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.
Apparently not. Specify exactly what qualifies as "overboard."
and is probably in violation of the law.
In other words, you have absolutely no idea whether the government was in violation of the law or not.
See we have a Bill of Rights that precludes spying on citizens without a warrant.
Specify where you found this in the Bill of Rights, if you can- it might help back up your opinion.
I suggest you read this before replying to these discussions.
50 USC 1802 Permits Warrantless Surveillance
Excerpt from linked article:
***************************
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
"(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"
But again , that is gonna mean the law was violated if any of the American citizens was not an agent of a foreign power.
Oh how I love FreeRepublic and the vast reservoir of knowledge the members contribute. I knew that sooner or later, someone would either confirm or deny the legality of this whole affair and site some black-and-white to support it.
Now THAT'S funny! Especially considering the left is sounding seditious AND getting away with it.
Has Bush "sicced" the IRS on anyone? How many FBI files are in the WH do you think? Forget the past and join us in the present. ;)
Back over to DU, troll. It's either that, or lurk, or begone.
Don't make me have to use the facts on you again! You'll get mad and cry and then get hungry and buy stuff at Wal-Mart as you curse the demise of Unions, and how all our jobs went to the Chinese.
"What if" Bush flew the planes into the World Trade Center himself?
"What if" Saddam Hussein loved Kurds and was just giving them free baby milk from his baby milk factory?
"What if" Cheney is really a robot? And controls the weather? And planted bombs in the N.O. levy as part of a Freemason conspiracy?
In reality, the only evidence before us shows that the wiretapping was done to and among people in the US who were comminicating with terrorists.
Don't believe the "what if" scenarios. They're a waste of time and reality.
Respect for Clark??????????????
You are on the wrong site.
Specify where, exactly, the individual you addressed said Saddam Hussein should not have an attorney?
That's about as smart as saying that defense attorneys in the U.S. love crime.
No, it would be more like saying that a person widely known to despise his country is a person who despises his country. Calling a spade a spade, so to speak.
If that American citizen was IN CONTACT with a foreign agent, not an agent of a foreign power.
"Don't believe the "what if" scenarios. They're a waste of time and reality."
I didn't know "reality" could be wasted...but anyway, the Bill of Rights was written precisely to protect against the "what ifs." That's the point of having a "right."
I'm just asking a valid question and I think it does need to be pointed out. No one on here has the list of people who were watched and I highly doubt we will ever find out.
I may trust GWB but like many people I don't trust the government 100% of the time. This is a big deal to me personally because it tests that trust and that bond with the POTUS. I know that my opinion means squat but I'm entitled to question.
Do I think that the actions taken were wrong? I don't think so because they (by all accounts) were made to protect the United States. Do I have concerns... yes.
I think if I blindly followed anyone without questioning every once in a while I'd be a pretty sad individual (and I stress the individual part)
I clearly said I am not fan of Clark, I respect his actions in THIS instance.
See my reply #70. I was FReeping last night and found these facts and linked to a word document.
"Clark's defense strategy is the business of himself, the rest of his legal team, and his client."
What a distraction from the real point.
Clark is doing it to hurt the US efforts in Iraq. You know that. I know that.
I am not disputing Clark's right to do what he is doing, only his motivation.
And his motivation is anti-Americanism.
It doesn't really matter. Citizenship and the rights inherent in it are paramount, and the Constititution is the supreme law of the land. Not to mention that it would be a stretch to call someone cooperating with a foreign power an agent of that power, but that's neither here nor there.
That's nice. Now go read the Bill of Rights. The one that exists in reality.
And the one that has been interpreted by several courts of appeals to have no problem with FISA 1802.
There have been cites listed on FR. One was a mall in Ohio that was targeted and stopped because of the NSA. Another thread was a few days ago but I can't find it. It was a muslim that was arrested for terrorism. The guys name was Imram or some such. (nuts!)
That is because citizens of the United States have not been spied on before (at least to our knowledge) in a legal context. Hence the controversy!
"It doesn't really matter. Citizenship and the rights inherent in it are paramount, and the Constititution is the supreme law of the land. Not to mention that it would be a stretch to call someone cooperating with a foreign power an agent of that power, but that's neither here nor there."
The constitution is part of the supreme law of the land, treaties ratified by congress are port of the supreme law also. But I doubt you would be able to find a court that would rule that the right to privacy outweighs the right to do surveilence on enemy agents.
My concern about the program is the lack of checks to make sure that only enemy agents were tapped.
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.