[angkor]

This morning's New York Sun contains the first editorial I've seen specifically discussing 50 USC 1802:

"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.

[SuzanneC]

bump

[knarf]

Good lookin' put, angkor.

[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.

[knarf]

I mean ... good lookin' out ....

(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!)

[ohhhh]

[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!

[nevergore]

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.....

[Krankor]

(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;

This is the one they gotta worry about.

[OXENinFLA]

Good stuff, thanks!

---

PING...

[Alter Kaker]

You're wrong on two counts:

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.

[xlib]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I'm not sure this is pertinent, since the accusation of the NYT and the MSM echo chamber is that such surveillance has been extended to US citizens, which appears to be forbidden in the law you cite.

"...the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers,..."

[Falcon4.0]

Thanks for the info. I was wondering the same thing this morning but I was not aware of the specific law and title which you outlined. My thought was that if they actually explained the legality of what was being done, they wouldn't have anything to talk or should I say "Squalk" about. On the medias part anyway.

[cwiz24]

Not so fast, angkor. This section, among others, was clearly violated by the wiretapping:

(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;

As far as we know, United States citizens were eavesdropped on if they were involved with Al Qaeda. I don't have a problem with this, but this law does not cover what the White House did.

[BikerNYC]

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.

The Fourth Amendment.

[jennyjenny]

Is it fair to assume by "United States person", it is meant United States citizen? I'm not up to speed on all of this, so I don't know exactly who they were listening to, or if that has even been made public.

At any rate, I assumed and expected this was being done anyway. I have no problem with it.

[Just mythoughts]

Liberals needed a diversion from 'Able Danger', thus they needed to suck all the oxygen out of the public interest in why the Clintons ignored Atta and crew. So accuse the present administration of what they did and off to the races we go.

[sure_fine]

i heard that, ping

[Bear_Slayer]

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

This is for foreign intelligence only, not US citizens

(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

More limitations to foreign powers only, not US citizens

(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

Exclusion of US persons.

This does not cover what Bush has permitted.

[Grut]

An official process isn't necessarily 'due process', although government always claims it is. In this case, citing 'the law' ignores the question of whether the law is Constitutional -- and if it isn't, it's no law at all.

[festus]

If I was arguing against the administration I believe I would take up the points the attorney general must swear to, specifically :

(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;

I think the adminstration could defend against this sort of legal attack successfully but it would be the most challenging part.

[Loud Mime]

Good job, good research!