-
associate
Originally Posted by haikumania
Bush has allowed spying on U.S. citizens without oversight of the FISA court...that is unprecedented.
Maybe it's my lack of background in law when I read this Clinton doc, but I don't see anything about the FISA court. I read it as the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
It seems the certification can be made by...
(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
I see nothing about a court, but I do admit I could be wrong in my interpretation of the language.
-
associate
Originally Posted by japangreg
Um, Bush hasn't interned anyone.
Gitmo?
Originally Posted by japangreg
You do know what a precedent is, right? (resisting urge to link to definition... look it up yourselves, kiddos, if you're unsure).
Ohhh I am so intimated by your overpowering brilliance.
Originally Posted by japangreg
You're not the type to juice his apples and core his oranges, are you?
Whatever that means.
Originally Posted by japangreg
Now, can you answer mine?
answer your what?
-
Originally Posted by admedia
Maybe it's my lack of background in law when I read this Clinton doc, but I don't see anything about the FISA court....
I see nothing about a court, but I do admit I could be wrong in my interpretation of the language.
That's the point.
What Clinton did is completely different from what Bush has done...that's why you see no mention of the FISA court in the Clinton document.
Apparently Clinton did allow warrantless searches that met necessary criteria(according to the document you linked to), however not for U.S. citizens.
Bush has allowed the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant through the FISA court (either before or within 72 hours after the wiretap began).
As Japangreg pointed out, the court almost never (and by that I mean maybe 5-6 times total in thousands of requests) rejects a warrant. So the question is why did Bush do this? If the targets of the wiretaps were legitimate, the FISA court would have authorized the warrants and there would be no issue.
They could have also asked Congress to change the law, but Alberto Gonzalez (the current Attorney General and, at the time this began, White House counsel) said that they didn't think Congress would approve the change.
Now how ominous must this change be that even immediately after 9/11 they didn't think Congress would approve this change?
-
associate
Originally Posted by haikumania
Apparently Clinton did allow warrantless searches that met necessary criteria(according to the document you linked to), however not for U.S. citizens.
Thank you for that clarifaction. I can accept that.
-
Originally Posted by admedia
Thank you for that clarifaction. I can accept that.
No problem. I hereby remove you from my list of Reflexive Bush Apologists.
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by admedia
Gitmo?
I stand corrected. But, still irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Ohhh I am so intimated by your overpowering brilliance.
Why thank you. You might want to get some shades, then...
More of that overpowering brilliance, apparently - means you're trying to make apples into oranges. If anything else trips you up. let me know and I'll slow the short bus down a bit. =^_^= (man, I'm feeling snarky today - no offense intended, btw, just this issue has gotten under my skin).
What do people typically answer, besides the doorbell?
The question I very pointedly asked you on the last page before you started the FDR deflection and accused me of not answering your question. Seems like you missed it, so here it is again:
FISA is a puddytat. You can tap communications instantly, provided you submit justification to a secret court within 72 hours. The patriot act even further lowered the bar for what would constitute such justification. Requests to this court have very seldom been denied.
In light of all of the above, can you give me a single good reason why Bush would go outside the established law?
Last edited by japangreg; 12-21-2005 at 02:16 PM.
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
associate
Originally Posted by japangreg
means you're trying to make apples into oranges.
You can juice apples you know. They make a delicious addition to a fruit smoothie. You really should try it some time.
Originally Posted by japangreg
man, I'm feeling snarky today
Awww cute... is that what you call the little guy?
Originally Posted by japangreg
In light of all of the above, can you give me a single good reason why Bush would go outside the established law?
No, hopefully we will see what an investigation into the matter provides. Again I will state, I do not know all of the facts, I don't know if what Bush did was justified or legal...
* climbs back into short bus and peels out.
-
I Mastered Dead Technology
Originally Posted by haikumania
Apparently Clinton did allow warrantless searches that met necessary criteria(according to the document you linked to), however not for U.S. citizens.
if you search there were u.s. citizens involved.. however it was not a time of war... or psuedo war.
Bush has allowed the NSA to spy on U.S. citizens without obtaining a warrant through the FISA court (either before or within 72 hours after the wiretap began).
only when calling overseas and talking to terrirsts
ONLY RON PAUL AND ALUMINUM FOIL CAN SAVE YOU NOW!
annoy your politician fairtax.org, a political forum
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
-
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
if you search there were u.s. citizens involved.. however it was not a time of war... or psuedo war.
only when calling overseas and talking to terrirsts
Actually purely domestic calls were tapped.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/po...rtner=homepage
A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.
They claim it was accidental, but they also claim it's legal, so I tend to discount their claims.
And that gets at the problem with the plan. Without any sort of oversight, like the FISA court, all we have is the word of the President that nothing untoward is happening. And whether he's lied or just been wrong, you can't argue that a lot of what this President claims turns out to be inaccurate.
Last edited by haikumania; 12-21-2005 at 02:31 PM.
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by admedia
You can juice apples you know. They make a delicious addition to a fruit smoothie. You really should try it some time.
So I've heard - but in trying to coin that little barb, I couldn't come up with something you do to one and not the other - juice, peel, bake, etc. - so I went with what you saw. Not my best effort, I admit...
Awww cute... is that what you call the little guy?
Why yes, yes it is.
No, hopefully we will see what an investigation into the matter provides.
Like the investigation into wheather the admin. manipulated pre-war intelligence? How old is that now?
Last edited by japangreg; 12-21-2005 at 02:32 PM.
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
I Mastered Dead Technology
Originally Posted by haikumania
But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years.
President claims turns out to be inaccurate.
nytimes isn't batting 400 either.
Last edited by TallGuyLittleCar; 12-21-2005 at 02:52 PM.
ONLY RON PAUL AND ALUMINUM FOIL CAN SAVE YOU NOW!
annoy your politician fairtax.org, a political forum
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
-
Didn't do it.
But questions about the legal and operational oversight of the program last year prompted the administration to suspend aspects of it temporarily and put in place tighter restrictions on the procedures used to focus on suspects, said people with knowledge of the program. The judge who oversees the secret court that authorizes intelligence warrants - and which has been largely bypassed by the program - also raised concerns about aspects of the program.
Oh? So there were enough irregularities that they needed to shut down, and re-write the guidelines at to who could be tapped? Wonder if that means that they were doing something they shouldn't have...
The concerns led to a secret audit, which did not reveal any abuses in focusing on suspects or instances in which purely domestic communications were monitored, said officials familiar with the classified findings.
Oh good. The anonymous source says the secret audit of the classified program revealed no abuses. I was worried there for a second...
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
nytimes is batting 400 either.
Which is why a real investigation would be great.
Of course, whether the calls took place only in the U.S. or only half in the U.S., doesn't really matter, does it?
The law that prohibits the NSA from tapping the phone lines of U.S. citizens w/o a warrant doesn't have exceptions for when only half the call is taking place inside the boundaries of the U.S., does it?
-
I Mastered Dead Technology
Originally Posted by haikumania
Which is why a real investigation would be great.
I can't wait to read it in 30 years.
Of course, whether the calls took place only in the U.S. or only half in the U.S., doesn't really matter, does it?
The law that prohibits the NSA from tapping the phone lines of U.S. citizens w/o a warrant doesn't have exceptions for when only half the call is taking place inside the boundaries of the U.S., does it?
I read it differently, as long as one of the folks is outside the u.s. (the target), then the tap can be made by the NSA and FISA does not come in to play... but i'm not a lawyer so...
ONLY RON PAUL AND ALUMINUM FOIL CAN SAVE YOU NOW!
annoy your politician fairtax.org, a political forum
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
-
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I read it differently, as long as one of the folks is outside the u.s. (the target), then the tap can be made by the NSA and FISA does not come in to play... but i'm not a lawyer so...
Well if that's the case, I'm not sure why there is any controversy.
Instead we have Bush claiming some Constitutional authority or that the Authorization for Military Force granted by Congress in 2001 allows him to do this.
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
I read it differently, as long as one of the folks is outside the u.s. (the target), then the tap can be made by the NSA and FISA does not come in to play... but i'm not a lawyer so...
As long as one end of the communication is in the States, you need FISA. That, along with the criminal equivilant, is the only way the govt. can *legally* spy on anyone in our borders.
NSA and other sig. int. guys have more-or-less free reign over international comm.
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
I Mastered Dead Technology
Originally Posted by japangreg
As long as one end of the communication is in the States, you need FISA. That, along with the criminal equivilant, is the only way the govt. can *legally* spy on anyone in our borders.
may I ask where you read that?
NSA and other sig. int. guys have more-or-less free reign over international comm.
in practice the have free reign over everything... on paper it is international.
ONLY RON PAUL AND ALUMINUM FOIL CAN SAVE YOU NOW!
annoy your politician fairtax.org, a political forum
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
may I ask where you read that?
No. Next question.
it's something I've come across in the last day or so of reading absolutely everything I can on the subject, as well as from watching some interviews with experts, etc. so it'll probably take me some time to find the reference - will post it here if I can find it. If not, feel free to dismiss it...
in practice the have free reign over everything.
<adjusts volume knob on bug implanted in TGLC's molar>
...I'm sorry, what?
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
-
I Mastered Dead Technology
Originally Posted by japangreg
No. Next question.
what is your favorite color
it's something I've come across in the last day or so of reading absolutely everything I can on the subject, as well as from watching some interviews with experts, etc. so it'll probably take me some time to find the reference - will post it here if I can find it. If not, feel free to dismiss it...
the reason i ask is becuase I came to my conclusion in the same way
<adjusts volume knob on bug implanted in TGLC's molar>
...I'm sorry, what?
I said the tall man in plaid walks by moonlight with a lunchbox.
Last edited by TallGuyLittleCar; 12-21-2005 at 03:38 PM.
ONLY RON PAUL AND ALUMINUM FOIL CAN SAVE YOU NOW!
annoy your politician fairtax.org, a political forum
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.
-
Didn't do it.
Originally Posted by TallGuyLittleCar
may I ask where you read that?
Looking back through my notes, here's what I have - I'll supply links where possible.
FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is only directed at the consolidation of intelligence by foreign powers or agents there of - the difinition of 'foreign agent' is found here, but I will quote a small section for my purposes:
“Agent of a foreign power” means—
(1) any person other than a United States person, who—
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
Emphasis mine. As you can see, the focus is on agents within our borders.
Given the fact that NSA is, in general, tasked with monitoring sigint globally, this is a significant distinction in terms of their jurisdiction: but it is bound by FISA's requirements.
The criminal title III wiretaps are the standard, everyday ones that require some evidence of wrong doing, but is limited to the territorial US: Procedure for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications
...(3) Upon such application the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting (and outside that jurisdiction but within the United States in the case of a mobile interception device authorized by a Federal court within such jurisdiction), if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that—...
Emphasis mine.
As far as I'm aware, there are no other provisions allowing the goverment to intercept any communications. (anyone who knows otherwise, please let me know).
Hush child. japangreg can do what he wants. - PAlexC
That was Zen - this is Tao.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
Click Here to Expand Forum to Full Width
|