Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

President Acknowledges Approving Secretive Eavesdropping
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
12-19-2005 11:36
From: Bill Diamond
The point is... This type of activity has been going on for a long time. People knew about it then, people know about it now.

The only reason anyone is making a stink about this is because it's President Bush doing it. If Clinton were still President & this was happening, everyone would be cheering the fact that we are being pre-emptive in stoping another major strike on our country (and DON'T tell me the media wouldn't be praising Clinton for the exact same activity).


The point is... This type of activity is unethical no matter who does it in a "Free" country, otherwise a stink wouldn't actually be able to be raised in the first place. Whether or not people choose to look at the issue is another matter.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
paulie Femto
Into the dark
Join date: 13 Sep 2003
Posts: 1,098
Democracy Now discussion on the subject
12-19-2005 11:45
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212
_____________________
REUTERS on SL: "Thirty-five thousand people wearing their psyches on the outside and all the attendant unfettered freakishness that brings."
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
12-19-2005 13:20
From: paulie Femto
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/19/1515212


The best part (and one that reinforces the urgency of an earlier question):

(The Bush Administration)"...was bypassing the special courts imposed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

Under FISA, the government can obtain warrants directly from a special court that requires almost no evidence or probable cause. Passed by Congress in the 1970s, FISA describes itself and the criminal wiretap statute as “the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance…may be conducted.”

Several analysts have questioned the administration's decision to not seek court-approved warrants when FISA courts have almost never rejected them. According to the Electronic Privacy Information Center, FISA courts have rejected only four of over 15,000 warrant requests made since 1979. That number includes over 4,000 warrant requests since the 9/11 attacks"
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Almarea Lumiere
Registered User
Join date: 6 May 2004
Posts: 258
Senatus Consultum Ultimum
12-19-2005 13:35
I don't know what you guys are getting in such a huff about. This principle is as old as time:

Praesident daret operam ne quid detrimenti respublica caperet.

It's always worked out well before.

Oh, wait ...
Aurael Neurocam
Will script for food
Join date: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 267
12-19-2005 13:36
I'm less concerned about this than I am the Times's motive for waiting a year to publish it.

We all know that the government has been covertly spying on citizens all over the world; that part is really nothing new.

But the fact that our news media is becoming more and more calculating is cause for concern. We trust the media to be impartial and unbiased, but a move like this (waiting a year and then publishing the story on the eve of a major Congressional vote) just smacks of political manipulation by the press.

Which makes me wonder: who really runs this country - the elected officials or the media?
_____________________
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
12-19-2005 13:54
From: Aurael Neurocam

We all know that the government has been covertly spying on citizens all over the world; that part is really nothing new.


Precedence does not negate ethics, nor does it lessen the severity of a crime. There is no shortage of rubber stamps; this guy thinks he is above the law, our law, and owes us for his transgressions.

From: Aurael Neurocam

But the fact that our news media is becoming more and more calculating is cause for concern. We trust the media to be impartial and unbiased, but a move like this (waiting a year and then publishing the story on the eve of a major Congressional vote) just smacks of political manipulation by the press.

Which makes me wonder: who really runs this country - the elected officials or the media?


As long as our political leaders are allowed to take money from corporations or even own their own, we cannot trust them to exclusively serve the people (the fact that they serve themselves first is a given, seeing as how they are human) over the corporate interests who have ultimate influence on the media. News is rarely valuable of its own accord and news sources depend on advertisers, and the agendas that they ally themselves with, to fund their operations. The news media doesn't run the country, it is the advertisers and/or the companies the advertisers represent (if they are separate at all).
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Jeffrey Gomez
Cubed™
Join date: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 3,522
12-19-2005 14:31
From: Chance Abattoir
Precedence does not negate ethics, nor does it lessen the severity of a crime. There is no shortage of rubber stamps; this guy thinks he is above the law, our law, and owes us for his transgressions.

That about sums up what I think of the situation. Rolling out the "but they did it too!" excuse is just so classic, it hurts.



And lest we remember, Bill Clinton was a president that did get impeached, albeit for other transgressions that may have contributed to the hearing in the first place. I seriously doubt it was "just" for the blow job.


Maybe Dubya needs a nice affair before the rest of the country gets outraged? :p
_____________________
---
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
12-19-2005 20:46
how is this action in violation of the constitution?
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
12-19-2005 20:58
From: Champie Jack
how is this action in violation of the constitution?


Have you read it? :p Spying on US citizens is unreasonable search and siezure. It's not allowed without a warrant. Bush broke the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act, that set up a special court from which a warrant must be obtained before the government can wiretap a US citizen. The law was passed due to Nixon authorizing unlawful spying on Americans during the Vietnam war. Bush ignored the law and, like Nixon before him, he should be impeached.
_____________________

My other hobby:
www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
Hiro Pendragon
bye bye f0rums!
Join date: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 5,905
12-19-2005 22:23
From: Chip Midnight
Have you read it? :p Spying on US citizens is unreasonable search and siezure. It's not allowed without a warrant. Bush broke the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act, that set up a special court from which a warrant must be obtained before the government can wiretap a US citizen. The law was passed due to Nixon authorizing unlawful spying on Americans during the Vietnam war. Bush ignored the law and, like Nixon before him, he should be impeached.

I wish we could rewind Presidents back to Kennedy. He seems to be the last decent one that we've had. :(

This makes me sad, both at the corruptness of politics, and at the STUPID F***ING DUMBNESS of the average voter.
_____________________
Hiro Pendragon
------------------
http://www.involve3d.com - Involve - Metaverse / Emerging Media Studio

Visit my SL blog: http://secondtense.blogspot.com
Ulrika Zugzwang
Magnanimous in Victory
Join date: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 6,382
12-19-2005 22:38
From: Chance Abattoir
Precedence does not negate ethics, nor does it lessen the severity of a crime. There is no shortage of rubber stamps; this guy thinks he is above the law, our law, and owes us for his transgressions.

As long as our political leaders are allowed to take money from corporations or even own their own, we cannot trust them to exclusively serve the people (the fact that they serve themselves first is a given, seeing as how they are human) over the corporate interests who have ultimate influence on the media. News is rarely valuable of its own accord and news sources depend on advertisers, and the agendas that they ally themselves with, to fund their operations. The news media doesn't run the country, it is the advertisers and/or the companies the advertisers represent (if they are separate at all).
You are quite unique in that you're one of the few who are able to move back and forth effortlessly between the avant-guarde and logical here in the forum. You're an artist and a scientist.

At your extremes you are unequalled. :)

~Ulrika~
_____________________
Chik-chik-chika-ahh
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
12-20-2005 11:29
From: Chip Midnight
Have you read it? :p Spying on US citizens is unreasonable search and siezure. It's not allowed without a warrant. Bush broke the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveilance Act, that set up a special court from which a warrant must be obtained before the government can wiretap a US citizen. The law was passed due to Nixon authorizing unlawful spying on Americans during the Vietnam war. Bush ignored the law and, like Nixon before him, he should be impeached.


Is it possible the FISA Act allows for this type of surveillance?
From: someone
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court (a)(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; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and
any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at
least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the
Attorney General determines immediate action is required and
notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures
and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may
be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's
certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The
Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and
shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808(a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to
the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy of
his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under
security measures established by the Chief Justice with the
concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless -
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the
surveillance is made under sections 1801(h)(4) and 1804 of this
title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of
the surveillance under section 1806(f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this
subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified
communication common carrier to -
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical
assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in
such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum
of interference with the services that such carrier is providing
its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney
General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records
concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such
carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such
carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are
authorized if the President has, by written authorization,
empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court
having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge
to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law,
grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title,
approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of
a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to
grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely
as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section
unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of
communications of any United States person.

go here for more information:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1802.html
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
12-20-2005 12:02
it gets pretty quiet in this forum when you introduce facts into a discussion.

If you'd prefer to enjoy the hyperbole and insanity, continuing accepting the political posturing by the Democrats, and the publicity stunt put on by the NYT.
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
12-20-2005 12:08
oh, and begin thinking about whose resignation you will demand.

After all, someone leaked information about the most secretive intelligence program to the NYT. Who was that? Did they jepordize national security?
Siro Mfume
XD
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 747
12-20-2005 12:27
Yay facts! The FISA act does not let the president spy on citizens at all.

The worst part of this is you didn't even read what you quoted (or didn't comprehend).

Right up at the top at (a)(1) we have: Notwithstanding any other law...

So basically any right to privacy for citizens would kill the hell out of spying on citizens.

Next we have right under article (A) (i)
From: someone
the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers,


Last time I checked, your average joe is not a foreign power. Also if your average joe calls your average arab terrorist for a bomb recipe, he still can't be tapped, given the language of this law.

To reiterate this they spell it out for you in article (B)
From: someone
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance
will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United
States person is a party


Okay so now that we have that out of the way, we can pretty much ascertain that admitting to violating this act would be a crime, yes? Our president has done just that, which would also protect the whistleblower under the (is it called the whistleblower act or does it have another name? Basically the act that protects people who call out high ranking officials, but might otherwise get in trouble for doing so.)

So why isn't Bush in jail yet? It'd be like OJ going on tv with a bloody knife saying "wooo wooo look at me! I did it haha!" and then him not going straight to jail... Or at least somewhere for psych evaluation...
Chip Midnight
ate my baby!
Join date: 1 May 2003
Posts: 10,231
12-20-2005 12:57
Champie, FISA was created specifically to prevent the government from being able to do what Bush and the NSA did. It's the whole reason the law was created, and why the special court exists. Hello?

Bush used the excuse that it took too long to go to the special court. That's bullshit. They're allowed to start a wiretap immediately as long as they get a warrant within 72 hours of initiating the tap. So why did Bush circumvent the court? My guess is because they're flat out lying about the extent of the surveillance and the targets they're spying on. If there was a verifiable link between foreign terrorist and someone in the US, there's no way the special court would deny them the warrant. In the entire time since the court was established it's only declined in 5 cases!

The only conceivable reason for going around the court is because they're blatantly breaking the law and don't want a paper trail.
_____________________

My other hobby:
www.live365.com/stations/chip_midnight
Aurael Neurocam
Will script for food
Join date: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 267
12-20-2005 13:41
From: Chip Midnight
The only conceivable reason for going around the court is because they're blatantly breaking the law and don't want a paper trail.


IMO, the government has been doing this forever. The only difference is that someone came out and talked about it.

As horrible as it is, we need this. I know it sounds strange to say, but as long as potential criminals and terrorists are protected by the law, then there will always be a small amount of "illegal search and seizure". The difference is that when people do perform the illegal wiretaps or surveillence, they weigh that illegal action against the larger risk of what would happen if the operation was not exceuted.

And from what I heard on NPR yesterday, you can't start a wiretap immediately: there have to be several approvals, and that process takes roughly 36 hours. Also, when data is being collected "fishing net" fashion, there is simply no way to get a wiretap warrant.

The scenario proposed was this:
you capture a known terrorist. He has a cell phone with 20 numbers in its speed dial memory. You can't get warrants on those 20 numbers based on just the fact that the terrorist called them-after all, the local pizza parlor where he orders Pepperoni Surprise every Thursday probably isn't a terrorist front. However, what they will do is troll for usable data: they'll tap all 20 numbers and hope they catch someone doing something. Since the taps weren't legal, they're not usable as evidence. However, if the taps lead to something that needs to be stopped, the FBI will follow up anyway.

The problem is that GW may indeed be authorized to do this: we're at war with two nations at the moment, and his powers as Commander in Chief may indeed allow him to surveil potential spies on US soil.

I'm not saying I like this practice. I think it goes against the idea that we need checks and balances in government. However, I am guessing that there are secrets in our government that we'll never guess at, and that some of those secrets couldn't even survive the scrutiny of a "secret" court.
_____________________
Bill Diamond
when all else fails...x=8
Join date: 22 Mar 2005
Posts: 98
12-20-2005 13:43
Sorry to break it to you....but the President had FISA's approval to do this from the get-go:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/20/131610.shtml

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007703


From: someone


FISA Court Approved Bush Spy Program



Contrary to claims by Democrats currently hyperventilating on Capitol Hill over President Bush's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor communications among terrorists, Bush's so-called "illegal" spy program has indeed undergone judicial review.

And a special foreign intelligence surveillance appeals court set up to review the case confirmed that such "warrantless searches" were completely legal.

Notes OpinionJournal.com today:

"The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978."

But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."


The court's decision went on to say: "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." What's more, notes the Journal: "The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about" the Bush surveillance program.



Kong Dassin
65 days not in world
Join date: 24 Aug 2005
Posts: 31
12-20-2005 14:23
You're both right, and you're both wrong.

The FISA was created to exercise oversight. The Bush administration did seek FISA judicial review and is therefore technically within the bounds of the law.

however

The FISA does not function according to the original intent of the legislation. It does not exercise the kind of serious, independent oversight it was created to do. It often serves as a judicial convenience for executive agencies to use to cover administrative decisions and strategies that cannot stand up to ethical, moral, professional, legal, or constitutional review.
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
12-20-2005 14:27
So, the question in my mind based on the wording of the act:

From: someone
electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of
a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
information


and the quote from the court:

From: someone
a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."


So... presumabley, the US citizens that the president authorized were acting as agents of a foreign power and the information obtained was foreign intelligence information.

It would be simple enough to find out.

From: someone
The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to
the court established under section 1803(a) of this title a copy of
his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under
security measures established by the Chief Justice with the
concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the
Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless -
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the
surveillance is made under sections 1801(h)(4) and 1804 of this
title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of
the surveillance under section 1806(f) of this title.


anyone have a copy of 1806(f) handy?
_____________________
From: Bud
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
12-20-2005 14:36
From: Bill Diamond
But the Journal notes that in a 2002 case dubbed: "In Re: Sealed Case," the FISA appeals court decision cited a previous FISA case [U.S. v. Truong], where a federal court "held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information."


Doesn't the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information necessitate a credible link between those being spied on and the aforementioned foreign intelligences? "Foreign" meaning "not domestic groups that disagree with his agenda."
Otherwise, he could say ANYONE has links to foreign intelligences without any probable cause and search them, and that sounds like a serious violation of the Constitution.

I believe my question is still as valid as it was at the beginning of the thread: What are these credible links?

Following common sense, the next question is: If there were credible links, then why wouldn't he have gotten a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp that has only been denied FOUR times since its inception (isn't that over a 99% success rate)?
Suspicions ensue...
Is it because he did not have credible sources but figured he would find them after he conducted the searches?
Is it because private citizens do not have the funds to buy the best justice money can buy and he figured he had nothing to worry about if he was wrong?

The whole situation smells like a fishing wharf.

The President cannot create his own branch of government to circumvent the rest of it on whims. I believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy and I want to preserve that. Don't you?

If he does have the authority to search anyone, anywhere, for any reason under the pretext of "foreign intelligence" (because we all have the internet), then that is something that needs to change IMMEDIATELY.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
12-20-2005 14:46
From: 1806(f)
(f) In camera and ex parte review by district court
Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to
subsection (c) or (d) of this section, or whenever a motion is made
pursuant to subsection (e) of this section, or whenever any motion
or request is made by an aggrieved person pursuant to any other
statute or rule of the United States or any State before any court
or other authority of the United States or any State to discover or
obtain applications or orders or other materials relating to
electronic surveillance or to discover, obtain, or suppress
evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic
surveillance under this chapter, the United States district court
or, where the motion is made before another authority, the United
States district court in the same district as the authority, shall,
notwithstanding any other law, if the Attorney General files an
affidavit under oath that disclosure or an adversary hearing would
harm the national security of the United States, review in camera
and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials
relating to the surveillance as may be necessary to determine
whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully
authorized and conducted. In making this determination, the court
may disclose to the aggrieved person, under appropriate security
procedures and protective orders, portions of the application,
order, or other materials relating to the surveillance only where
such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of
the legality of the surveillance
.
Champie Jack
Registered User
Join date: 6 Dec 2003
Posts: 1,156
12-20-2005 14:58
From: Chance Abattoir
Doesn't the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information necessitate a credible link between those being spied on and the aforementioned foreign intelligences? "Foreign" meaning "not domestic groups that disagree with his agenda."
Otherwise, he could say ANYONE has links to foreign intelligences without any probable cause and search them, and that sounds like a serious violation of the Constitution.

I believe my question is still as valid as it was at the beginning of the thread: What are these credible links?

Following common sense, the next question is: If there were credible links, then why wouldn't he have gotten a rubber stamp, a rubber stamp that has only been denied FOUR times since its inception (isn't that over a 99% success rate)?
Suspicions ensue...
Is it because he did not have credible sources but figured he would find them after he conducted the searches?
Is it because private citizens do not have the funds to buy the best justice money can buy and he figured he had nothing to worry about if he was wrong?

The whole situation smells like a fishing wharf.

The President cannot create his own branch of government to circumvent the rest of it on whims. I believe I have a reasonable expectation of privacy and I want to preserve that. Don't you?

If he does have the authority to search anyone, anywhere, for any reason under the pretext of "foreign intelligence" (because we all have the internet), then that is something that needs to change IMMEDIATELY.


why would you want the president to have a rubber stamp? how would that make things better?

The president used the tools at his disposal, as outlined in FISA 1802 (find a link on pg. 3).

You can argue that under those rules the Pesident didn't fulfill his obligation, or went too far or reached too broadly beyond the scope of the FISA Act section 1802. That is a legitamate argument.

However, let's not pretend that the President is making up his own branch of government.

Now, in the spirit of reasonable debate, I will add the following:

According to 1802
From: someone
(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;


If you read 1801 (a)(1),(2), or (3), you will see that they relate to a foreign government.
From: someone
Section 1801. Definitions As used in this subchapter:
(a) ''Foreign power'' means -
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or
not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not
substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign
government or governments to be directed and controlled by such
foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities
in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially
composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign
government or governments.


Only (4) describes the enemy we face in this War. But (4) is not covered by the special considerations of Electronic surveillance without a wiretap (1802).

So, the questions is this: Was (4) somehow made an acceptable consideration by a court or other legislation following 9/11, and therefore covered by FISA Section 1802?

Some could argue that (2) or (3) would cover the president, depending on the people he goes after.
Chance Abattoir
Future Rockin' Resmod
Join date: 3 Apr 2004
Posts: 3,898
12-20-2005 15:10
From: Champie Jack
why would you want the president to have a rubber stamp? how would that make things better?


I'm not arguing for him to have one, just wondering why he didn't get legal approval for something that would've easily been approved. It's a question of motive, not of value. It doesn't make it "better" if he really does have the power to search anyone he pleases under the pretext of "foreign intelligence" without probable cause.

I don't think any of this will be settled unless they audit all the cases where he's used his power to monitor citizens and determine if he actually had cause (in the sense of them having ties to foreign intelligence).

EDIT: And yes, that was hyperbole I used and not meant to literally be taken as the President making up his own branch of government. Apologies if you thought that.
_____________________
"The mob requires regular doses of scandal, paranoia and dilemma to alleviate the boredom of a meaningless existence."
-Insane Ramblings, Anton LaVey
Zuzu Fassbinder
Little Miss No Tomorrow
Join date: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 2,048
12-20-2005 15:10
Grumbles about obtuse leagalise
From: someone

Whenever a court or other authority is notified pursuant to
subsection (c) or (d) of this section, or whenever a motion is made
pursuant to subsection (e) of this section,

I'm assuming subsections (c) (d) or (e) define what constitutes an "agreeved person"? From the sound of it, someone just needs to file a complaint, it's still not clear what valid grounds are...
_____________________
From: Bud
I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.
1 2 3 4