News & Media>Press Room

Kryzan Position on FISA & Telecom Immunity

July 8, 2008
from www.26thDistrict.com

The following is part of an ongoing series exploring candidate positions in the 26th district on important issues faced by the House of Representatives. All of the campaigns were given the same questions and their responses will be posted to this site as they are recieved.

Recently the House of Representatives passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008. The legislation included a controversial provision granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the intelligence communities domestic wiretapping program.

While many in the House have praised this bill as a compromise that gives the FISA court authority to review a wider range of wiretapping orders and prohibits the executive branch from overriding their decision, some on both the left and the right view the granting of immunity as an erosion of civil liberties.

Senator Barack Obama has said he will support this legislation in the Senate. Local Congressman Tom Reynolds did not vote.
Democratic candidate Alice Kryzan was asked by 26thDistrict.com for her stance.

Question: If you had been serving New York’s 26th District would you have voted for this legislation?

Answer: No. While there are aspects of FISA that can and should be improved, we do not need to abandon our civil liberties in the process of making those improvements.
This legislation has several problems. The bill provides immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law. Moreover, it allows the government to collect the communications of American citizens without the individualized warrants that were required by FISA. And, it reduces the role of the FISA Court from examining individual warrants for probable cause to simply reviewing the adequacy of the Administration’s general guidelines for intelligence gathering. It reduces constitutional checks on Executive power, instead relying almost entirely on the administration itself to follow a law that this administration has already shown a willingness to break.
But we should not even be in the position of debating this capitulatory bill in a Democratic Congress. This legislation only passed due to strong support from conservative Democrats in both the House and Senate, who broke rank and sided with Republicans, particularly on the immunity provision. That’s why we need to elect true progressive Democrats to Congress, people who have a proven track-record of supporting and fighting for our democratic ideals.

Question: Do you support retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies?

Answer: I do not support retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies. Companies that knowingly broke the law should not be given get-out-of-jail free cards, which undercut any incentive telecommunication companies have to follow the law in the first place. Retroactive immunity sends a message that those who violate the rules will not be punished if they have powerful enough friends, reinforcing this administration’s sense that it is above the law.

Question: Do you have any policy positions related to this subject that voters in the 26th district should be aware of?

Answer: Since the beginning of this campaign I have taken the position that we need not sacrifice our civil liberties for our security. That’s why I signed on to the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq, the only candidate in the race to do so. The Responsible Plan focuses not only on ending the War in Iraq, but also on restoring the constitutional checks and balances that have been the backbone of our country for over 200 years. The plan, which is supported by numerous Democratic congressional candidates as well as top military officials, is the most detailed position that any candidate in this race has laid out on the war and related issues. [www.responsibleplan.com]