Posted on 12/21/2005 3:47:01 AM PST by johnny7
Rathergate! No WMD! Rovegate! Libbygate! Halliburton! Kerry! Mother Cindy! And now Wiretapgate!
The Dems don't live in a bubble, they live in a gated community. And no one else wants to live there, unfortunately for them.
They can legally turn over such obtained transmissions to the FBI, without a warrant. Until the Supreme court rules otherwise or the Congress passes a specific bill outlawing such(and it is signed by the President) then these intercepts will continue to be legal.
What the NSA cannot do is place a targeted surveillance on a U.S. Citizen or permanent resident without a warrant. There is no evidence cited by anyone to date that this has occurred. In fact the NY Times has admitted that numerous warrants have been issued by the FISA court, but they conveniently leave out why the warrants would be issued, in order to trick uninformed people into believing their rhetoric.
"The courts already ruled on that issue and it has NEVER been overturned. Jabara v. Webster, gives the NSA explicit authority to intercept electronic communications of U.S. Citizens, without a warrant, in these circumstances (intercepting electronic communications originating from or transmitted to a foreign destination)."
That's the second time today somebody has cited that case and darned if I can anything in it to suport that postion.. do you have a link? Maybe I am looking at the wrong case.
Not sure I buy that. The scope and depth of NSA surveillance technology remains unknown (although I would expect the Rats and MSM to attempt unveiling it in more detail). But the terrorists and collaborators have known for a very long time that their communications security is dodgey at best.
I do believe the NSA weenies who went to the NYT with this info - and apparently continue to do so to this day - should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"no substantial likelihood"
Here's a hair-splitter for you: if you accidentally ensnare a naturalized citizen or permanent resident in the terrorist mileau, you have to ask what they were doing immediately before you caught them. Answer: they were collaborating with terrorists.
For a permanent resident, that is a defacto breach of P.R. conditions, meaning that they are no longer "United States persons." And for naturalized citizens, that citizenship can be rescinded if they lied about terrorist associations on their I-400 application.
In any case the number of aggrieved "United States persons" becomes smaller and smaller as you think about who has been targeted in this operation, and why.
And the importance of "no substantial likelihood" grows larger.
Jay Rockefeller because of his stupid "letter" complaining about this Presidential overreach should be removed from the Intelligence Committee. He admitted in his letter that he didn't have the technical knowledge to know what was happening. No wonder so little intelligence and plenty of leaks come from the Senate Intelligence Committee with him serving as the leading ranking minority member.
Just act surprised and say,"wow, I didn't think it was likely".
seems the Times had not problem violating the civil liberties or a particular Republican politician several years ago:
Taping Newt, Good; Taping Monica, Bad!
By Carolyn Gargaro
August 1, 1999
Published in the South Jersey Courier Post, August 10, 1999
Linda Tripp has been indicted for taping her phone conversations with Monica Lewinsky. So what ever happened regarding Newt Gingrich's illegally intercepted and recorded cell phone conversation?
Think back to 1996, when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House. On December 21st of that year, a Florida couple, John and Alice Martin, were going Christmas shopping, and "just happened" to have a scanner and tape recorder in the car with them. They claimed to have "accidentally" monitored the cell-phone conversation of Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, as he spoke from his car in a conference call with several other key Republicans, including Gingrich. They just "happened" to record it "for history."
I'm sure it's common for people to accidentally intercept and tape private cell phone conversations while going Christmas shopping. Happens to me all the time.
The Martins then turned the tape over to Washington Democrat Jim McDermott, a member of the House Ethics Committee, which was about to rule on Gingrich's ethics violations. McDermott, in turn gave the tape to the New York Times and other newspapers. The New York Times then printed a transcript of the call's participants discussing how Gingrich should respond to the Ethics Committee.
Of course, it's just a "coincidence" that the Martins are active in Florida Democratic politics, just as it was a "coincidence" that they gave the tape to a Democrat on the Ethics Committee instead of the Independent Counsel or the Republican committee chair. Perhaps it was also an "accident" that McDermott gave the information to the press, rather than discussing the tape with his fellow committee members.
Since it is illegal to eavesdrop on cellular phone calls and disseminate the contents, the Martins eventually pleaded guilty and were fined a "whopping" $500 each. However, the court ruled that McDermott's leaking of the call's contents to the press is protected by freedom of speech. Because the recordings were a matter of "important public interest," (how this conversation was a matter of "important public interest" is a bit questionable) the First Amendment trumped the privacy rights of the call's participants. Those who staunchly defend "privacy rights" and condemn Linda Tripp for taping her own conversations to protect herself are strangely silent about releasing the contents of an illegally recorded cell-phone conversation. Let's take a look at the two cases:
1) Linda Tripp was not involved in a third-party interception of a conversation. This is a key point; Linda did not intercept her own conversation. Lewinsky essentially gave Tripp permission for Tripp to hear her words by agreeing to speak with her on the phone. Maryland law states that it is illegal to INTERCEPT and record a conversation; Tripp's taping of those words isn't the same thing as interception. One could argue that taping Lewinsky might have been "mean" (but is it as "mean" as telling your friend to lie under oath?), the law only uses the word "interception"! So in essence, Tripp didn't even break the law.
2) Linda Tripp was making the tapes for her own protection. People seem to forget that she had received threats, and was being told that if she knew what was good for her, she'd break the law and lie under oath about her knowledge of the incident between Clinton and Kathleen Wiley. Were John and Alice Martin taping the conversation for their own protection? No.
3) After making the tapes, Tripp approached law enforcement authorities in a timely manner. This point is also important because it is an exception to Maryland's interception law. Even if one believes that Tripp did still break the law by recording her own conversations after she found out about Maryland's interception laws (refer to item (1) above), there is a law enforcement exception. The items on the last tape made were so illegal that she would be allowed to make the tape - as long as she approached law enforcement authorities in a timely manner -- which she of course ultimately did. The Maryland law does allow for this exception. Did McDermott take the tapes to the committee and discuss it with them? If he was concerned about the contents of the tape and not just playing politics, wouldn't this be the appropriate action? Instead, he gave the tapes to the press.
4) Linda Tripp was also indicted for giving her own tape to Newsweek. Now, if it's considered "free speech" to give Gingrich's tape to the press, why isn't it free speech for Tripp to give her own tape to Newsweek?
How interesting! So, it's acceptable to be involved in a third-party interception of someone's private cell phone conversation, tape it, and give it to a congressman whose dislike for the key call participant is rather obvious. It's also okay for that congressman to give that tape to the press. However, if one tapes her own telephone conversations for protection because she has been threatened and told that she must break the law, well, that's just wrong! Very interesting indeed.
Perhaps if it had been a Republican couple who "accidentally" taped Richard Gephardt's conversation, and then turned the tape over to a Republican politician, who in turn gave it to the press, people might pay a little more attention.
http://www.courierpostonline.com/
__________________
" In any case the number of aggrieved "United States persons" becomes smaller and smaller as you think about who has been targeted in this operation, and why.
And the importance of "no substantial likelihood" grows larger."
And I don't even have a problem with citizens being accidently recorded. If you call some known terrorist whose phone is tapped that's fair game. The only way I am going to be unhappy with the President is if they were deliberately doing domestic spying on citizens.
And I have not heard anybody in authority say citizens were targeted.
Actually the court in that case didn't rule on that particular question. From the opinion:
Jabara, however, does not even contend on this appeal that the interception by the NSA violated his fourth amendment rights; we may therefore take as a given that the information was legally in the hands of the NSA. What Jabara does contend, and the district court agreed, is that his rights were violated when the NSA turned over the information, without a warrant, to the FBI.
The only place I have heard this is on Conservative Radio, blogs and internet sites.
I haven't heard anyone say the surveillance mechanisms were/are domestic, either. I'm willing to bet they're all offshore gateways (e.g., satellites. ISPs, telcos, etc).
Do not neglect to state that the Court of Appeals ruled against Jabara (overturning the District Court), no warrant is required for the NSA to turn over intercepted electronic transmissions to the FBI. Keeping mind that Jabara is a U.S. Citizen.
As Rush pointed out earlier today: If Hillary were president, they would make a big fuss about killing the Patriot Act and then, once it's dead, just do whatever they wanted illegally anyway.
Personally, I don't know why Jabara didn't contest that latter point. Maybe he had incompetent counsel.
Under the Patriot Act, if the feds go to a bookstore or other retailer and demand information on a customer, it would be a criminal offense for the owner to reveal to his customer that the feds looked at his information. Without the Patriot Act, there wouldn't be much Hillary or anyone else could do to prevent that from happening.
"The courts already ruled on that issue and it has NEVER been overturned. Jabara v. Webster, gives the NSA explicit authority to intercept electronic communications of U.S. Citizens, without a warrant, in these circumstances (intercepting electronic communications originating from or transmitted to a foreign destination)."
Do you have a link??
I remember how badly the MSM treated her... making fun of her looks. Dems are a real class act.
Utter madness.
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.