Posted on 12/19/2005 4:25:09 AM PST by angkor
Throughout the "illegal wiretaps" debacle of the last several days we have not heard a single citation of the actual law that is alleged to have been violated. And that's from both the accusers (Rats, the NYT, WashPost, etc.) as well as Republicans, up to and including the White House staff (e.g., Condi Rice on talking head circuit, Sunday morning, where she did not cite the law in defense of the practice).
Well, the fact of the matter is that the alleged "illegal surveillance" is not illegal at all. In fact it is specifically permitted under 50 USC 1802, and the White House and DoJ have complied with at least that part of the law requiring notification of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (even Nancy Pelosi has admitted that she was notified, and as a 10-year member of the House Committee we can presume she knows the law on this matter).
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. The White House and Republicans generally have been completely negligent in simply citing 50 USC 1802 as permissive of this kind of surveillance.
Below is the pertinent text of 50 USC 1802, or you can click the link above to go to the page and do more digging if you so choose.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but the language seems quite clear.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1802
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—
[snip]
Actually they amazingly haven't. Of 20,000 requets for wiretaps, the FISA court has rejected a grand total of 5. It's probably the best court in the US.
Seems I heard some LSM reporter 'claim' that during the Prez presser this morning, but why should we trust anything that comes out of their mouths anymore? LOL
Just because the media intentionally mischaracterizes this as 'domestic' spying, does not make it so. The President and the attorney general have both made it clear that no one was authorized to montitor U.S. citizens, end of story.
In fact both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have stated, on the record, that they were briefed on this program and signed off on it's legality.
This is a political game, and it embarasses me to think that there are people on FR whom are obtuse of the facts.
Who has stated that in those cases the governmnet used 50 USC 1801 or 1802? I would assume they used laws already on the books and obtained the appropriate warrants. No one has said warrants were never issued.
Actually, the President has done nothing of the sort. He has said that the spying covered US persons (citizens and/or legal residents) communicating with foreigners oversees.
In fact both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have stated,
Those two are supposed to reassure me? My opposition to this is based on US law and the Constitution, not on what some loony left botox queen from San Francisco tells me.
I have read the text of the President's radio address, Sunday speech and his press conference and nowhere does he state anything of the sort. Please show me where the President has said this program was used against U.S. Citizens or any Permanant residents under the guise of 50 USC 1801 or 1802.
National Review's Jim Robbins says AQ does meet the law's definition of "foreign power":
http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200512190859.asp
Cool...I hope eveyone realizes that the "Prez" consulted multiple government attorneys for full legal opinions and consulted congress before taking action...
This wasn't done in a vacuum nor without the legislative branch's buy-in....
This was legal and within his (the Prez's) authority, I just wasn't sure of the poster's quoted federal law as the basis.....
I agree with you. I also don't see why the administration wouldn't notfy the FISA court within the 72 hours like the lasw calls for. I mean, I don't see the big deal in ordering the surveillance then going to the FISA court in the next 24-72 hrs and getting the retroactive warrant? It just appears like there's something to hide.
Do you, or anyone else know anything about the FISA court? How many members does it have? How is someone nominated to it? What's the confirmation process? What's the current makeup? How many Clinton appointees? Has Bush appointed anyone?
FISA is a court made up of seven district court judges personally selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for staggered terms. Their names are kept secret in the interests of US national security. FISA has a reputation for being a rubber stamp --- in 20,000 requests for wiretaps, they've turned down five. They also process requests nearly instantaneously.
FISA is not a liberal court by any stretch. And it's a tremendously powerful tool for any anti-terrorism agent.
Thanks. I actually found the info on google. FISA is a court with 11 members, ALL named by Bill Rehnquist. There's also a 3 judge FISA appeals court, again all named by Rehnquist. The site actually listed the names of the judges and who they are but I won't here. It's interesting that during Roberts' hearings I think only DeWine asked him like 1 question about FISA. It's a pretty important issue and a big deal since as Chief he'll be naming FISA judges for the next 25-30 yrs. But I guess abortion is more important.
You're absolutely right. The likelihood of you or I being monitored for a call to a terrorist is nil. In other words, they can't monitor all of us and the surveillance is "limited" by the law.
IMHO...I believe going to FISA within 72 hours is for "continuing" surveillance.
20,000 requests.......over what period of time. FISA has existed for a long time......(I think 20 years).
FISA does not process requests immediately. The 9/11 Commission stated, after taking testimony from the FBI, that warrants can take weeks.
I read that somewhere too and I also remember that this 2 week lag was the problem with the current FISA court process making it hard to do effective modern surveillance.
The 9/11 Commission took testimony from FBI agents to that effect.
The FBI whistleblower (Coleen Crowley?) testified to the Commission that FISA applications can take weeks. It's gotten somewhat better, but it's certainly not immediate, which the left loves to claim.
Article VI
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...
...shall be the supreme law of the land....Amendment IV
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."Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature [Congress] repugnant to the Constitution is void."
Marbury v Madison, 1803
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.