Myth Busting on NSA Surveillance

Strata-Sphere ^ | September 29, 2006 | A J Strata

[bobsunshine]

I guess we need to inform the country about some of the realities of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and what is possible and not possible to resolve all the concerns for privacy protections. I say this because the house just passed a good bill on the NSA TSP. This topic is especially important in light of some leftwing prosecutorial abuse against a Rep Candidate for AG in NY who has had her phone monitored for discussing ways to catch her cheating husband publicized - we can be voyuers against Reps but it is unconstitutional to monitor terrorists contacting possible suicide troops here in the US. So let’s bust some myths on this issue and hope enough people read this and pass on the information to inform our choices this fall.

Myth 1: NSA Can Get Warrant From FISA Court - this is a common refrain from the Democrats that the simple answer is for NSA to get warrants from FISA. Well, ignoring the fact the NSA has no standing with the courts to get warrants, and therefore must go through the FBI and DoJ, and ignoring the fact that the FBI and DoJ cannot legally insert themselves into the military and Presidential chain of command to confirm orders, and neither can the courts - the fact is the FISA Court will not allow the NSA to request warrants based on its intel. It will not allow the FBI or DoJ to request warrants based solely on NSA intel. That was decided way back when the TSP program went into effect. So please, let’s get off the idea the NSA can get a warrant for its surveillance - it cannot. And the FISA Court will not issue one based on NSA intercepts - the FBI needs to find collaborative evidence for a FISA warrant. This makes sense actually. Without a FISA warrant the NSA can only listen in on communications that are with known terrorists overseas. No other communications can be monitored. With a FISA warrant all communications can be monitored.

Myth 2: NSA Bypassed FISA - This too is wrong. Completely backwards actually. Prior to 9-11 the NSA, if it intercepted a communications between an overseas target of surveillance and someone in the US, would destroy any information on a possible lead in the US. This was out of tradition - not a legal requirement. The military and intelligence are just as valid sources for tips on illegal behavior as anyone. They can report a theft, so they should be able to report possible infiltration of our homeland by an enemy. But the tradition evolved over time, without consideration of how dangerous this tradition was. This was noticed by the Church Committee in the 1970’s, whose effort led to FISA. After 9-11 President Bush order the NSA to pass their leads to the FBI for investigation and application to FISA if the conditions warranted. The reality is the TSP - for the first time - had NSA leads being passed to FISA.

Myth 3: The TSP Conveys Unbridled Presidential Power - the silliest of them all. The TSP triggers on events - not Presidential directives. The NSA monitors terrorists overseas. They intercept a communication with someone in the US and the process triggers. The only way a President could initiate this is to get someone in the US to call a terrorist somehow. The communication is vetted by analysts and lawyers at the NSA. If concerned they pass it to the FBI which further vets the lead. If concerned they request warrants from the FISA Court which further vets the lead. There is no Presidential influence in the process at all. All Bush did was order the communication take place between NSA and the FBI.

One thing Dems are good at is being irrationally shrill. But what we need from them is some sort of reasonable case on how the President could abuse this program. And we get nothing. In fact, the bill mentioned above further safe guards misuse by bringing the program under broader Congressional and Judicial review than it has received. In fact, the Bill says the President should only use this program when our country faces threats:

However, the president could act without court approval if he certifies that the country is “in the wake of a terrorist attack” or armed conflict, or facing an “imminent attack.” The president would have 60 days to obtain a warrant, but he would be able to continue warrantless spying if he certifies and describes to Congress his reason for doing so on national security grounds.

We need to know when a terrorist mastermind overseas is plotting with a suicide squad here in the US. The President as no role in the process of detection and passing on leads for investigation. He has left all those decisions to the career professionals. There is no expansion of Presidential Powers in the sense the President can order surveillance on anyone in the US out of the blue.

So where are we? We have the NSA monitoring terrorist and intercepting leads about possible terrorist comrades here in the US. The NSA cannot request a warrant for these leads since the FISA judges will not allow NSA intel to form the basis of probable cause for a FISA warrant. So now, after 9-11, the lead is passed to the FBI instead of thrown away. The FBI investigates and goes to the FISA Court if the lead looks like it might represent a threat to Americans. What is so wrong with this the democrats have committed to destroying it? Do they want to go back to the pre 9-11 days when terrorists reached these shores and openly and freely planned and coordinated their final attacks with their masters back home? Why are we listening to these suicidal ideas as if they are reasonable and valid?

[bobsunshine]

Very good summary (emphasis mine). I wish more people would understand how the NSA and FISA works versus what the MSM tells us. The NYT article last year was completely wrong in how they said that NSA was bypassing the FISA courts. So the Dems and ACLU went (more) crazy and have tried to stop it. Now the Dems are claiming that the NSA watches and listens to American citizens (Movie-Ememy of the State) and uses that information to get the FBI to investigate. So far I have heard of NO American Citizen being investigated because of spying by the NSA. The only people I've heard of are the journalist that want to talk to overseas contacts (terrorists).

So we have to give up our security because of some journalist wants a story? As far as I'm concerned, the journalist do not trump my security and the security of my family. They can all go to h... Anyway, I pray to God that President Bush continues with this program and the DOJ and AG get the appeal process and this decision overturned.

[MNJohnnie]

Great article. Thanks

[MNJohnnie]

Great article. Thanks

[wastedyears]

Wiretapping phones to prevent more terrorist attacks? Okay

A Dem: "Wire tapping phones to prevent more terrorist attacks? This is unconstitutional! This is madness! The President is listening to me talk and I don't like it!

More and more whining from them. I hope their wake-up call isn't another attack.

[cake_crumb]

True "NSA Wiretapping Scandal" story:

There's a woman who works for the Post Office and made a call about a package. The people she called had caller ID. The woman (a ditz - a social worker, which proves how ditzy) picks up the phone and looks at the little screen with said US Gov. She panicked and refused to answer the phone. The postal worker called back a few minutes later and the ditz made her husband answer it. He was as scared as she was and damanded to know who it was and what they wanted.

Both the ditz and her husband felt really stupid when the call turned out to be from the Post Office...it never occurred to them that the government does anything BUT spy on inconsequential people. (Also makes you wonder if they had guilty consciences)

[wastedyears]

Possible guilty conscience, but that's just stupid. I know that most of the time, somebody calling me from a Restricted number would be a Navy recruiter, but I'm just not ready to sign a contract yet.

[cake_crumb]

The Dems are telling the truth as they see it in their twisted, dessicated little minds. I know the media hired the ACLU to file a complaint claiming reporters' 1st Amendment rights were being violated because wiretapping might put a crimp in their phone interviews with terrorists, and the media is overwhelmingly Dem.

[cake_crumb]

"Possible guilty conscience, but that's just stupid. I know that most of the time, somebody calling me from a Restricted number would be a Navy recruiter, but I'm just not ready to sign a contract yet."

"Stupid" is an understatement. If we didn't know the two of them well (they're related) I would have been tempted not to believe it.

Fortunately, most Americans aren't so simple minded that they automatically believe the Gubmint is capable of spying on a couple of hundred million people gossiping on the phone every day.

[mvpel]

Fortunately, most Americans aren't so simple minded that they automatically believe the Gubmint is capable of spying on a couple of hundred million people gossiping on the phone every day.

Well, if there weren't enough such simple-minded people, the idea of government-run healthcare wouldn't have the slightest bit of traction in DC or anywhere else.

In order to believe in socialized medicine, you have to believe in the myth that the goverment is capable and competent.

[massgopguy]

I LMAO at DUr's who post "in the case that I disappear" threads. The truth is, since we are in week five of the football season, if the government was listening in on cell phone calls. Then I should have noticed some of my friends gone missing. Ohio State by 7 points? This is too easy.

[bobsunshine]

Here's an interesting article that I forgot about regarding mail entering the US (From AJ Strata):

Customs agents have the right to search, without a warrant, you and your luggage (including your PC) when you enter this country. The Border Patrol can stop and search recent arrivals here when they are miles from the border. The Supreme Court has authorized customs officers to open incoming international mail without a warrant. It is not clear how a phone call or email originating overseas deserves more protection than clothing, the contents of a computer, or international mail. The Supreme Court has upheld all of these exceptions to constitutional limits on searches.

I should know, my business mail from the UK and Germany has been opened up for years. I have become so used to it I forgot all about it! Nearly all my mail has been opened and reviewed, including SW licenses from an EU provider. But the point is one which will kill off the debate on the NSA-FISA issue. Since any mail, without any connection to known terrorists, can be opened as it crosses our borders then clearly email and phone conversations with known terrorists which cross our border must be fair game.

[phs3]

ping!!

[lepton]

bookmark bump

[swmobuffalo]

bump

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[G Larry]

BUMP!

There are more reasons....but they can't be discussed here.

[Prost1]

This report is really very clear.

One emphasis that should be there is that the POTUS, as Commander in Chief, does not have to succumb to Congress or the Courts in matters of "armed conflict", otherwise called WAR! That is why he is CINC!

Congress can say what it wants, the Courts can say what they want, but POTUS is not beneath either and above both in matters of WAR!

[Tarantulas]

Well his "Myth 1" is wrong. The NSA can definitely get a FISA warrant by going through the Department of Justice. The Attorney General explains how it could be done in this document. The explanation starts near the end, beginning with "Many people ask why the President elected not to use FISA’s procedures for securing court orders for the terrorist surveillance programL." But the reason the NSA doesn't do it that way is that going through the Department of Justice and then getting the Attorney General's signoff on every surveillance would take way too long, so the NSA uses a "duty officer" to approve the surveillance.

I wish people wouldn't write things like this without doing their research first. It makes us look bad if we quote something that turns out later to be wrong. This is no better than what we see sometimes on NewsMas.

[bobsunshine]

Point from AG speech:

"Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There is a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. We do not and cannot approve emergency surveillance under FISA without knowing that we meet FISA’s normal requirements."

The NSA is a military operation and does not need a warrant to listen in on foreign calls. It is my understanding that when the calls come to a citizen in the USA, then any leads to allow it to continue needs a warrant or ok from the AG. When more followup is required, the NSA passes the info onto the FBI who goes to FISA for a warrant to wiretap phones and emails. The FISA has been reluctant to issue a warrant to the FBI if the information was due to a NSA lead.

Did you know that the the US Customs can open your overseas mail coming into the USA and inspect without a warrant?

I have more faith in AJ Strata (and MacRanger) informing us of what the NSA can and cannot do then others in the MSM. Thanks for the post.

[Tarantulas]

"The NSA is a military operation and does not need a warrant to listen in on foreign calls."

Absolutely, I agree one hundred percent. But that was not my point. The original post said "So please, let’s get off the idea the NSA can get a warrant for its surveillance - it cannot," which, as the Attorney General explains, is incorrect. NSA could go through DOJ and obtain a FISA warrant, but because of the excessive amount of time it takes for the approvals and legal consultations, FISA is not an option.

I'm glad you have faith in AJ Strata, but I have more faith in the Attorney General, the guy who has been officially authorizing the NSA surveillance.