Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mo1; p23185; Don_Ret_USAF; Peach; Coop
HTML version at post 190. It has a few typos, but not many. I've added hotlinks to the cited cases on my local copy of the HTML version, but the letter speaks for itself.

I think the argument based on FISA is weak, but otherwise it's good stuff.

Here are some bonus links, just for fun. Not relevant because they are more FISA related, and eeven there, more to the point of threshhold for obtaining a FISA warrant.

Senate statment re: warrants and "substantial" v. "significant" purpose ...
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/hatch-fisa.html

KYL: Until Senator Schumer arrives, I make another point. There has been a worry on the part of some that this expands the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to private American citizens. I make it crystal clear that is not true. ...

SCHUMER: Here is the problem. They also must show under present law that the target is an agent of a foreign power, such as Iraq, or a known foreign terrorist group, such as Hamas or al-Qaida. That is the hurdle we are removing. If that requirement had not been in place, there is no question the FBI could have gotten a warrant to do electronic surveillance on Zacarias Moussaoui and, who knows, not certainly but perhaps, 9/11 might not have occurred.

That is the anguish we all face. Right now we know there may be terrorists plotting on American soil. We may have all kinds of reasons to believe [[Page S5902]] they are preparing to commit acts of terrorism. But we cannot do the surveillance we need if we cannot tie them to a foreign power or an international terrorist group. It is a catch-22. We need the surveillance to get the information we need to be able to do the surveillance. It makes no sense. The simple fact is, it should not matter whether we can tie someone to a foreign power. Whether our intelligence is just not good enough or whether the terrorist is acting as a lone wolf or it is a new group of 10 people who have not been affiliated with any known terrorist group, should not affect whether we can do surveillance, should not affect whether they are a danger to the United States, should not affect whether they are preparing to do terrorism. Engaging in international terrorism should be enough for our intelligence experts to start surveillance.

It is important to note if we remove this last requirement now it will immeasurably aid law enforcement without exposing American citizens or those who hold green cards to the slightest additional surveillance. ...

NAYS--4: Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin

NOT VOTING--6: Biden, Graham (FL), Kennedy, Kerry, Lieberman, Murkowski

Senate debate re: "lone wolf" provision for obtaining a FISA warrant ...
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s050803.html


203 posted on 12/22/2005 5:45:29 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
Thank You for the HTML Version. I was able to read the PDF version using both 6.2 (computer with Win98SE) and Version 7.2 (Computer WinXP SP2) with no problems. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
Don
207 posted on 12/22/2005 5:55:44 PM PST by Don_Ret_USAF ( "If you chase two rabbits, you will lose them both - Native American Saying.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt

Very interesting discussions; thanks for the ping to this and the easier read in #190 of the Asst AG's letter.


209 posted on 12/22/2005 5:59:50 PM PST by Peach (The Clintons pardoned more terrorists than they ever captured or killed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson