Posted on 02/05/2018 9:03:06 AM PST by markomalley
I don’t know. That’s why I hedged on whether she was right to assume Title I.
But if it is Title I, it sounds like the surveillance approved is on anyone and anything connected to the spy. Remember, it’s assumed that the investigators are honestly trying to stop whatever a spy intends to accomplish. It’s also assumed that they’re convinced he actually is a spy.
In the present case, the top investigators, including everyone doing the unmasking and those reading the unmasked info were anything but honest, in my opinion anyway.
Maybe the guy at ConsTree got out over his skis too far though? And if he is, I am too of course.
The Supreme Court upheld the prior rulings in the case, holding that the wiretaps were an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment and as such must be disclosed to the defense.
Sounds like it does not pertain. Would you close the loop on why you believe it to be germane?
The abuses predate Nixon.
No dispute from me, but the FISA was signed by Carter in 1978.
Long, but concise,
Over 400 pages is concise??? Looks to be a commission based upon acts committed, by-in-large, by the Johnson administration. Would not surprise me. That man was evil.
The Keith case is a criminal prosecution, so the 4th amendment applies. The holding you quoted pertains in that (criminal prosecution) context.
Within the Keith case is considerable discussion that the executive has certain surveillance power that is unrelated to criminal law. That is the FISA angle. Foreign intelligence vs. criminal. In many cases, totally separate; in many cases, overlapping.
Some cherry-picked excerpts, the last one being more or less, "Congress might want to pass a law." It did. FISA.
On the basis of the Attorney General's affidavit and the sealed exhibit, the Government asserted that the surveillance was lawful, though conducted without prior judicial approval ...-- Over 400 pages is concise? --[Referring to part of 18 USC 2511] At most, this is an implicit recognition that the President does have certain powers in the specified areas. Few would doubt this, as the section refers -- among other things -- to protection "against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power." But so far as the use of the President's electronic surveillance power is concerned, the language [of the statute] is essentially neutral. ...
The [Congressional] debate above explicitly indicates that nothing in S: 2511(3) was intended to expand or to contract or to define whatever presidential surveillance powers existed in matters affecting the national security. ...
Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country. ...
Given these potential distinctions between Title III criminal surveillances and those involving the domestic security, Congress may wish to consider protective standards for the latter which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III.
Compared with the underlying facts and cases, yep.
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.