Replies

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.