Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weaselsan on December 30, 2005, 07:11:25 PM
-
Department of justice is opening an investigation into leaks. I hope they lock them so far back up in jail they'll have to pump air to em'.
leaks probed (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051230/D8EQQRG00.html)
-
Funny, but I think the people who leaked the info are the ones who are in deep doo doo. The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to. Unfortunately (for this administration) freedom of the press is right up there with speech and assembly.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to.
When was the last time it wanted to?
-
bout time, I left that curveball hanging right in the sweet spot.
-
If you don't swing at 'em they count against you for a strike.
-
New York Times?
Wonder what their motivation is?
-
I hope they find the person and prosicute them. Here's what I find funny. Even with all the sensationalist the sky is falling journalism, this is what they end up with.
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/nytsinks.jpg)
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny, but I think the people who leaked the info are the ones who are in deep doo doo. The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to. Unfortunately (for this administration) freedom of the press is right up there with speech and assembly.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them. But the leakers have committed a felony.
Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which - like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al-Qaeda bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle - has done serious harm to our national security.
But fortunately, by clapping New York Times reporter Judith Miller in irons until she talked, overzealous special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has set a valuable precedent.
Attorney General Gonzales should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell -Jack Kelly
-
don't forget about the media telling ben laden that the US govt was listening to his cell phone calls, he don't use his cell phone anymore, thanks "freedom o' da press"
-
The NYT better remember what Bush thought about doing to Al Jeezera cause he didnt like what they were saying. :rofl
-
It is despicable, but not illegal, for the news media to publish vital national secrets leaked to them.
But when the government uses leaks for their own purposes, that's ok? It's a well known tactic in the Western democracies to use leaks for all kinds of purposes - from rubbishing party rebels within party ranks to gauging public reaction.
But then again the government is above that sort of thing, of course.
-
I am constantly amazed by some of the people on this board.
Bush pisses all over your Constitutional rights (vis a vis the fouth amendment), tries to break the balance of powers regarding the judicial branch. And you guys want to see the NYT times get charged for exercising thier first amendment rights.
WTF?
Amazing how fast the investigation into this leak got started compared to the Plame leak eh?
Cripes, Al Qaeda might be able to take some lives, but they can't take your freedom. Bush sure is trying to do that though. I am amazed that the people are willing to accept a more risk prone environment regarding having the freedom to bear arms aren't willing to do so over other issues. Freedom, security and all that.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I am constantly amazed by some of the people on this board.
Bush pisses all over your Constitutional rights (vis a vis the fouth amendment), tries to break the balance of powers regarding the judicial branch. And you guys want to see the NYT times get charged for exercising thier first amendment rights.
WTF?
Amazing how fast the investigation into this leak got started compared to the Plame leak eh?
Cripes, Al Qaeda might be able to take some lives, but they can't take your freedom. Bush sure is trying to do that though. I am amazed that the people are willing to accept a more risk prone environment regarding having the freedom to bear arms aren't willing to do so over other issues. Freedom, security and all that.
Well lets see, if my choice is they listen to some phone calls, or terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians, maybe someone I know or love, I'll go with listen to the phone calls of people calling overseas to known Islamic extremists lands.
Maybe if they had killed a few thousand Canadiens in Toronto and wanted to kill thousands more in the future, you might have a slightly differant tolerance level. Kinda puts things like an emotional dislike of Bush and a juvenile agenda against him in second place on your priority scale.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Well lets see, if my choice is they listen to some phone calls, or terrorists kill thousands of innocent civilians, maybe someone I know or love, I'll go with listen to the phone calls of people calling overseas to known Islamic extremists lands.
Maybe if they had killed a few thousand Canadiens in Toronto and wanted to kill thousands more in the future, you might have a slightly differant tolerance level. Kinda puts things like an emotional dislike of Bush and a juvenile agenda against him in second place on your priority scale.
What a bunch of BS, they can still do that doing through the court, and quickly. The reason they don't want to go through the court is they don't want a paper trail. There is no record of who they listened to or why they were listening to them. Nixon is having a good laugh somewhere.
-
To go to the courts, you have to already have evidence. Like it or not, this allows them to figure out who to keep an eye on, and who to gather evidence on. It's not pretty, but it is casting a wide net to capture the right fish. Extreme actions to stop extremists.
Your version basically would require them to wait until after a tragedy to figure out who did and and then gather the evidence. Bushs idea is to catch them before they commit the act. It may not sound as pretty, listening in to the overseas calls without court permission, but I feel in this situation the ends justify the means.
Do you really feel anyone is suffering a great harm that exceeds that of innocent people killed?
-
Originally posted by Dago
To go to the courts, you have to already have evidence. Like it or not, this allows them to figure out who to keep an eye on, and who to gather evidence on. It's not pretty, but it is casting a wide net to capture the right fish. Extreme actions to stop extremists.
Your version basically would require them to wait until after a tragedy to figure out who did and and then gather the evidence. Bushs idea is to catch them before they commit the act. It may not sound as pretty, listening in to the overseas calls without court permission, but I feel in this situation the ends justify the means.
Do you really feel anyone is suffering a great harm that exceeds that of innocent people killed?
Again, BS, you think the fisa court would deny any reasonable request from the president, no way. Extreme actions to stop extremists, like throwing our constitution out the window? Huh?
Again, there is only one reason you would not want a paper trail, so no one would know what you are doing, and if it is bad people, then why hide it? He is breaking the law, big time, and there is no justification for it
-
Originally posted by john9001
don't forget about the media telling ben laden that the US govt was listening to his cell phone calls, he don't use his cell phone anymore, thanks "freedom o' da press"
And how do you think the press found out about it. Someone in the government opened their big fat mouth with they shouldn't have.....
Talk about shooting the messenger.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Again, BS, you think the fisa court would deny any reasonable request from the president, no way. Extreme actions to stop extremists, like throwing our constitution out the window? Huh?
Again, there is only one reason you would not want a paper trail, so no one would know what you are doing, and if it is bad people, then why hide it? He is breaking the law, big time, and there is no justification for it
Again you fail to grasp the concept. Who would they tell the fisa court they wanted to listen to if they didnt know who was involved??? If they knew who to name, they wouldnt have to bother with this problem, and we wouldnt be having this discussion. Think about it for a change.
Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating? This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence. I am amazed you have a problem with that.
Are you familiar with "prerogative powers"? There is the open ended question yet about whether Bush was legal in using prerogative powers to order the surveillance, as just about every President before him has done in somewhat "gray areas". So, this may in fact be perfectly legal, though on the surface distasteful to some who have lost nothing and risked nothing to terrorists yet.
Time to stop acting all emotional and start thinking. Explain why it shouldnt have been done, what right exactly was violated (not a broad "the Constitution"), tell me the harm and how it supercedes the safety of the society and it's people please.
dago
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Those who have demanded severe punishment for whoever it was who told reporters that Valerie Plame worked at the CIA have been remarkably forgiving about who leaked the existence of the NSA intercept program, which - like the earlier leak of secret CIA prisons for al-Qaeda bigwigs and unlike the Plame kerfuffle - has done serious harm to our national security.
I've actually been waiting to see a thread specifically on the NSA issue (not just in a Patriot Act thread). This is the first one I've seen since the story broke and it isn't about the Administration's unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps, but about the NYT! :lol
Well, I for one hope they investigate and prosecute this issue as vigorously as they are the Plame outing.
BTW Gun...the Plame issue did huge harm to our national security. It showed our enemies abroad some of the inner workings of our intelligence collection network. I personnally would not have suspected that family members of our embassy employees (let alone the wife of the Ambassador) would covertly be employeed by the CIA. Now every family member for our FSOs will be under suspicion and using those assets in the future are now made useless. Plus it makes anyone who associates with those family members suspect as well. And that is why it is illegal to out a CIA agent...not because it puts the agent in danger (they have accepted that risk by joining the Agency)...but because it damages that agent's entire current and previous networks.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Attorney General Gonzales should subpoena Mr. Risen and Mr. Lichtblau, and have them cited for contempt of court if they do not disclose their source or sources. Maybe they could share Judy Miller's old cell -Jack Kelly
Now now...lets get a special prosecutor since I'm sure the Bush Administration wants these leakers prosecuted as vigorously as with the Plame affair.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I've actually been waiting to see a thread specifically on the NSA issue (not just in a Patriot Act thread). This is the first one I've seen since the story broke and it isn't about the Administration's unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps, but about the NYT! :lol
Well, I for one hope they investigate and prosecute this issue as vigorously as they are the Plame outing.
BTW Gun...the Plame issue did huge harm to our national security. It showed our enemies abroad some of the inner workings of our intelligence collection network. I personnally would not have suspected that family members of our embassy employees (let alone the wife of the Ambassador) would covertly be employeed by the CIA. Now every family member for our FSOs will be under suspicion and using those assets in the future are now made useless. Plus it makes anyone who associates with those family members suspect as well. And that is why it is illegal to out a CIA agent...not because it puts the agent in danger (they have accepted that risk by joining the Agency)...but because it damages that agent's entire current and previous networks.
Now now...lets get a special prosecutor since I'm sure the Bush Administration wants these leakers prosecuted as vigorously as with the Plame affair.
Do you ever wonder about someone who would serve a partisan political agenda at the risk of national security? I certainly do, regardless of political affiliation. But then, I also think all US citizens convicted of spying against the USA should be executed by firing squad. On that I am not kidding. Death should be the punishment, no exceptions.
dago
(I am dago and I approved this message)
-
Originally posted by Dago
Again you fail to grasp the concept. Who would they tell the fisa court they wanted to listen to if they didnt know who was involved??? If they knew who to name, they wouldnt have to bother with this problem, and we wouldnt be having this discussion. Think about it for a change.
How can you listen to someone if you don't know who you are listening to? You are listening to someone, who is it? you don't know? huh?
Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating? This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence. I am amazed you have a problem with that.
If it is to listen to those who commit mass murder, then why not go through the fisa court? I am amazed you have a problem with that
Are you familiar with "prerogative powers"? There is the open ended question yet about whether Bush was legal in using prerogative powers to order the surveillance, as just about every President before him has done in somewhat "gray areas". So, this may in fact be perfectly legal, though on the surface distasteful to some who have lost nothing and risked nothing to terrorists yet.
Well, then you are fimiliar with the fact that he must justify his actions to congress after the fact. If he cannot justify it, it was illegal.
Time to stop acting all emotional and start thinking. Explain why it shouldnt have been done, what right exactly was violated (not a broad "the Constitution"), tell me the harm and how it supercedes the safety of the society and it's people please.
Why? Because it is illegal.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Again you fail to grasp the concept. Who would they tell the fisa court they wanted to listen to if they didnt know who was involved??? If they knew who to name, they wouldnt have to bother with this problem, and we wouldnt be having this discussion. Think about it for a change.
How can you listen to someone if you don't know who you are listening to? You are listening to someone, who is it? you don't know? huh?
Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating? This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence. I am amazed you have a problem with that.
If it is to listen to those who commit mass murder, then why not go through the fisa court? I am amazed you have a problem with that
Are you familiar with "prerogative powers"? There is the open ended question yet about whether Bush was legal in using prerogative powers to order the surveillance, as just about every President before him has done in somewhat "gray areas". So, this may in fact be perfectly legal, though on the surface distasteful to some who have lost nothing and risked nothing to terrorists yet.
Well, then you are fimiliar with the fact that he must justify his actions to congress after the fact. If he cannot justify it, it was illegal.
Time to stop acting all emotional and start thinking. Explain why it shouldnt have been done, what right exactly was violated (not a broad "the Constitution"), tell me the harm and how it supercedes the safety of the society and it's people please.
Why? Because it is illegal.
Wouldnt it have been easier and quicker for you just to say you cant answer the questions with any intelligent and relevant responses? You have basically now ended the arguement with your submission that you dont have answers.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Wouldnt it have been easier and quicker for you just to say you cant answer the questions with any intelligent and relevant responses? You have basically now ended the arguement with your submission that you dont have answers.
Nice try
-
Tell me, exactly which part, statement or amendmant to the constitution do you take exception with them violating? This surveillance act just lets them know who to focus on, they are not using this info for anything other than to establish surveillance on the people who would commit mass murder, to then gather evidence. I am amazed you have a problem with that.
If it is to listen to those who commit mass murder, then why not go through the fisa court? I am amazed you have a problem with that
Nice try eh?
You didnt even try. You just failed to answer questions, couldnt do it, lacked the ability, maybe faced the realization that you didnt know what you were talking about and got embarrassed by it. Your lacking in perception, understanding of concepts and inability to argue your point are glaringly obvious at this point.
What's next from the master of eloquent response, " sticks and stones" or "I know you are about what am I?"???
Or are you hoping for another brain dead liberal weenie to come to your rescue?
-
Originally posted by Dago
Nice try eh?
You didnt even try. You just failed to answer questions, couldnt do it, lacked the ability, maybe faced the realization that you didnt know what you were talking about and got embarrassed by it. Your lacking in perception, understanding of concepts and inability to argue your point are glaringly obvious at this point.
What's next from the master of eloquent response, " sticks and stones" or "I know you are about what am I?"???
Or are you hoping for another brain dead liberal weenie to come to your rescue?
lol, carry on, this is amusing
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
lol, carry on, this is amusing
I think so, never seen a liberal crumble so quickly and display his limitations so obviously. Stick to your coloring books, and try to stay inside the lines.
I still wait your answer to the question about exactly how Bush violated the Constitution as you stated. Call someone if you must to try and find an answer.
I wonder how soon a moderater comes in and declares rule # x?
-
Originally posted by Dago
I think so, never seen a liberal crumble so quickly and display his limitations so obviously. Stick to your coloring books, and try to stay inside the lines.
I still wait your answer to the question about exactly how Bush violated the Constitution as you stated. Call someone if you must to try and find an answer.
I wonder how soon a moderater comes in and declares rule # x?
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, where's the right to privacy?
It is clearly in those two amendments.
The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
(Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Government isn't authorized to jail non-citizens indefinitely or deny them due process of law. There's a good reason for that, but that's another subject.)
Now, answer my question, why is it necessary for the president to bypass the fisa court?
-
does anyone actualy read newspapers?
lazs
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Administration's unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps,
Just because you say it does not make it true.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
does anyone actualy read newspapers?
lazs
(http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/nytsinks.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just because you say it does not make it true.
Well, if the pres admits to it, is it true?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Well, if the pres admits to it, is it true?
I have yet to hear the president say the NSA program was unconstitutional.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I have yet to hear the president say the NSA program was unconstitutional.
The NSA is for foreign intel, not domestic
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
The NSA is for foreign intel, not domestic
And?
-
POTUS is going to lose this one. Let’s think like a lawyer for a minute. At $200 an hour, I can’t afford more than a minutes worth of thought.
The 4th Amendment uses the term “unreasonable searches.” Under our Constitution, Congress and SCOTUS clearly have the power to legislate, or interprete, what constitutes an “unreasonable search.” Congress used it’s Article I authority to legislate in 1978, when they established the FISA Court, and required a warrant be issued for wiretaps.
POTUS, based upon three arguments, chooses to ignore the clear legislative of Congress.
1) Congress granted him emergency powers after the 911 attack. True, but Congress each and every year has granted every POTUS since Roosevelt II those same powers. Nixon found that those emergency powers clearly do not grant the power to spy and wiretap on opposition candidates.
2) We are at war. Close, but not quite right. We are under a “State of Emergency,” and have been every year since 1932. Congress has chosen not to use it’s Article I powers to declare that a state of war exists.
3) POTUS under the Article II “Commander in Chief” clause, has the power to suspend or ignore laws passed by Congress under it’s Article I powers. POTUS is now claming plenary powers to suspend or ignore whatever laws he deems necessary, for as long as he deems necessary. Under Article II of the Constitution, that plenary power simply does not exist.
SCOTUS has ruled that when the legislative intent is clear, courts shall not interprete the law. Does anyone seriously believe that SCOTUS will grant this power, in a plenary and in perpetuity from, to POTUS?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Cripes, Al Qaeda might be able to take some lives, but they can't take your freedom.
i thought you were from Canada not Scotland. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
why is the media calling the wiretaps "secret"? When were there ever non-secret wiretaps?
"hey al capon, we gona tap your phone lines, ok?"
-
Originally posted by john9001
why is the media calling the wiretaps "secret"? When were there ever non-secret wiretaps?
"hey al capon, we gona tap your phone lines, ok?"
lol, yeah, Nixon's thoughts too
-
Rotax,
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347. Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to such conversations, and that in an ordinary criminal prosecution (subject to many exceptions, as noted above) a warrant is required for wiretap information to be admissible in court. The Court specifically noted, however, that its decision did not apply to situations involving national security:
Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case.
United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972). This case arose out of a criminal prosecution for conspiracy to destroy government property. (One of the defendants was charged with dynamiting a Michigan office of the C.I.A.) The Court's majority opinion framed the issue as follows:
[This case] involves the delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval.
[Emphasis added.] While acknowledging that American governments had conducted warrantless surveillance in internal security cases "for more than one-quarter of a century," the Court held such surveillance unconstitutional under the circumstances presented.
For the present purpose, the relevant portions of the opinion are those that distinguish the case before the Court from cases involving foreign intelligence gathering:
[T]he instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country.
We emphasize, before concluding this opinion, the scope of our decision. As stated at the outset, this case involves only the domestic aspects of national security. We have not addressed, and express no opinion as to, the issues which may be involved with respect to activities of foreign powers or their agents.
The third relevant Supreme Court case is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004). Hamdi was an American citizen who was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan and sued the Defense Department, claiming that his indefinite detention as an enemy combatant was unconstitutional. The Court upheld Hamdi's detention, while also ruling that he was entitled to a limited hearing regarding the facts of his detention. The government offered alternative theories in support of Hamdi's detention; the Court's plurality opinion describes them as follows:
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government's alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi's detention through the AUMF [the post-September 11 Authorization for the Use of Military Force].
We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the "necessary and appropriate force" Congress has authorized the President to use.
Thus, neither the language of the Constitution nor the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence can justify a claim that the NSA program is illegal. While the Court has never specifically ruled on the issue, its decisions are entirely consistent with the administration's view that the President has the inherent constitutional authority to obtain foreign intelligence information through warrantless searches. We turn now to the decisions of the federal Courts of Appeal.
United States v. [Cassius] Clay, 430 F.2d 165 (5th Cir. 1970).
The fifth wiretap was not disclosed to defendant because the District Court found that the surveillance was lawful, having been authorized by the Attorney General, for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information. The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether electronic surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information is constitutionally permissible [citation omitted], though Mr. Justice White has expressed the view that such surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment. [citation omitted]
We…discern no constitutional prohibition against the fifth wiretap. Section 605 of Title 47, U.S.C., is a general prohibition against publication or use of communications obtained by wiretapping, but we do not read the section as forbidding the President, or his representative, from ordering wiretap surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence in the national interest.
There's more but I gotta go. I think the president has a case. The FISA court cannot limit his constitutional powers nore can he limit theirs.
There's more on the provisions of FISA here:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
And?
And why would you need to wiretap someone in the US that has nothing to do with terrorism?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And why would you need to wiretap someone in the US that has nothing to do with terrorism?
I'm still searching for a relevence here Six......who has said anything about wiretaps of non-terrorism related issues? Those would require a warrent but that's what the issue is about.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I'm still searching for a relevence here Six......who has said anything about wiretaps of non-terrorism related issues? Those would require a warrent but that's what the issue is about.
Right, but how do we know who they are listening to if there is no record of it? Again, why would you need to bypass the fisa court?
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And why would you need to wiretap someone in the US that has nothing to do with terrorism?
I didn't know they filled you in personally on who they where "wiretapping" fill us in please....
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Right, but how do we know who they are listening to if there is no record of it? Again, why would you need to bypass the fisa court?
a. These are not criminal investigations, in all likelyhood information gleaned from these wiretaps will not be used in a court of law. So the liberals won't have to worry about constitutional concerns. Information from these will be passed to other countries that have, shall we say, a little less concern for civil rights than we do. They know how to get information.
b. The terrorists will use creative means to prevent eavesdropping. They may switch phones in the middle of a conversation several times. Each phone number must have a fisa ok. They may change people several times each with a different part of the instructions. The individual being tapped is also a seperate part.
c. Congressional leaders where advised on all 30 odd times this was used, including democrats.
d. I hope some day that no ones loved ones are killed or maimed by a suicide bomber that had there civil rights protected all the way to point of detonation.
-
The purpose of lawering up at the NYT will be attempting to keep the reporters out of jail for refusing to devulge their sources.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Funny, but I think the people who leaked the info are the ones who are in deep doo doo. The NYT can still print the truth whenever it wants to. Unfortunately (for this administration) freedom of the press is right up there with speech and assembly.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Another sucker that thinks the Constitution is a valid document. Dood pay attention, the SCOTUS interprets what that means. You simply can't take the document literally. All that has been changed.
But for your information the NYT will be forced to cough up their sources. Thus the need to lawer up. Won't matter...jail time till they do.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Rotax,
There's more but I gotta go. I think the president has a case. The FISA court cannot limit his constitutional powers nore can he limit theirs.
There's more on the provisions of FISA here:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php
Thank you Gunslinger. It is good to receive a response from someone who really does think like a lawyer.
I understand what you wrote, and believe me, I have no intention of quibbling with you, or wasting your time, by debating how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. I am interested in this case, because it goes to the heart of matter over the powers of the three branches.
I understand that in absence of any legislative prohibition on domestic wiretaps, the state and federal governments would, perhaps be unfettered, to listen in on anyone, anytime. I say “perhaps,” because if Congress chose not to exercise it’s Article I authority on the unreasonableness of domestic wiretaps, SCOTUS could, under it’s Article III powers, declare such wiretaps unreasonable searches, and thus require a warrant.
Congress chose to exercise it’s Article I legislative authority over intelligence agencies, (agencies which Congress has the plenary power to create or destroy) when they passed the FISA Act. The legislative intent of the act is clear. Congress did not want intelligence agencies casting large nets upon the domestic waters. They established a court, under their Article I powers, to monitor those nets, and to issue domestic warrants upon probable cause.
If POTUS authorized a relatively small number of domestic wiretaps, which have a foreign locus, then he is well within his Article II powers. The problem is, we don’t know. This information is classified and held by only one branch of the government. Well, not quite one branch. When the FISA court was informed of the scope and breath of the surveillance, one of the judges resigned in protest. That worries me.
I have not doubt that SCOTUS will hear this case. I doubt that SCOTUS will grant POTUS unfettered authority to conduct wholesale domestic wiretaps under the guise of national security.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
What a bunch of BS, they can still do that doing through the court, and quickly. The reason they don't want to go through the court is they don't want a paper trail. There is no record of who they listened to or why they were listening to them. Nixon is having a good laugh somewhere.
This is so damned true.
Karaya
-
"The NSA leak probe was launched after the Justice Department received a request from the spy agency." - From Article.
When does the NSA nut up and prosecute it's "holier than thou Agents"of leaking the information in the FIRST PLACE? Talk about the pot and the f**king kettle!
Karaya
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
I hope some day that no ones loved ones are killed or maimed by a suicide bomber that had there civil rights protected all the way to point of detonation.
And I hope someday you get to live in your safe land of Shangri La where you get to keep all the rights you want while everyone else needs to worry about the government doing whatever it wants with theirs...... sucker?
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Thank you Gunslinger. It is good to receive a response from someone who really does think like a lawyer.
I understand what you wrote, and believe me, I have no intention of quibbling with you, or wasting your time, by debating how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin. I am interested in this case, because it goes to the heart of matter over the powers of the three branches.
I understand that in absence of any legislative prohibition on domestic wiretaps, the state and federal governments would, perhaps be unfettered, to listen in on anyone, anytime. I say “perhaps,” because if Congress chose not to exercise it’s Article I authority on the unreasonableness of domestic wiretaps, SCOTUS could, under it’s Article III powers, declare such wiretaps unreasonable searches, and thus require a warrant.
Congress chose to exercise it’s Article I legislative authority over intelligence agencies, (agencies which Congress has the plenary power to create or destroy) when they passed the FISA Act. The legislative intent of the act is clear. Congress did not want intelligence agencies casting large nets upon the domestic waters. They established a court, under their Article I powers, to monitor those nets, and to issue domestic warrants upon probable cause.
If POTUS authorized a relatively small number of domestic wiretaps, which have a foreign locus, then he is well within his Article II powers. The problem is, we don’t know. This information is classified and held by only one branch of the government. Well, not quite one branch. When the FISA court was informed of the scope and breath of the surveillance, one of the judges resigned in protest. That worries me.
I have not doubt that SCOTUS will hear this case. I doubt that SCOTUS will grant POTUS unfettered authority to conduct wholesale domestic wiretaps under the guise of national security.
Thanks for the reply, I think the case is interesting to say the least. Once you get through all the muckety muck politics and mudslinging there does seem to be a case and presidence on both sides of the argument.
One thing to consider is technology, we don't know the scope or the way the NSA is conducting survailence, it may be a new method of sorts. I beleive there is a difference here in spying on somone for criminal prosecution and spying for intel purposes relating to national security with this case relating to the later of the two.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, where's the right to privacy?
It is clearly in those two amendments.
The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.
That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
(Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Government isn't authorized to jail non-citizens indefinitely or deny them due process of law. There's a good reason for that, but that's another subject.)
Now, answer my question, why is it necessary for the president to bypass the fisa court?
So, where in there anywhere does it say you have a right to absolute privacy of communications? Bush authorizing electronic eavesdropping isnt violating any amendment you just quoted. Bush isnt telling anyone what to say or how to live when he directs the NSA to listen for terrorist communications. That isnt even close.
Powers not delegated to the US are retained by use of the people, and I think you might recognize that our government is defined as a government of the people, for that people and by the people. The government is of the people, so it seems the government acting on the behalf of the people to safeguard the society have acted within the constitution.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Thanks for the reply, I think the case is interesting to say the least. Once you get through all the muckety muck politics and mudslinging there does seem to be a case and presidence on both sides of the argument.
One thing to consider is technology, we don't know the scope or the way the NSA is conducting survailence, it may be a new method of sorts. I beleive there is a difference here in spying on somone for criminal prosecution and spying for intel purposes relating to national security with this case relating to the later of the two.
Remember, Congress used it’s Article I interstate commerce clause power to legislate CALEA; the bill was passed in 1994. So, from a technological point of view, the government can tap, one, or millions of phones, at the stroke of a few keys on the keyboard.
Since I am not a conspiracy theorist, CALEA did not worry me. If the executive conducted illegal surveillance against me, I trusted the courts to throw it our under the exclusionary rule. With the possibility of FISA being struck down, I have a reason to worry.
One worry is using intelligence, gathered under national security surveillance, conducted without a warrant and in secrete, to justify a criminal surveillance warrant. This could start us down a very slippery slope. What is used against terrorists today, has a nasty habit of being used against grandmothers demonstrating outside of abortion clinics, tomorrow.
A second big concern. We are from time to time, going to inadvertently monitor some little old lady. All sorts of interesting tidbits will be discovered. Who is having an affair with whom. Who is abusing drugs, alcohol, their spouses. The list goes on and on. If this data is not use for criminal prosecution, or political blackmail, then how will it be used? Does the government intend to destroy it? If so, how and when? Will it archive the data? If so, for how long? Who in or out of the government will have access to this data? These are questions that, national security be damned, I want answers to.
Yes indeed, Nixon must be smiling like a Cheshire cat:-)
I don’t trust any one branch of the government. Taken in toto, I do trust all three. I believe Congress was thinking along those same lines when it legislated FISA.
However it turns out, this is going to be a very interesting case to watch.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
One worry is using intelligence, gathered under national security surveillance, conducted without a warrant and in secrete, to justify a criminal surveillance warrant. This could start us down a very slippery slope. What is used against terrorists today, has a nasty habit of being used against grandmothers demonstrating outside of abortion clinics, tomorrow.
Well put Rotax.
Though I think a few of the "I dont have anything to hide" types will be spouting the end justifies the means garbage.
shamus
-
Gun...thanks for the link to the blog with that legal analysis. That is an excellent blog and I have it bookmarked as a favorite. It is always good to see all aspects of an argument.
While the court cases cited in your excerpt and in the complete blog article are interesting, those cases before 1978 are not controlling in this situation due to the change in Federal law, ie FISA. Further, Truong is not controlling (even according to the FISA Review Court in Sealed Case No. 02-001) because it is regarding wiretaps that took place before FISA was inacted. (Interestingly, your blogger uses both Truong and this case, but leaves out the part from the FISA Review Court opinion that says it is no longer relevent :rolleyes: ) And again, Duggan does not question that the President prior to FISA had unfettered power to wiretap in the interest of national security...but it does not indicate that it is unregulated after FISA.
You have to recall that FISA and Title III were created specifically because of this grey area conflict between US Constitution Article II and the 4th Amendment. Every president from FDR to Nixon had abused Article II in order to gather "political intelligence" by authorizing warrantless search/wiretaps on political enemies by identifying them as potential enemies of the US. And then there was J. Edgar Hoover and his internal investigations of citizens under the ruse of protecting national security. In the end this all came to light with the Church Commission and as a result Congress enacted FISA and modified Title III to regulate foreign and domestic intelligence gathering respectively.
FISA, Title III and the Electronic Commnunications Privacy Act--even after amendment by the Patriot Act--provide limits to when and how long the President/Attorney General can authorize warrantless wiretaps. IE, the President can authorize warrantless wiretaps under Article II, however Congress has limited that power. 50 U.S.C. § 1809(a)(1) specifically prohibits electronic surveillance except where granted by statute.
By statute, FISA grants the President the power of warrantless wiretaps for no more than one year IF the surveillance will not acquire communication where a US person is a party, 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1) & (b) and restricts unlimited warrantless wiretaps in time of war to 15 days after the declaration by Congress, 50 U.S.C. § 1811.
Beyond that, the wiretap must have a warrant issued by the FISA Court within 72 hours of the start of the surveillance.
This program has been going on for years and directed at US persons according to the NYT.
There are a couple of things that really set off alarms about this case: 1) The acting Attorney General, James B. Comey, refused to re-approve the program while he was filling in for Ashcroft, who had been hospitalized. The program had to shut down because of his objections as to whether the President had legal authority to continue. Ashcroft had to give approval from his intensive care bed. 2) The NSA insiders who leaked the info would not have committed an act of treason (and yes, I do think what they did constitutes treason) without thinking that the program was seriously illegal...it had to go through their mind that leaking this could bring sever punishment and possibly even a death penalty. 3) A FISA judge quit in protest...yes, he may be a liberal, but he had been sitting on the FISA Court for all of Bush's administration and yet it took till now, over this issue, for him to resign. This is a person who above anyone should know how easy it would have been for the Administration to get a warrant, regardless of whether they thought they needed to or not.
-
We must remember in this case, laws, acts, and statutes, only apply to the common folk. We are discussing the powers of The President, Congress, and The Supremes. They will go straight to the Constitution.
Are the explicit powers granted to Congress under Article I Section 8, interlocutory verses the derived power granted to The President under Article II Section 2?
To further muddy the waters, The Supremes have attached a “the totality of the circumstances” evocation, to the 4th Amendment. Anybody care to guess what that actually means?
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
We must remember in this case, laws, acts, and statutes, only apply to the common folk. We are discussing the powers of The President, Congress, and The Supremes. They will go straight to the Constitution.
50 U.S.C. § 1801-1811 are written specifically for the President and Attorney General. These are not directed at the common folk.
Here is an excerpt of 50 U.S.C. § 1802:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title;
The President may challenge the constitutionality of these acts, but Bush had the opportunity to have them changed when the Patriot Act was passed. If he thought he needed those special powers, why wouldn't he have asked for them when it was relevent?
Originally posted by Rotax447
Are the explicit powers granted to Congress under Article I Section 8, interlocutory verses the derived power granted to The President under Article II Section 2?
Which interloculotry verses...declaration of war? If so, then yes, but limited by 50 U.S.C. § 1811. But even if we were to consider that the Authorization for Use of Military Force granted after 9/11 consitutes a declaration of war (which I don't think it does), the 15 days granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1811 are long since over.
Also note that there is no specific reference to the President's power to suspend articles of the Consitution in time of war. This was upheld in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer back in the 1950s.
Originally posted by Rotax447
To further muddy the waters, The Supremes have attached a “the totality of the circumstances” evocation, to the 4th Amendment. Anybody care to guess what that actually means?
That means that you must look at all of the facts of the situation before making a determination. As opposed to a "bright line" where there are specific judicial guidelines to determine if the action was proper.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
.... But even if we were to consider that the Authorization for Use of Military Force granted after 9/11 consitutes a declaration of war (which I don't think it does), the 15 days granted by 50 U.S.C. § 1811 are long since over....
From The United States District Court for the District of Massachucetts, John Doe I v. President Bush,
It is quite clear that were the President to undertake military operations in Iraq here, he would be acting pursuant to the Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, a history of Executive and Legislative Branch practice, and the express approval of the 107th Congress by Joint Resolution. According to the analysis set forth by Justice Jackson in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-37 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring), and later followed and interpreted by the Supreme Court in Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981), the President's power under these circumstances is at its apex, using "all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate." Plaintiffs' attempt to challenge this authority is baseless.
This as I read it pretty much says the joint resolution is the 'functional equivalent of a declaration of war.'
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
50 U.S.C. § 1801-1811 are written specifically for the President and Attorney General. These are not directed at the common folk.
Here is an excerpt of 50 U.S.C. § 1802:
[/b]
I understand what Title 50 says. I read it before I wrote my first post on this subject. The President, and the Attorney General, have already stated that it does not apply to The President. This was their rational.
Article II Section 2 - “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States …” This is an explicit power granted by the Constitution to The President. From this explicit power, several derived powers are assumed.
1) I am responsible for the security and welfare of the American People.
2) I am responsible for the national security of the United States.
Congress cannot limit or modify these Presidential powers, unless the Constitution grants them the explicit power to do so. I believe it does.
Article I Section 8 - “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
The President may challenge the constitutionality of these acts, but Bush had the opportunity to have them changed when the Patriot Act was passed. If he thought he needed those special powers, why wouldn't he have asked for them when it was relevent?
[/b]
Because, like every President since Roosevelt II, he chooses to ignore laws that he deems do not apply to him, until in a time and place of his choosing, he violates them.
That means that you must look at all of the facts of the situation before making a determination. As opposed to a "bright line" where there are specific judicial guidelines to determine if the action was proper.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. And it is the Judicial Branch which, after examining all of the facts, and in many cases after the fact, determines whether a warrant is, or was, required. Thus, The Supremes are the wild card in all of this.
If you read my first post, you will clearly see that I believe Bush II has ’ignored’ the law. I don’t for one moment believe he will be impeached over it. What about the common folk who work at the NSA. The people who actually tap your phone and mine. What is their excuse for violating the law going to be?
“Pardon me George, I was just following orders?”
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I am constantly amazed by some of the people on this board.
Bush pisses all over your Constitutional rights (vis a vis the fouth amendment), tries to break the balance of powers regarding the judicial branch. And you guys want to see the NYT times get charged for exercising thier first amendment rights.
WTF?
If they are so eager to give up their freedoms then let them. If they have to learn by their own mistakes rather than European history then let them. They deserve nothing less.
-
Shamus,
I suspect that you, like me, watched Watergate unfold. It is scary to realize how quickly people forget the unbelievable abuse of power committed by The Executive Branch.
Even more scary; to think they did not forget, yet still condone the unfettered use of Executive surveillance, against the American People.
-
Yes Rotax I did, I even voted for Nixon, man was I disappointed in the guy.
I am far more troubled today due to the technology available.
I dare say that had Clinton been caught doing the same thing as Bush, the senate would have convicted, and I would have been cheering all the while.
We seem to be shifting to a county of men rather than laws. You dont trust or hope that the POTUS is going to do right thing. you force him thru checks and balance to, and when he decides to avoid those checks and balances that should be a red flag.
shamus
-
So you guys are upset that some phone calls by known terrorists groups and their friends, originating from OUTSIDE of the US are being monitored?
The program was and has been constantly reviewed and approved by members from both sides of Congress as well.
It's a good thing not to have to get approval for a national security, top secret program from a panel of knitwit, p.c. judges.
The person/persons who leaked this should be executed.
-
Welcome to the KGB, American Style.
The blindness of the "our POTUS can do no wrong" crowd is laughable, if it weren't so damned pathetic.
Genuflecting before this PO--S, while his cronies go up your bellybutton with any form of information gathering technology they choose to employ at their discretion is exactly what I thought American values were steadfastly against.
Or, do I owe you an apology?
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/SALEM.HTM
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So you guys are upset that some phone calls by known terrorists groups and their friends, originating from OUTSIDE of the US are being monitored?
The program was and has been constantly reviewed and approved by members from both sides of Congress as well.
It's a good thing not to have to get approval for a national security, top secret program from a panel of knitwit, p.c. judges.
The person/persons who leaked this should be executed.
Well there you go, I sure cant argue with that logic. Question though, how do you know that all the calls were by known terrorists?
Oh and btw all the calls did not originate OUTSIDE the U.S., you must have missed that news
shamus
-
...Oh you got the wrong email? Talked to the wrong guy on the street for directions?
someone dialed the wrong number? walked by Falafel King on the way to the gym?
Pissed off the wrong business man?
You're screwed :)
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/accused%21.html
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Well there you go, I sure cant argue with that logic. Question though, how do you know that all the calls were by known terrorists?
Oh and btw all the calls did not originate OUTSIDE the U.S., you must have missed that news
shamus
I guess I did miss the news. President Bush said yesterday that the program was very specific and only monitored calls originating from outside the US. He also said the program was and is under constant review and members of congress have been involved.
I like the idea that we are monitoring all the scum that call into the US.
-
"Bush stressed that the surveillance involved telephone calls from "a few numbers" outside the United States by people associated with al-Qaida, the terrorist organization that plotted the Sept. 11 attacks. The White House later clarified Bush's remarks, saying he meant to say calls going to and originating from the U.S. were being monitored."
From the AP.
shamus
-
if the NSA listens to my phone calls, they will be very,very bored.
what exactly are you afraid of, what "rights" have you lost? explain please in 5000 words or less.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
This as I read it pretty much says the joint resolution is the 'functional equivalent of a declaration of war.'
Even if it were a declaration of war, the 15 days are up. A warrant was required.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
Congress cannot limit or modify these Presidential powers, unless the Constitution grants them the explicit power to do so. I believe it does.
Article I Section 8 - “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;” and “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
I completely agree.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So you guys are upset that some phone calls by known terrorists groups and their friends, originating from OUTSIDE of the US are being monitored?
No, I'm not upset the monitoting took place on calls that originated both outside and inside the US.
I am upset because the President violated the law he has sworn to defend.
I am upset that the bastards that have been caught are now filing motions to have their verdicts set aside because they may have been caught due to these illegal warrantless wiretaps. And because our president didn't follow the law, these terrorists have a damn strong case to be set free!
WTG George! Jeez...when in doubt get a freaking warrant...FISA hands them out like candy.
Originally posted by NUKE
The program was and has been constantly reviewed and approved by members from both sides of Congress as well.
I haven't seen where Congress' approval was requested or provided. Can you point me to where I can find that. I've only seen that the Administration notified Congress that they were doing this even after some Members voiced reservations.
Originally posted by NUKE
It's a good thing not to have to get approval for a national security, top secret program from a panel of knitwit, p.c. judges.
The FISA Court is probably the least PC and most conservative court in the land. They approve nearly every warrant put in front of them with the least strengent burden of reasonableness imaginable.
Originally posted by NUKE
The person/persons who leaked this should be executed.
I agree...they should be exicuted in the same manor as the traitors who teasonously outed Plame.
-
Originally posted by john9001
if the NSA listens to my phone calls, they will be very,very bored.
what exactly are you afraid of, what "rights" have you lost? explain please in 5000 words or less.
For those who don't remember...let me take you back to the 1970s and the Church Committee. After Watergate broke, Congress investigated the unchecked intelligence gathering practices of the NSA, CIA, FBI, Army Intelligence, IRS and others. The Church Committee found that intelligence agencies had developed over 600,000 domestic intelligence files on US individuals; had opened and photographed 400,000 pieces of US mail; intercepted over a million telegrams; 11,000 IRS tax investigation were instagated by this domestic intelligence. And the Commiitee found that frequently the "law and the Constitution were simply ignored."
While the Committee found that most of these surveillance progams started with good intent, the Committee says that, "The tendency of intelligence activities to expand beyond their initial scope is a theme which runs through every aspect of our investigative findings." Most scary are the examples of political intelligence that was collected. Wiretaps and other surveillance methods were used on members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices, and numerous mainstream and non-mainstream political figures. Vietnam protesters were identified for the IRS and were unreasonably targeted for audit. During Nixon's administration, a large part of the Democratic Party was under surveillance.
The FBI’s COINTELPRO – counterintelligence program – “was designed to ‘disrupt’ groups and ‘neutralize’ individuals deemed to be threats to national security.” COINTELPRO targeted “speakers, teachers, writers, and publications themselves" in direct conflict with 1st Amendment rights. Martin Luther King was one of the targets of COINTELPRO. One of the most disgusting actions of the FBI was a letter sent to King threatening to release embarrassing information about him if he did not commit suicide before going to Sweden to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are documented examples of how an unchecked intelligence community ruined private lives, destroyed marriages and ended careers through threats and innuendo of wrong doing.
The Church Committee also found that intelligence agencies sometimes warped intelligence to meet desired political goals: "The FBI significantly impaired the democratic decisionmaking process by its distorted intelligence reporting on Communist infiltration of and influence on domestic political activity. In private remarks to Presidents and in public statements, the Bureau seriously exaggerated the extent of Communist influence in both the civil rights and anti- Vietnam war movements."
While I like to hope that we would never see that kind of behavior again. I also recognize that human nature hasn't changed that much in the past 30 years. I think that unless the intitutional safegaurds that were put in place are followed, that it is very likely to have that dirty past come back again.
-
crowMAW,
You, Shamus, myself, and a few others, clearly remember the past abuse of Executive surveillance powers. Unfortunately, sixty-six percent of our fellow countryman either do not remember, or do not care.
Thank you for taking the time to post the relevant Title 50 laws which were violated, and for clearly pointing out the past abuses, which lead to those laws being passed.
-
crowMAW, when something gets blown up you will be the first one to cry"why didn't the govt know about it, why didn't they DO SOMETHING"
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Even if it were a declaration of war, the 15 days are up. A warrant was required.
Ex order of Jimmy Carter1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Ex order of Ronald ReaganThe Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
Ex order of Bill ClintonSection 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
David Burnham NYT story from November 7, 1982
"COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES”
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
There seems to be some disagreement with your position.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
crowMAW,
You, Shamus, myself, and a few others, clearly remember the past abuse of Executive surveillance powers. Unfortunately, sixty-six percent of our fellow countryman either do not remember, or do not care.
They remember. They just lack the mental fortitude to care. They're just as complacent and decadent as the 1930s Europeans. The last century was the German, Japanese and Soviet century. This century will indeed be the American and Chinese century. The only question is how many lives it will take to destroy you.
-
I would add here that the problem has never historically been what any leader, or agency under the direction of that leader, tells you they are doing. It is what they don't tell you. And what subsequent governments contrive and twist once any practice becomes commonplace.
If the framers of the US Constitution magically reappeared and posted here, I think many of you would dismiss them as weaping liberals. The position that you should have nothing to fear from politicians and governments seems diametrically opposed to the positions of those framers.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ex order of Jimmy Carter1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Says they must follow FISA. That is 50 U.S.C. 1802. Consistant with what I said.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ex order of Ronald ReaganThe Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Says they must follow FISA. Consistant with what I said.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ex order of Bill ClintonSection 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Says they must follow FISA. Consistant with what I said. By the way...one of the certifications that is referenced in the above states that the surveillence may only take place IF "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."
Just so you have the reference 50 USC 1811 (which is FISA) states:
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Burnham NYT story from November 7, 1982
"COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES”
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotta case citation? Without it we don't know if it was overturned by a higher court or any other details. Based on the year, I would guess it might be US v Truong...in which the court found that the wiretap was legal at the time because the surveillence took place before FISA was inacted.
-
Crow,
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
Katz involved the warrantless interception of a conversation held by a criminal defendant in a phone booth. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to such conversations, and that in an ordinary criminal prosecution (subject to many exceptions, as noted above) a warrant is required for wiretap information to be admissible in court. The Court specifically noted, however, that its decision did not apply to situations involving national security:
Whether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case
-
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong, another criminal prosecution that arose out of the defendant’s spying on behalf of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. The case squarely presented the issue of the executive branch’s inherent power to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes:
The defendants raise a substantial challenge to their convictions by arguing that the surveillance conducted by the FBI violated the Fourth Amendment and that all the evidence uncovered through that surveillance must consequently be suppressed. As has been stated, the government did not seek a warrant for the eavesdropping on Truong’s phone conversations or the bugging of his apartment. Instead, it relied upon a “foreign intelligence” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. In the area of foreign intelligence, the government contends, the President may authorize surveillance without seeking a judicial warrant because of his constitutional prerogatives in the area of foreign affairs
The court agreed with the government’s position:
For several reasons, the needs of the executive are so compelling in the area of foreign intelligence, unlike the area of domestic security, that a uniform warrant requirement would, following [United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)], “unduly frustrate” the President in carrying out his foreign affairs responsibilities. First of all, attempts to counter foreign threats to the national security require the utmost stealth, speed and secrecy. A warrant requirement would add a procedural hurdle that would reduce the flexibility of executive foreign intelligence activities, in some cases delay executive response to foreign intelligence threats, and increase the chance of leaks regarding sensitive executive operations.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Ex order of Bill ClintonSection 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Reply posted by crow
Says they must follow FISA. Consistant with what I said. By the way...one of the certifications that is referenced in the above states that the surveillence may only take place IF "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party."
Just so you have the reference 50 USC 1811 (which is FISA) states:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
But under Clinton's order, it say given certification by the AG, the NSA can spy for a year without a court order. FISA says 15 days. How can this EO follow FISA when it (apparently) gives out 350 more days?
All I have is the NYT story. If I get lucky on Google I can find out the case law, but it's not looking hopeful.
-
But why not go through the fisa court? I don't understand, if this was created for this situation, and others that relate to national security, why would you not use it? And he keeps saying he will keep doing it for national security reasons? I'm sorry, but that answer doesn't work.
The court itself walks a fine line as it is, and to totally dismiss it? Sorry, I can't agree with it, i'm not for impeaching the guy or wasting money on an investigation, just stop doing it.
checks and balances
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
But why not go through the fisa court? I don't understand, if this was created for this situation, and others that relate to national security, why would you not use it? And he keeps saying he will keep doing it for national security reasons? I'm sorry, but that answer doesn't work.
The court itself walks a fine line as it is, and to totally dismiss it? Sorry, I can't agree with it, i'm not for impeaching the guy or wasting money on an investigation, just stop doing it.
checks and balances
Keep in mind all of this is based off of a NYT story about a program that is highly classified. This may not be mere wiretapping it may be a whole new way of gathering and collecting intel. Then again it may not be. The NYT admitted it left parts of the story out for national security reasons.
-
rolex... I think if the founders posted here the liberals would be in a rage. I think that the problem with modern liberals and conservatives is that they have strayed so far from the founders.
They are both alike in one respect.... they both want weaker government when the oppossition is in power and iron fisted government when their guy is in power.
Both sides would remove human rights in order to further their cause. Both sides want powerful government.... just, their kind of powerful government with them being the ones to tell people what is good for em.
neither side has a problem with their guy acting like a tyrant.
lazs
-
So basically, most on this board want people killed for leaking information, correct? So are you all for the execution of ALL individuals responsible for the Valerie Plame case or is this just a pick and choose as you see fit? Just curious!!!
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
And it does not matter because it was before FISA was passed.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
In 1980, the Fourth Circuit decided United States v. Truong,
Also the Appeals court found that it was only legal becuase it the surveillance took place before FISA. The FISA Review Court even made that distinction when citing it in Sealed Case No. 02-001.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But under Clinton's order, it say given certification by the AG, the NSA can spy for a year without a court order. FISA says 15 days. How can this EO follow FISA when it (apparently) gives out 350 more days?
Klinton's order states "persuant to...FISA", ie the order is based on FISA and must follow FISA.
To help everyone...here is a link to the relevent law for wiretaps:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_I.html
and for the Klinton order (which is in reference to physical searches not wiretaps):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_36_20_II.html
The important sections that everyone keeps referencing are 1802, 1809, 1811, 1822, & 1829.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Klinton's order states "persuant to...FISA", ie the order is based on FISA and must follow FISA.
But FISA says 15 and Clinton says a year. Your not saying Clinton issued a flawed directive are you?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But FISA says 15 and Clinton says a year. Your not saying Clinton issued a flawed directive are you?
Yes.
shamus
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Also the Appeals court found that it was only legal becuase it the surveillance took place before FISA. The FISA Review Court even made that distinction when citing it in Sealed Case No. 02-001.
Yes but also notable in sealed case 02-001
The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. It was incumbent upon the court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse, does FISA amplify the President’s power by providing a mechanism that at least approaches a classic warrant and which therefore supports the government’s contention that FISA searches are constitutionally reasonable.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But FISA says 15 and Clinton says a year. Your not saying Clinton issued a flawed directive are you?
Please read the law he cited as "persuant to":
§ 1822. Authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
(a) Presidential authorization
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President, acting through the Attorney General, may authorize physical searches without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if—
(A) the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(i) the physical search is solely directed at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of, a foreign power or powers (as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title);
(ii) there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person; and
(iii) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such physical search meet the definition of minimization procedures under paragraphs (1) through (4) [1] of section 1821 (4) of this title; and
(B) the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate at least 30 days before their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines that immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Yes but also notable in sealed case 02-001
The President's authority is not questioned or enchroached by FISA, but it is limited by time: one year for non-US persons and 15 days for anyone after declaration of war.
Congress has authority to set those limits by the Consitution under Article I Section 8:
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Also note that the FISA Review Court sole purpose is to review denied applications for a warrant (ie, it's second chance for the Gov to make it's case). As far as I am aware, it does not have the power to "make new law" by precedent on consitutional issues outside of the scope whether or not it is proper to grant a warrant.
There is no case where FISA limitations on presidential powers has been heard...as far as I know, but please post one if you can find it (I couldn't find one in West Law) And I would think that if the President had an issue with those limits, he would have had them addressed while they were being modified by the Patriot Act.
-
OK Crow one more question...
Is eavesdropping a "physical search"?
-
Holden,
Title 50, Section 1801 of the U.S. Code, the first section of the FISA statute. That section defines the “electronic surveillance” over which the FISA court has jurisdiction:
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
From what I gather if the NSA was bugging phone lines outside the US:
1. It would be outside of the US no US court to include FISA would have jurisdiction over such
2. None of this would be applicable if this was not done for law enfocrment purposes
Also Crow,
IF the survailence was conducted soley outside the United States the US Govt could not go through FISA to get a warrent. If the surveillance was outside the jurisdiction of the FISA court, no such orders could be issued. The administration could conclusively answer this question by disclosing where the surveillance equipment is located. But that is, of course, precisely the kind of secret information that the administration doesn’t want the terrorists to know.
And in my post above I think more or less I was reffering to the presidents constitutional powers. You say: "The President's authority is not questioned or enchroached by FISA, but it is limited by time:"
The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy." But, I am ignorant if this would only apply in a declaration of war or if the "authorization to use force" (note not for Iraq but after 9/11) would suffice. This seems to be backed up by the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) decision.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
From what I gather if the NSA was bugging phone lines outside the US:
1. It would be outside of the US no US court to include FISA would have jurisdiction over such
2. None of this would be applicable if this was not done for law enfocrment purposes
That's the way I read the law. Although the Patriot Act broadened the law enforcement portion, if the surveillance is purely for foreign intelligence gathering then it is OK...but that is never the case...the Governement will always want to reserve the ability to use the collected data in court. And I want them to be able to drop terrorists they uncover through surveillance in jail...not just listen to them plot and plan.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
IF the surveillence was conducted soley outside the United States the US Govt could not go through FISA to get a warrent. If the surveillance was outside the jurisdiction of the FISA court, no such orders could be issued. The administration could conclusively answer this question by disclosing where the surveillance equipment is located. But that is, of course, precisely the kind of secret information that the administration doesn’t want the terrorists to know.
Yes, spying is legal for the President to do on non-US persons. No warrant is required. The moment a US person is involved the rules change. Accidental surveillance data collection of a US person is OK, but if you expect to US persons to be involved then you gotta follow FISA.
Unfortunately, the Administration has admitted that there were domestic targets. And it does not matter where the spy equipement is located (in space even)...if it is a US agency conducting surveillance activities on US persons, then it requires a warrant under FISA.
Now a good loop hole, as I see it, is spying by foreign powers providing intel to the US. I think that if MI5 were to submitt intel to the US Gov't on communications it intercepted between a US person and a UK national, then that would probably be fine. So long as MI5 does not become a surrogate for the US Gov't but is acting on it's own government's behalf, then I can't see a legal issue. In criminal law, a PI can search your house without a warrant (of course it may be breaking and entring) and if they discover something illegal, give that info to the police (US v Miller). That evidence is OK so long as the police did not ask the PI to do the search for them (act as a surrogate) and the PI was not performing the search with intent to help the police.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
The federal courts have long recognized that when it comes to waging war, the President, not Congress or the courts, is the supreme authority. In Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 615 (1850), the Supreme Court wrote that the President has the Constitutional power to "employ [the Nation's armed forces] in the manner he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy." But, I am ignorant if this would only apply in a declaration of war or if the "authorization to use force" (note not for Iraq but after 9/11) would suffice. This seems to be backed up by the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) decision.
It is debatable whether the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) consititutes a declaration of war. Some legal experts say yes and point to Hamdi...others point to previous declarations of war and say the requisit language is missing (specifically, the word "war").
But even if it were a declaration of war, 50 USC 1811 limits warrantless searches on US persons to 15 days after the declaration.
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
-
Originally posted by john9001
crowMAW, when something gets blown up you will be the first one to cry"why didn't the govt know about it, why didn't they DO SOMETHING"
The problem here is really quite simple. The government (Article II branch ) wants their cake, and they want to eat it.
Congress has passed laws which make a warrant less search of a US persons phone, in the US, unreasonable, and in most cases, illegal.
The Supremes have ruled these laws constitutional, and to uphold them, they evoked the ‘exclusionary rule’ from the 4th Amendment.
The loophole in the law, was POTUS invoking national security to conduce a warrant less search. Congress closed this loophole when it passed the FISA Act.
So, John, yes, I want George to do something! Read that sentence very carefully. I said something, not everything. I want him to use the FISA Act to conduct surveillance on persons, who are suspected of having links to radical Islamic terrorists groups. I want him to send an army to the Middle East, from whence the attacks came. I want that army to take names, and kick butt. If there is a nexus between these terrorist groups and a foreign government, I want that government removed, by whatever military force is necessary.
If George does not do these things, then it is only a matter of time until Allah’s disciples breath nuclear fire on an American city.
I do not want George to conduct surveillance on demonstrators outside of abortion clinics, republican national headquarters, civil rights meetings, or even the starve a child, save the penguin meetings. I do not want information gathered in surveillance used for political blackmail, personal blackmail, or any criminal prosecution that goes beyond the scope of the warrant for that surveillance.
You are free to waive your civil rights whenever you wish. Don’t even think of waiving mine.
-
I don't know if this has been thrown in here yet but let me throw you all a bone.
This may very well be connected and be one of the reason's "why" the executive branch has fought so vigerously to keep detainees out of federal court and into military tribunals.
But Crow I have to broach this topic. If again based on hamdi, the US is conducting survailence entirly overseas how would a US court have juristiction. Even under FISA it says the govt has to be intentionally targeting that United States person. Now the way I see it a US soldier does not need a court ordered warrent from a US court to kick in a door in Iraq and search the entire house. Why would a survailence team need a FISA warrent if the survailence is being conducted outside US soil where FISA has no jurisdiction. BUT, I do concede that none of this could be used in a criminal trial wich leads me to point to my above statment.
One more thing to piggy back apon what you said about foreign intel, this programs basis may also be to provide intel to foreign govts wich don't have the same laws we do. A FISA warrent wouldn't mean diddly in Europe.
I think the only thing you can do about this whole thing is speculate. There's not enough data to make an ascertation definativly.
-
Originally posted by Rotax447
The Congress closed this loophole when it passed the FISA Act.
.
Not entirly,
Only in instances of criminal prosecution. As long as this evidence isn't being used in court to obtain further warrents and isn't use at all in a criminal prosecution even under FISA it's perfectly legal.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
If again based on hamdi, the US is conducting survailence entirly overseas how would a US court have juristiction. Even under FISA it says the govt has to be intentionally targeting that United States person. Now the way I see it a US soldier does not need a court ordered warrent from a US court to kick in a door in Iraq and search the entire house. Why would a survailence team need a FISA warrent if the survailence is being conducted outside US soil where FISA has no jurisdiction. BUT, I do concede that none of this could be used in a criminal trial wich leads me to point to my above statment.
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my last post...but yes, I agree if the surveillance is entirely overseas of non-US persons, then no warrant is needed. For example, if all the communications intercepted originated outside the US and the call receipiant is not in the US, then no warrant is needed.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Not entirly,
Only in instances of criminal prosecution. As long as this evidence isn't being used in court to obtain further warrents and isn't use at all in a criminal prosecution even under FISA it's perfectly legal.
Unless you provide me an example, I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Rotax you said "The Congress closed this loophole when it passed the FISA Act."
But that's not entirly true. The NSA can spy all they want for inteligence gathering and not criminal prosicution. FISA clearly defines Electronic Survailence as follows:
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Rotax you said "The Congress closed this loophole when it passed the FISA Act."
But that's not entirly true. The NSA can spy all they want for inteligence gathering and not criminal prosicution. FISA clearly defines Electronic Survailence as follows:
(f) “Electronic surveillance” means—
(1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.
Okay, you just quoted chapter and verse from 50 USC 36 (s) 1801. This is simply a *definition* of the term “Electronic Surveillance.” It does not address who, how, what, when, and where, this surveillance will be used.
Please, I am getting a little too old to play hunt for the Easter Egg. A quote, without a reference to chapter and verse, is no help at all.
-
And, lest people think that Congress, was not dead serious about preventing the Article II Branch from using national security surveillance, for political or personal “Dirty Tricks,” have a gander at this.
50 USC 36 (s) 1810
Civil liability:
An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.