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.
Freepers can take care of themselves quite nicely.You may engage them directly if you wish.
I was trashing the idiots who didn't realize there was a serious exchange going on.
There was no serious exchange with Holdek but that's ok. This thread is about the NY Slimes. Did you see this post?
You can do better than that.
I just caught a D-Carl Levin quote. Is he quoting you; or are you quoting him. Your words are identical.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051219/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc_8
snip
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday reiterated Bush's statement that the wiretapping of telephone conversations and other communications was legal and did not violate the Constitution.
"This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States," Hayden said. "I can say unequivocally that we have got information through this program that would not have otherwise have been available."
A 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval.
"FISA's very important in the war on terror, but it doesn't provide the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of threat," Gonzales said.
Hayden said the purpose of the program was solely "to detect and prevent" while FISA was built for long-term coverage against known agents of an enemy power.
"It's a quicker trigger. it's a softer trigger. And the intrusion into privacy is significantly less. It's only international calls. The period of time in which we do this is in most cases far less than that which would be gained by getting a court order."
snip
"But if he said.."
And if he didn't?
What then for your point?
Just because it is helpful does not make it legal.
"What if and this is a big the list of people that have been spyed on comes out and some of them are questionable (ie: political enemies etc....) what do the supporters of these actions say then?"
Well, the person that leaks that list after there is already an investigation into the first leak won't have any housing expense for the next 99 year since his will be provided by the state.
But should that hypothetical occur it would be very embarrassing. The worst timing would be to leak right before the election not allowing enough time for the Administration to show those taps were justified.
If he DIDN'T make the delcaration under oath he is in even more serious trouble, because he declined to comply with FISA!
You are wrong. You think it will go to court? This is the last thing your pals the Democrats want or wish.
It may or it may not, depending on what the congressional inquiry brings up. I don't know, and I won't venture a guess.
The same FISA you keep ignoring?
The problem is the guy is here a couple of weeks so the usual reactionaries are trying to drive him away. It was obvious from reading the exchanges, that you characterize as not serious, that there was a dialogue going on, in which he may learn something. Readers may also be learning and the constant harping and personal comments by the usual suspects were disrupting.
The fact that you don't acknowledge the false comments made about his leaving is disengenuous on your part.
Congressional inquiry? Is there a formal one, or one in the process of being formed, do you know?
hehehehehe....it is funny. But, you are right that it is implausible.
The unfortunate thing is I believe there is a lot of selective reading of the law here. Some are making the point that if a member is a United States citizen, but is also a member of an association, then then part of the law prohibiting wiretapping without a warrant if there is reason to believe a U.S. citizen may be a party, is negated. No where in the law does it provide for subclause B to stop being operative. The circumstance has to meat all criteria, not just some, for it to be legal.
But that's just my opinion. Thank you again for your respectful disagreement.
I know that they have been called for by both Republicans and Democrats. Given the huge importance and controversy of this issue I don't doubt that it will happen.
What part am I ignoring?
... the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, makes it illegal to spy on U.S. citizens in the United States without court approval.
Ick.
*chuckle*
The parts that disagree with your assumptions.
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.