Posted on 12/20/2005 1:18:36 PM PST by Froufrou
Dear journalists of the New York Times,
Perhaps you'd like to take a few moments to gather yourselves and figure out which of your stories are correct and which stories are politically motivated fabrications.
COURT SAYS U.S. SPY AGENCY CAN TAP OVERSEAS MESSAGES By DAVID BURNHAM, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1051 words Published: November 7, 1982
A Federal appeals court has ruled that the National Security Agency may lawfully intercept messages between United States citizens and people overseas, even if there is no cause to believe the Americans are foreign agents, and then provide summaries of these messages to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Because the National Security Agency is among the largest and most secretive intelligence agencies and because millions of electronic messages enter and leave the United States each day, lawyers familiar with the intelligence agency consider the decision to mark a significant increase in the legal authority of the Government to keep track of its citizens.
Reverses 1979 Ruling
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Well stated, align. And Paul, I wonder if that swamp has anything to do with that transit problem in Manhattan? That would make it a cesspool pretty soon, would it not?
we have known for a long time that the libs are watching, waiting and ready to pounce on W for any infraction that could lead to impeachment. obviously the WH knows this too. even if W were inclined to do something shady (I personally don't believe he would), he is not stupid enough to walk into a trap. I think everything he does is double and triple checked for legality, if only for this reason.
One, that the process may have a high success rate, but to follow the process could take days or weeks before it can be presented to a judge. The, after the request is approved, you'd still have to translate and analyze the data, which could take several more hours or days. That's a lot of time for a country that expects 'the dots' to be connected immediately. Remember the outrage after the 'tomorrow is zero hour' chatter that was leaked?
Two, that the internal processes ensure that no requests go before the FISA court that aren't basically guarenteed to succeed. The issue with examining Zacarias Moussaoui's laptow, for instance. As I recall, the FBI wouldn't let their agents submit the request to the FISA court because it didn't meet their internal muster.
So, it's not quite as simple as as 1900 to 5 ratio win/lose ratio.
I think we're mixing semantics. I was saying that the requests for court order were denied only 5 times in 1900, making it pretty much a waste of time in my book to even request one.
Your statement that the internal muster was not met when a request for Zarqawi's laptop was denied is not lost on me...I get your point that every request is pertinent.
But, you're correct that 'connecting the dots' won't be readily enacted with more red tape. I never intended to condone that.
Good points! Pass the St. Pauli's...
Thanks for this--a case I can quote!!
Also, the ACLU lost this particular case in 2002. They were "considering their options". You KNOW the CLU hates to lose a case....new tagline!!!
The New York Times will never learn from two very sordid points in their history, the reporting by Walter Duranty in the early 1930's that covered up the forced creation of farm collectives in the Soviet Union by Stalin (in which something like 10-14 million Soviet citizens died from mass starvation, forced labor and mass shootings) and the recent scandal with Jayson Blair that forced out Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd from the paper. 
No offense taken. Welcome to Free Republic!
Lizarde has answered your question.
Let your "Conservative" education begin.
NYT - "All the news we see fit to create"
Thanks for posting this!
In Re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002)
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html <- HTML
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/fisa/FISCR_opinion.pdf <- PDF
And here are links to a couple more that are related ...
United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 US 297
The Government urges that the searches at issue in this case fall within an established exception to the warrant requirement. According to the Government, searches conducted for the purpose of foreign intelligence collection which target persons who are agents of a foreign power do not require a warrant. The Defendant asserts that such an exception does not exist and should not be recognized by this Court.The Supreme Court has acknowledged but has not resolved this issue. See United States v. United States District Court (Keith ), 407 U.S. 297, 321- 22 (1972). Circuit courts applying Keith to the foreign intelligence context have affirmed the existence of a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement for searches conducted within the United States which target foreign powers or their agents. See United States v. Clay, 430 F.2d 165, 171 (5th Cir.1970); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir.1973); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.1974); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 913 (4th Cir.1980). . . . No court has considered the contours of such an exception when the searches at issue targeted an American citizen overseas.
US v. Usama Bin Laden, US Dist. Ct., S.D. NY, Dec. 19, 2000, 2000 WL 1858492
bttt
bttt
Ain't the internet grand. Less than a week after the NYTimes launches their 'Bush is spying on Americans' campaign, numerous past news stories are unearthed showing acquiescence on the part of the Times, members of congress, etc to the same sort of activity in the past under Clinton (and not even for the purpose of countering terrorists).
bump
mega bump for now, later, and way later
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.