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.
Brilliant. Where do I send my contibution to your run for Congress? What is it in the water of Washington DC that melts Republicans spines and Democrats brains? This should be done. Pity it will not happen. By time they get back from Christams break they will be on some other talking point.
That would only be if these SUSPECTED terrorist were citizens of the US. Otherwise the Bill of Rights does not come into play
Your arguments are familiar. You seem like you have been here before. Maybe by another name?
YES. That is the point I've been making THE WHOLE TIME.
I've never been here before.
How does the Bill of rights and the RICO statues jive? Bill of rights and the FISA?
another post that you may find interesting
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1544146/posts
I take it that your take on the BOR, 4th Amendment specifically, is absolute?
If so, then you would have been one of those residing in coastal California cities during WWII that would have ignored blackout rules and insisted on your right to put Christmas Lights on your house.
Anyone doing that should expect that the law, or his truly patriotic neighbors, would rip your lights down, and if you insisted upon putting them back up, putting a .45 caliber hole in your head on the spot.
It is no different today. We are at war--some rights may be legally and constitutionally temporarily suspended. Anyone insisting on endagering the rest of us should expect to be hung by the neck until dead.
Don't they?
DUHHH...
If a policeman is driving his squad car down the street and hears a bank alarm going off, sees a running masked man carrying a bag trailing a cloud of dye pack smoke, and waving a 45 automatic in the air, he doesn't have to run to the court and get a warrant to catch the bastard.
Your desire to try Terrorism first in the courts will result in our death and defeat. Terrorism is not a civil violation of the law that can be defeated by subpoenas and lawsuits. Bullets and bombs are the only thing these scumbags understand and respect.
When some A$$-wipe U.S Citizen is on the phone with a foreign terrorist calling from overseas and Mr. "Citizen" says to Mr. Terrorist "I have the bomb materials you sent me in the basement..when do you want me to blow up that synagogue?", he is running down the street waiving a gun and carrying a bag trailing a cloud of dye pack smoke. He is no longer "presumed" to be innocent--he has submitted prima facia evidence of his guilt, forfeited his U.S. citizenship, and become a Foreign Agent. The gloves are off--or should be.
And anyone running interference for that bank robber to protect his "presumption of innocence" is guilty of the same crime, and should get the same punishment. Likewise with U.S. Senators and newspaper editors/reporters--hang them all.
I heard today on FOX that one of the MSM news mags, printed an article stating that the White House had asked a year ago for the NYT to please not print this story. I don't know why they decided to print the story a year later, perhaps because Bush's poll numbers were low enough that they thought they could get away with it! They're still trying to influence our elections.
If the White House ever asked me not to print a story because of national security issues, I would DEFINITELY forgo the story. I can't imagine.
BTW, does anyone, other than other reporters, really read the New York Times anymore? Just wondering, I haven't in years.
1. "You present no proof that the courts have sided with your quite unique interpretation."
http://newsbusters.org/node/3298
Discussing the earlier version of the statute. From the NYT.
2. "What is obvious is that an American citizen is an American citizen, regardless of assocation, unless their citizenship is forfeited or taken away. "
That nice, but there not a "United States Person," which is the protected class under the statute.
3. "And as long as they are a United States citizen, they cannot be wiretapped without a court warrant in accordance with subclause B of FISA."
Here, you and the Sixth Circuit (hardly a conservative court) part ways.
4. "And the world needs creative lawyer types to do things like sue fast food restaurants for "causing" obesity."
I'm a petroleum engineer and a geologist.
"If you check your history, it will become abundantly clear that during wars extraordinary powers are always given to the executive branch. Most Americans support this position."
That may have changed and perhaps the law should be changed to reflect this new opinion of the public. But we were also at war (Vietnam) during the round of abuses of spying on Americans that led the public to support taking that power away from the government.
If the government wants a new power or they want an old one back that was taken away they should ask the public to give it to them instead of just taking it.
LOLOL!!!
I would imagine. :) Tampering with the space-time continium--even for Santa!--takes some major energy! :)
Sorry, at this point, I have nothing wittier to add to this, but if I can think of something, I will post it. ;)
All the best, you "Meanie, faux-Santa" Texan. ;)
(btw, I lived in Austin for 6 months. Texans, and Southerners in general, IMO, are the friendliest people I've ever met).
Which, in English, means our safety is going to be compromised yet again.
I was lurking on this thread and enjoyed and learned a great deal just reading your posts and those of others. Thank you for your expertise and willingness to share it.
Thank you but all the excellent info came from other Freepers. :)
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.