NYT FRIDAY: Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the NSA has monitored international calls ...

Drudge Report ^ | 12/15/2005 | Matt Drudge

[VeniVidiVici]

I think what they meant was that it's illegal for the NSA to intercept messages from US citizens on US soil, and that's correct. In fact, USSID 18 Sections 4 and 5 specifically say that communications which even refer to US citizens will not be intentially intercepted, and that the only exceptions still exclude US citizens on US soil, unless they're acting as foreign agents, and the information obtained is exclusively used for intelligence or counterintelligence. That precludes domestic law enforcement.

Thank you. This is a far, far cry from being "illegal" to intercept the comms of US citizens.

And the MSM is being deliberately vague as to make it sound much more ominous than it is.

I saw no examples in any article where the interception could not be deemed legal according to the exceptions outlined in USSID 18.

I'm I missing something?

[P-40]

If one of those computers just happens to reside outside US territory, are you ok with domestic intelligence agencies tapping your phone calls?


It would depend on why the monitoring was taking place. If the monitoring was done just for the heck of it, I would have a problem with it. If, for some reason, I was a suspect in a probe of some sort, well...I would still have a problem with it but I can see why it would be justified.

[NJ_gent]

"It would depend on why the monitoring was taking place. If the monitoring was done just for the heck of it, I would have a problem with it. If, for some reason, I was a suspect in a probe of some sort, well...I would still have a problem with it but I can see why it would be justified."

There's always a 'reason', and if there isn't, we'll find one for you...

[P-40]

There's always a 'reason', and if there isn't, we'll find one for you...


That is the way I read the rules also. :)

USSID 18 reads like the issues the Times is raising were raised in the past, discussed, codified, and so forth, with some changed made after 9-11 that were not all that substantial.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I don't believe it. The NYT has no credibility as a reliable news source.

It'll be interesting to see which Senator brings this story up today as a reason not to reauthorize it.

Put Leaky Leahy as the one who got to it first. I think the same bozo's who agree with McCain's torture bill, will filibuster the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

[dfwgator]

Mountain, meet molehill.

[BigSkyFreeper]

and may well impact how legislators vote on the Patriot Act

I can forsee McCain and his band of bozo's voting the reauthorization of the Patriot Act down. McCain and anyone who supports him, don't know what the hell they're causing with this fricken torture bill of McCain's.

I look for most if not all Democrats voting this Patriot Act reauthorization down, and some idiot Republican's led by McCain, joining with the Democrats.

[P-40]

I don't believe it. The NYT has no credibility as a reliable news source.


Sad, but true. It was once one heck of a paper though. If it wasn't in the Times, it didn't happen...or something like that.

Drudge now has this on his page:

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book!

[chudogg]

I remember something that the NSA could listen for 30 seconds or something before referring the call for further investigation or terminating it for lack of a just cause. I'm trying to google it but there are few legitamate sites on this for some reason ;).

[chudogg]

The other thing that I saw this week that was disturbing is Military Intelligence surveillance and infiltration of Peace Groups- like the Quakers

Link Please.

[chudogg]

Thanks

Link

{Yawn}