Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
Unwarranted Outrage The Times blew our cover.
I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.
How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "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" (emphasis mine).
Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."
But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.
O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."
Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.
Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes — subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).
This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.
So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through — if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?
You can answer that one.
Namecalling? For what reason? Aren't you cute.
Stick around and you'll learn who's serious and there's a lot of information to be considered. It's a real education. There some real constitutional scholars.
§ 1801. Definitions ...(i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
Thank you.
You're welcome. It was a good story. :)
Yeah, I should stick to other forms of insults like questioning reading level. I can learn a lot from your subtelty.
Where is the cite that this wiretap was warrantless?
Holdek keep saying it was warrantless.
LOL...that's great.
Very first sentence of the article also says:
" The government spied on him and hundreds of other Americans without warrants. "
And correction, Holdek says it was illegal.
I asked how you read FISA. You come on the thread trashing people in defense of a troll. And then name call. I Ddid not call you names. I asked " Just wondering about your reading skills on FISA." The troll can't seem to read law.
I was trasshing the idiots who didn't realize there was a serious exchange going on. Why don't you spend some time correcting the people who critized your "troll" for leaving when he hadn't left.
How serious can the exchange be when the guy is purposefully ignoring law cited to him.
Yes, and this is the problem. I have no doubt that the Attorney General made the certifications. But if he said under oath that "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 there is proof otherwise (and there seems to be, according to sources at the New York Times) then that is illegal. If they are not doing anything illegal, they can just come out and say "there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;" But if the New York Times is able to find out that hundres of American citizens have been spied on without a warrant, then there is cause for concern, and we'll need hearings (even if they are secret) by Congress to get to the bottom of this.
"Duh" on my part. Similar comment later on in the article too. Contemporaneous accounts of the bust refer to interception of communications, and the perp plead guilty, so the admissibility of this evidence was never tested.
Boy talk about no knowledge of the past, you're now really showing your ignorance....ck out the yrs of the 'toons' administration...we were all listened to/spied on by those thugs.
Don't worry about it.
There was the attack on that mall thwarted by eavesdropping, but I only found the article that says it was thwarted, but not how or why.
When adults are having a serious discussion one of the issues is to see how someone will respond when confronted with "evidence" and to watch the responses. An interested reader can also learn something by reading both sides. Either you are blessed with omniscience or you're just a disrupter. If it's the former, then be quiet while us lesser beings learn. If its the latter and you don't understand what was going on, then have fun with your cats and lightening bolts.
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.