Posted on 10/04/2006 8:37:51 AM PDT by MNJohnnie
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1710704/posts?page=1
Myth Busting on NSA Surveillance
Posted on 09/29/2006 11:26:08 AM CDT by bobsunshine
I guess we need to inform the country about some of the realities of the NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) and what is possible and not possible to resolve all the concerns for privacy protections. I say this because the house just passed a good bill on the NSA TSP. This topic is especially important in light of some leftwing prosecutorial abuse against a Rep Candidate for AG in NY who has had her phone monitored for discussing ways to catch her cheating husband publicized - we can be voyuers against Reps but it is unconstitutional to monitor terrorists contacting possible suicide troops here in the US. So let’s bust some myths on this issue and hope enough people read this and pass on the information to inform our choices this fall.
Myth 1: NSA Can Get Warrant From FISA Court - this is a common refrain from the Democrats that the simple answer is for NSA to get warrants from FISA. Well, ignoring the fact the NSA has no standing with the courts to get warrants, and therefore must go through the FBI and DoJ, and ignoring the fact that the FBI and DoJ cannot legally insert themselves into the military and Presidential chain of command to confirm orders, and neither can the courts - the fact is the FISA Court will not allow the NSA to request warrants based on its intel. It will not allow the FBI or DoJ to request warrants based solely on NSA intel. That was decided way back when the TSP program went into effect. So please, let’s get off the idea the NSA can get a warrant for its surveillance - it cannot. And the FISA Court will not issue one based on NSA intercepts - the FBI needs to find collaborative evidence for a FISA warrant. This makes sense actually. Without a FISA warrant the NSA can only listen in on communications that are with known terrorists overseas. No other communications can be monitored. With a FISA warrant all communications can be monitored.
Myth 2: NSA Bypassed FISA - This too is wrong. Completely backwards actually. Prior to 9-11 the NSA, if it intercepted a communications between an overseas target of surveillance and someone in the US, would destroy any information on a possible lead in the US. This was out of tradition - not a legal requirement. The military and intelligence are just as valid sources for tips on illegal behavior as anyone. They can report a theft, so they should be able to report possible infiltration of our homeland by an enemy. But the tradition evolved over time, without consideration of how dangerous this tradition was. This was noticed by the Church Committee in the 1970’s, whose effort led to FISA. After 9-11 President Bush order the NSA to pass their leads to the FBI for investigation and application to FISA if the conditions warranted. The reality is the TSP - for the first time - had NSA leads being passed to FISA.
Myth 3: The TSP Conveys Unbridled Presidential Power - the silliest of them all. The TSP triggers on events - not Presidential directives. The NSA monitors terrorists overseas. They intercept a communication with someone in the US and the process triggers. The only way a President could initiate this is to get someone in the US to call a terrorist somehow. The communication is vetted by analysts and lawyers at the NSA. If concerned they pass it to the FBI which further vets the lead. If concerned they request warrants from the FISA Court which further vets the lead. There is no Presidential influence in the process at all. All Bush did was order the communication take place between NSA and the FBI.
One thing Dems are good at is being irrationally shrill. But what we need from them is some sort of reasonable case on how the President could abuse this program. And we get nothing. In fact, the bill mentioned above further safe guards misuse by bringing the program under broader Congressional and Judicial review than it has received. In fact, the Bill says the President should only use this program when our country faces threats:
However, the president could act without court approval if he certifies that the country is “in the wake of a terrorist attack” or armed conflict, or facing an “imminent attack.” The president would have 60 days to obtain a warrant, but he would be able to continue warrantless spying if he certifies and describes to Congress his reason for doing so on national security grounds.
We need to know when a terrorist mastermind overseas is plotting with a suicide squad here in the US. The President as no role in the process of detection and passing on leads for investigation. He has left all those decisions to the career professionals. There is no expansion of Presidential Powers in the sense the President can order surveillance on anyone in the US out of the blue.
So where are we? We have the NSA monitoring terrorist and intercepting leads about possible terrorist comrades here in the US. The NSA cannot request a warrant for these leads since the FISA judges will not allow NSA intel to form the basis of probable cause for a FISA warrant. So now, after 9-11, the lead is passed to the FBI instead of thrown away. The FBI investigates and goes to the FISA Court if the lead looks like it might represent a threat to Americans. What is so wrong with this the democrats have committed to destroying it? Do they want to go back to the pre 9-11 days when terrorists reached these shores and openly and freely planned and coordinated their final attacks with their masters back home? Why are we listening to these suicidal ideas as if they are reasonable and valid?
http://www.jasoncann.org/radio.htm
http://radio.findanisp.com/radio-shows-on-air.php
IBTP
Hello Johnnie thanks for the ping
YOO HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Hope my 401K get's happy feet.
I ahve been waiting on Rush for hours...
Good morning
Morning Godfather. Thanks for the ping.
Hey all!
Dow scores another high -- Women and children hurt most!
- If the stocks are high, it prevents women from beginning to invest in the male dominated stock exchange. Higher stocks mean that our children will have to work that much harder to purchase stocks for their 401Ks when they join the work force.
WE WANT LOWER STOCKS NOW!!!!/sarc
.05 Seconds. That was so close!
How are you?
Present and accounted for...
BTW I posted a guest essay by JVeritas at my site
http://therobb7.bravejournal.com
I've posted this on another thread but I'm trying to get the word out. Hey RUSH you listening?
Comments section, post #6
http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=15288&c=1#comments
FYI, you may have heard this, but Selena Zito with the Pittsburgh Tribune Review (I’m pretty sure that’s right) called in on a local (Birmingham,Alabama) talk radio program this morning. She said a major story might
break today that a high ranking Democrat knew about the Foley matter and she hinted there was coordination with ABC, probably through George Stephanopoulos to release the story. (Not taking away from what a disgusting creep Foley is, but considering the reaction by the Dems to the
story, this would look pretty bad for them IMO). Zito said she had a few more facts to verify, she does not want to report anything until she’s absolutely certain.
She also said other “outings” would most likely occur before the election
and would further hurt the Republicans although she said Democrats would
probably be affected as well.
I’m paraphrasing what she said, this is basically the gist of it. When the
talk radio host asked when this might come out, she said he would be her
second phone call.
"Dare's a whole lot'a consuming goin' on out dare"
I'm ready for Rush today;)
See your FReepmail.
Fine. You?
Johnnie, don't you know that a high stock market is a bad thing?
Just ask any talking head.
How are you?
Hello A.Hun how are you?
I'm doing good thank you
Yhello!
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.