, legally and bureaucratically. Remember that when the National Security Agency’s warantless surveillance program was revealed, senior officials said that they had to go around FISA because that law was unsuited to the technology landscape—full of cell phones, e-mails, instant messaging—and to their need to engage in “hot pursuit” of suspected terrorists. There are lots of other reasons officials don’t want to revert to FISA, but for immediate purposes, this is probably the most important.

It’s not clear whether or not the secret orders the president issued in October 2001—the ones that kicked off the NSA’s warantless program—would come into play if PAA were no longer in existence. I have to presume that the president could issue new orders if he felt that was necessary, to continue surveillance activities in lieu of the PAA. Bottom line, our intelligence-gathering efforts are certainly tied up in this law, but they are not hanging on it.

It’s increasingly unlikely that the House won’t pass the legislation, which includes immunity for telecom companies that helped the government conduct electronic surveillance inside the United States after 9/11. Mike McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, appeared in the Oval Office with President Bush this morning, who made clear he would veto the House attempt to punt the law for three weeks.

Given House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes’ rather tepid remarks on immunity yesterday, I doubt the House will put up much of a fight. The Democratic split today shows that the chamber doesn’t have the votes to fend off the Senate bill. More importantly, it will be seen as a revolt and evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid have failed to hold a coalition against the Bush administration on intelligence activities that the Democrats have protested for more than two years.

The Protect America Act expires on Saturday. The ACLU has just called upon House members to let it expire, a game of chicken that Democrats have shown zero willingness to play. I think we’ll have a new law on the books before the week is through.

For the record, here’s the list of Dems who voted not to extend PAA for three weeks. There are some surprising names here. Dennis Kucinich is hardly a friend of the administration on this issue. And Maurice Hinchey was a thorn in the White House’s side over the president’s halt of a Department of Justice inquiry into NSA-related activities.

UPDATE AND NOTE: A reader correctly points out that many of the following members voted against the PAA in its original incarnation. In fact, only five members–Altmire, Boren, Boswell, Peterson, and Walz–voted to extend the act today. The reader notes, “How could you vote to extend something you didn’t vote for in the first place. They [members voting no] WERE NOT siding with republicans.”

I note, however, that they were still breaking with their party, and, whether intentionally or otherwise, helping force the House to act on the Senate bill this week.

Jason Altmire (PA)

Dan Boren (OK)

Leonard Boswell (IA)

Michael Capuano (MA)

Jerry Costello (IL)

Lincoln Davis (TN)

Peter DeFazio (OR)

Lloyd Doggett (TX)

Bob Filner (CA)

John Hall (NY)

Maurice Hinchey (NY)

Rush Holt (NJ)

Dennis Kucinich (OH)

Barbara Lee (CA)

John Lewis (GA)

Tim Mahoney (FL)

Jim Moran (VA)

Christopher Murphy (CT)

Patrick Murphy (PA)

Frank Pallone (NJ)

Donald Payne (NJ)

Collin Peterson (MN)

Steven Rothman (NJ)

Loretta Sanchez (CA)

John Sarbanes (MD)

Jan Schakowsky (IL)

Jose Serrano (NY)

Tom Udall (NM)

Tim Walz (MN)

Maxine Waters (CA)

Mel Watt (NC)

Lynn Woolsey (CA)

David Wu (OR)

The Senate passed S. 2248, the FISA Amendments Act, by an overwhelming majority of 68 to 29. Clinton and Obama were two of three senators listed as “not voting.” Republican Lindsey Graham was the third. John McCain, the presumed Republican presidential nominee, voted in favor of the bill.

As I noted earlier today, Clinton didn’t vote on the most controversial amendment to the bill, granting immunity from lawsuits to telecom companies that assisted the government with warantless surveillance activities. That amendment passed and is in the final bill that now heads to the House. (Obama voted against immunity, McCain for it.)

The Clinton campaign told Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic, “Senator Clinton was unable to vote earlier, but she has made her strong opposition to this legislation crystal clear.” The senator was in Texas campaigning.

The FISA Amendments Act was arguably the most important piece of national security legislation taken up by the Senate in the past year. Presumably, the Democratic candidates’ non-votes will shield them from Republican accusations that they voted against the intelligence community. Maybe they saw the RNC Daisy ad. There’s also a decent chance that Obama and Clinton, despite statements to the contrary, actually think the Senate has passed a decent bill, one that a future president would find advantageous.