NSA (letter to Senate)

NRO ^ | KJ Lopez

[hipaatwo]

writes to the Senate about the eavesdropping frenzy.

It's a PDF file

[shield]

Look how easily Shaffer lost his...at a drop of a hat. Something has got to be done to the leakers...and you know they know the leakers.

[Sonora]

Did you use a conversion program to convert to exact text or what? Thanks.

[processing please hold]

Thanks, I might give it one more shot tonight before I leave for the night because as soon as I try and download it, I'know what's gonna happen. Freeze and lock. If it doesn't work, I'm just gonna pretend PDF file don't exist.Once upon a time it worked becaus I have the Dulfer report and the OFF investigation on PDF.

[processing please hold]

Neither do I. It looks they are just using up time? Like running out the clock...

[Peach]

Freeper kjam22 explained the maneuvering better than I ever could as follows:

Sensenbrenner says the senate dems can either approve the version that they filibustered (with the 30 new safeguards for civil rights, that were approved by the joint Senate and House committee) or they can extend the current patriot act that they dems don't like for a month at a time, going forward. Said the agreed to version that they filibustered cannot be modified because it requires the committee to reconvien which by senate and house rule is not permitted once either house of congress has adopted the law.

[jagusafr]

RE: PDF - I got a message that it's in a newer format than mine (6.0, there's a 7.x out) and might not work. It did, but mighta just been my lucky day.

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

With a little luck, there may be someone making out that list as we type :) I know, wishful thinking, but maybe times are changing.

[Dog]

Key passage.

This constitutional authority includes the authority to order warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance within the United States, as all federal appellate courts, including at least four circuits, to have addressed the issue have concluded. See, e.g., In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 7 17, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002) ("[AIII the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority. . . ."). The Supreme Court has said that warrants are generally required in the context of purely donrestic threats. hut it expressly distinguished,foreign threats. See United States v. United States District Cotrrt, 407 U.S. 297,308 (1972). As Justice Byron White recognized almost 40 years ago, Presidents have long exercised the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance for national security purposes, and a warrant is unnecessary "if the President of the United States or his chief legal officer, the Attorney General, has considered the requirements of national security and authorized electronic surveillance as reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 363-64 (1967) (White, J., concurring).

[July 4th]

No, I just cut and pasted from what someone else had posted above.

[processing please hold]

Thanks, where can I find out about those 30 new safeguards? On the congressional site?

[shield]

bttt

[XHogPilot]

X C Lent post!

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for posting with the paragraphs.

[lugsoul]

No, Peach, I understand that full well. And I'm not protecting jihadists. What you fail to acknowledge is what even the government has acknowledged: Not everyone who has been subjected to a warrantless wiretap is having conversations with enemies of the United States. The NSA has even secretly surveilled some folks, decided they weren't interested, and dropped it. They have wiretapped purely domestic communications, which they contend were accidental. The system as constituted does not only listen to those who are 'agents of a foreign power.' It listens to those who someone thinks might be, without any review of the basis of that determination to see whether it is valid.

It is not only moonbats who recognize the legal problems with the programs. Bob Barr has stated that the program is obviously in violation of the law. Richard Posner has very strongly implied that it is. And 'trusting' the President is not a valid basis for kicking the last wobbly support out from under the 4th Amendment, so that future Administrations aren't bound by it at all.

[freema]

Third times a charm? Adobe doesn't like me, either.
Big problems here, too. Computer freezes right up.

[freema]

Ohhhhhhhhhh, you're tempting me, but I don't have loose lips.

[Itzlzha]

Placemark BUMP!

[freema]

Bravo.

[Peach]

I certainly don't think you are protecting the jihadists any more than I thought you were lying.

Although I cannot remember their names right at this moment and don't want to go look, there are lots of attorneys (like Bob Barr) who equally say that the president is well within his authority to run this program through NSA.

We just disagree on whether this is a good idea, that's all.

[Godzilla]

They have wiretapped purely domestic communications, which they contend were accidental.

You are missinformed due to your termology. NSA assets collecting the signals are outside of the US. Any assest that might be are tuned to international communications. They cannot intercept internal (texas to ohio type) communications. So the intecept of purely domestic comms is not impossible, it is highly improbable. Just because one end of the conversation is in the US does not define it as 'domestic'.