Posted on 12/19/2005 4:25:09 AM PST by angkor
"The law provides at least two special exceptions to the requirement of a court order. As FISA has been integrated into Title 50 of the U.S. Code, Chapter 36, Subchapter I, Section 1802, one such provision is helpfully headed, "Electronic surveillance authorization without court order."
http://www.nysun.com/article/24610
Discuss.
bump
Good lookin' put, angkor.
Mods -- I've placed this in Breaking News because of the gravity of this matter and because 50 USC 1802 is not getting the attention it deserves.
The legal cite has been posted several times in other FR threads but some have suggested that it be raised as its own topic, and to the widest audience possible.
However since it is not formally a "news" item, I'll understand if you decide not to leave it there.
(Note to self ... the light eminating from the monitor is not sufficient for your pick-pecking fingers to type correctly ... turn on the friggin' light!)
[I'm posting this in Breaking News due to the gravity of the issue and because it is not being discussed anywhere in the MSM, or even on the more popular conservative blogs.]
Thank you for posting this. I would not expect to hear this from the politicians proaganda arm, the not so free liberal left rags and tv; but the fact that conservative news blogs don't report on this is interesting indeed.
Went to Drudge Report a couple of days ago and it was loaded with liberal rag news and not fair and balnced. OOvey. Thanks again.
Merry Christmas!
Hah. I have the same problem in the wee hours of the morning... lamp on [type]... lamp off... lamp on [type]... lamp off....
As long as Al Queda is defined as a "foreign power" as specified in the provisions of the Act then the administration is well within the law....
I do question whether Al Queda can meet that definition.....
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;
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
these intercepts by definition are outside both of the above requirements. i support them, but the law you cite does not.
1. The domestic surveillance appears to have covered United States persons, which the law expressly prohibits,
2. This other, more important, law:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"...the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers,..."
True, many people raise the "United States persons" issue.
First, a "United States person" is a citizen or permanent resident only. Not someone on a travel or work or student visa. It's not a simple presence test.
Second, it's arguable (as the NY Sun notes) that even naturalized citizens or permanent residents communicating with terrorists overseas have a de facto problem with their immigration status (and thus as "United States persons" under the law), e.g., you cannot have legal standing as a "United States person" if you lied about terrorist associations in U.S. immigration documents.
Third, what is "substantial likelihood"? 1 percent? 5 percent? 20 percent? It's arguable that if only 1 percent of the surveillance targets turned out to be legitimate "United States persons", that this falls underneath the threshhold of "substantial likelihood".
Note that the MSM has not treated us with any specifics whatsoever about the number of "United States persons" targeted by this statute (but of course, they haven't mentioned the statute itself, either).
One, misreporting.
Two, 500 surveillance targets = 500 FISA warrants.
Why do that when 50 USC 1802 also provides carte blanche?
You need to go back and read 1801, which defines foreign powers as terrorist organizations. It's unambiguous.
So that takes care of your first point.
Second point, "substantial likelihood" means precisely what? I don't know. Presumably the WH does.
No, the law has a "substantial likelihood" test.
Work it out on your own.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.