Wiretapping- why hasn't the MSM mentioned this court case at all?? (Vanity)

PBS ^

[God luvs America]

In debating a lib today about the legality and constitutionality of the President's wire-tapping, I came across an article from National Review on this site located here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551281/posts...

Doing a simple search on Google I came across this PBS Online NewsArticle from 11\18\2002...

I will excerpt this article with link but my question is- has a single person in the MSM brought this up??

Nov. 18, 2002, 5:30pm EST COURT UPHOLDS EXPANDED U.S. WIRETAPPING POWERS

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the U.S. government has an expanded authority to use wiretaps and other surveillance techniques in its efforts to track suspected terrorists.

The court's ruling said that expanded powers to wiretap those suspected in foreign terrorist operations – including U.S. citizens – outlined in the U.S.A. Patriot Act do not violate the Constitution.

The ruling, made by a select panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, overturns a decision limiting the government's surveillance authority by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – a top secret body created in 1978 to review the attorney general's requests to authorize electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Attorney General John Ashcroft hailed the ruling during a press conference Monday, saying it "confirmed

the Department of Justice's legal authority to integrate fully the functions of law enforcement and intelligence."

"Today's ruling is an affirmation of the will of Congress, a vindication of the agents and prosecutors of the Department of Justice, and a victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people," Ashcroft said.

However, the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed briefs in support of the lower court ruling, said the decision will allow the government too much authority to invade Americans' privacy.

"We are deeply disappointed with the decision, which suggests that this special court exists only to rubberstamp government applications for intrusive surveillance warrants," Ann Beeson, litigation director of the Technology and Liberty Program of the American Civil Liberties Union, said in a statement.

It is unclear whether the ACLU intends to appeal Monday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/engenda_preview/updates/court_11-18-02.html

[dirtboy]

Wiretapping- why hasn't the MSM mentioned this court case at all??

You really need to ask this?

The MSM doesn't mention the case in question (and other relevant cases) because it obliterates their line of attack on the Bush Admin.

Conversely, they also refuse to mention the Barrett Report being suppressed by the Dems, because it gives the Dems (and the Clintonistas) cover.

Omission is the most powerful form of lie. And the MSM proves it every day.

[frogjerk]

Why hasn't the MSM mentioned this court case at all?

Maybe because they seek the destruction of President Bush at any cost including the self destruction of the United States of America.

[coloradan]

Because they collectively are not so much a news reporting service as an enemy psyops encampment.

[Alberta's Child]

Keep in mind that there's another angle to this that very much plays into the MSM's favor in this case. The extensive public track record for this NSA program is such that it is highly probable that nobody broke any laws in "leaking" information about its existence.

[TN4Bush]

As the captain on Firefly would say "Part of writing history is getting to decide what to leave out".

[BurbankErnie]

Fantastic find.
i will post this around the Blogosphere today to raise awareness.
Unbelievable the amount of information I get from FR.
Thanks.

[God luvs America]

I thought it was too...it was so simple to find yet no one in the MSM has even alluded to it...

knock 'em dead and remember- this comes from PBS; a liberally biased source.

[Zeppelin]

Hey, look what I found on LexisNexis! (love that thing!)

***** Copyright 1995 The Christian Science Publishing Society Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)

June 9, 1995, Friday

SECTION: THE NEWS IN BRIEF; Pg. 2

LENGTH: 1634 words

HEADLINE: THE NEWS IN BRIEF

BYLINE: Compiled by Shelley Donald Coolidge, David Mutch, and Peter E. Nordahl

BODY: The US

Both the White House and congressional Republicans say they are looking for a compromise on spending-cuts legislation after President Clinton vetoed a GOP-backed bill that would have sliced $ 16.4 billion from this year's budget. Republicans say they would rewrite the bill rather than try to override the veto. Clinton says he wants funding restored for some education and training programs. But the House Appropriations Committee chairman said if Clinton demands too much money be restored, the bill would loose Republican support.

-snip-

The Senate approved an anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8, and now Clinton and Republicans are urging the House to follow suit. The $ 2 billion package includes provisions sought by Clinton to enlarge federal law-enforcement agencies and the government's wire-tapping authority, and to allow use of the military in emergencies involving chemical and biological weapons.

-snip-

[Jazzbeaux]

One reason this case is not mentioned is that it has nothing to do with the NSA targeting communications to and from US issues which are in the news today.

1) The case referred to by PBS involved the Patriot Act, passed by Congress, which does not mention non-FISA Court approved NSA action. As Ashcroft noted in article "Today's ruling is an affirmation of the will of Congress, a vindication of the agents and prosecutors of the Department of Justice, and a victory for liberty, safety and the security of the American people." Congress has not expressly approved of NSA's taps. They DID pass the Patriot Act.

2) This case involved participating US DOJ prosecutors (who appear before FISA court). NSA targeting can apparently be approved by a supervisor in NSA. No FISA. No federal prosecutor involved, DOJ not even notified.

Whitehouse and AG recognize that the authority to control these NSA taps lies in Congress. That is why Whitehouse and AG are arguing that Congress approved NSA taps w/o either FISA or US District Court orders when it passed the use of force resolution.

IMHO Congress did not authorize the NSA taps, (just like they didn't authorize govt agents shooting people in the streets) when they authorized Pres to use all force necessary to defeat terrorism. FISA works fine, allows immediate taps by NSA. (Justice Rhenquist appointed the judges.) NSA shoulda used DOJ prosecutors and judges like Congress authorized.

This is NOT an Iraq war issue. This is NOT a terrorism issue. This IS a Constitutional issue.

What could be troubling is if US Courts are pissed enough at Whitehouse and NSA to start requiring Fed Prosecutors to establish that evid in terrorism prosecutions is not tainted by NSA taps. Whitehouse did DOJ no favors and did not assist terrorism prosecutions when it authorized these taps.
Which is why AG Ashcroft and AAG John Comey reportedly refused to sign off on these NSA taps.
Just One Man's Opinion.

[God luvs America]

got a link??

By the way- love your username- I saw them at Madsion Square Garden on 6/7/77- the ticket stub sits in a frame right above where I now sit!!

[God luvs America]

but doesn't the following paragraph:

"The court's ruling said that expanded powers to wiretap those suspected in foreign terrorist operations – including U.S. citizens – outlined in the U.S.A. Patriot Act do not violate the Constitution. "

negate all the rat rheotric that GWB broke the law??

[michigander]

UNITED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT OF REVIEW
Argued September 9, 2002 - Decided November 18, 2002

[Jazzbeaux]

All electronic surveillance and wiretapping conducted by federal agents is controlled by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq., commonly referred to as Title III.

Did the President "break the law?" Title III does criminalize electronic surveillance outside of this framework, which is why Whitehouse is trying to fit NSA targeting within this statutory framework.

Title III generally requires:

(A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or

(B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met (comment> THERE IS NO EXPRESS STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR TAPS IN US WHICH NSA CONDUCTING) and that the specified assistance is required setting forth the period of time during which the provision of the information, facilities, or technical assistance is authorized and specifying the information, facilities, or technical assistance required....(stuff telling phone companies, et al, that they cant reveal tap) and Title III provides protection for the following if a Ct Order or AG certifies...

(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title or section 705 or 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, it shall not be unlawful for an officer, employee, or agent of the United States in the normal course of his official duty to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, as authorized by that Act...

(f) Nothing contained in this chapter or chapter 121 or 206 of this title, or section 705 of the Communications Act of 1934, shall be deemed to affect the acquisition by the United States Government of foreign intelligence information from international or foreign communications, or foreign intelligence activities conducted in accordance with otherwise applicable Federal law involving a foreign electronic communications system, utilizing a means other than electronic surveillance as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

---

The NSA intercepts met neither requirement: Ct Order or AG certification that no order need because all statutory reqts met.

Electronic surveillance is not unlawful when done pursuant to Court Order, FISA (a different statutory framework for FOREIGN intel), or consent by one party. So, the question is not whether Pres can authorize surveillance, but whether he can do do without Ct order or per a different, non-Title III statute, eg FISA.

President's Constitutional authority here could arguably be found under Presidents War Powers, but the real issue is HOW MUCH authority the President can grant to himself in the name of War Powers (without Congresses or a Courts approval.)

There is a very strong doctrinal basis built in the US Constitution of the separation of powers. Founders didn't like the idea of King George doing whatever he thought he had the power to do.

[Jazzbeaux]

I shoulda highlighted this to keep persons with real jobs from having to read awful statutory language:

...and procedures in this chapter or chapter 121 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the EXCLUSIVE MEANS by which electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of such Act, and the interception of DOMESTIC wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.

JB

[Zeppelin]

I would love to provide you with a link, but you must have access to LexisNexis. I have access through my college account (University of Texas...HOOK EM HORNS!).

I would KILL to have seen Led Zeppelin. I've seen ACDC, Aerosmith, The Eagles, etc, many of my favorites, but not my absolute favorite. Then again, Bonham did die 5 years before I was born...nonetheless, I envy you! =)

[God luvs America]

hey...I sent you an e-mail but cannot open my Freepmail here...

I kinda was able to do some research to answer my question about the 72 hour warrent and the Patriot Act but let me ask you this....people are b!tchin about the 72 hour warrent based on Issuance of Order 1805 located here:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001805----000-.html

here is the paragraph I am concentrating on...it is at the bottom:

(f) Emergency orders Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—

(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and

(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists; he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. <\b>In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title. <\b>

Hence...the way I am reading this if the AG authorizes a surrveillence and the information is gathered before the 72 hour period ends (say they get it in 24 hours) there is no need for a warrant....Am I correct?

[mrsmith]

"President's Constitutional authority here could arguably be found under Presidents War Powers"
Yes, it seems foolish to argue that someone communicating with AlQueda'a overseas phone numbers shouldn't be suspected of being part of a "sudden attack" upon the US.

", but the real issue is HOW MUCH authority the President can grant to himself in the name of War Powers (without Congresses or a Courts approval.) There is a very strong doctrinal basis built in the US Constitution of the separation of powers. Founders didn't like the idea of King George doing whatever he thought he had the power to do. "
It was quite a struggle for the Founders. They reached a wise decision:
"FRIDAY AUGUST 17th. IN CONVENTION
...Mr. MADISON and Mr. GERRY moved to insert "declare," striking out "make" war; leaving to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks.
Mr. SH[E]RMAN thought it stood very well. The Executive shd. be able to repel and not to commence war."

Note that the choice of "declare" was expressly made as a limitation on congress too!
The president is empowered, and required, to use any power that isn't expressly denied him in the Constitution to defend against a sudden attack.

The Founders included many structural constitutional barriers against domestic tyranny by any branch of the federal government- the one most demanded-and celebrated- being the powers retained by the states.

Yes, that security of States' powers is irrelevent now- but it is impossible to examine the intents and principles in the Constitution without considering it.

[Unkosified]

ping

[Unkosified]

Their reply would be that he still needs a warrant to do it. That's the part that they don't get.