Gore & Barr Blast Bush on Surveillance

IZ-
If your suspicions are correct, I agree....non-issue.

But, the charges are out there...and from far more than Al Gore; unless, of course, Bob Barr and others are to be discounted. The facts can be provided without any discussion of the sources or technologies. Yet, they have not been.

The questions are simple:
"What was the scope of the investigation? Were they based on actual leads or a generalized, 'Who's calling from there at these times'? If US citizens were involved, how many?".

The answers would not jeopardize current "ops" or national security. There isn't a terrorist on the planet who believes his cell phone communications are safe. Americans, on the other hand....law abiding American citizens? We would like to believe ours are.....at least that's what I thought until I started reading some of the posts in this thread.
Rich
 
Well all I can say is, If it were your families who died on 9/11, you would want the president to use all available options used to get the terrorist, no matter what cost.
Click to expand...

Patent falsehood. Now, since the premise upon which your argument is based has been demolished, would you like to try again?

I wouldn't give up my constitutional freedoms voluntarily if every family member was killed at the hands of murderers, because I would and do still fear the government's power more than the murderer's power.

Bravo, Rich L - you speak wisely...
 
Smoke and mirrors

Ah, but where does it end? The Administration is already saying that all the electronic surveillance complies with Federal Law, and folks aren't satisfied. Giving them broad general answers only leads to more questions...and at a point, in order to answer those question the Administration would have to violate the very law that gave them the authority to collect the information at issue. As I said, the laws, policies and procedures in place ever since the Church committee hearings in the 70s do a very good job of protecting US person information.

I see the government using the investigative tools at its disposal to "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare..." as is their function. Let's look at it this way:

A plainclothes police officer overhears two people talking about robbing and murdering a drug dealer. He then witnesses one of the individuals walk across the street and talk with a third, unknown person. The immediate identity and substance of the discussion are unknown. Does that fact that the individual is presumably a US person automatically mean that the police cannot investigate the third individual's possible knowledge of and/or activity in a possible crime? If that sort of activity is permissible, how about investigation into the individual's identity?

Now here's the kicker: what if they make a mistake, and the investigation catches innocent strangers in the net? Police agencies will tell you that this sort of thing happens every day. They'll tell you that most leads turn out to be dead-ends or flat out wrong. But those ends still need to be annotated for later follow up or exclusion. Electronic surveillance is much the same. If you call Joey "the Snake" Rancone's pizza parlor while the FBI is running a RICO wiretap on him, you get caught in the net. It's the job of the fine young lads at the Bureau to identify that you have nothing to do with the ongoing investigation.

In both FISA and RICO electronic surveillance operations, the Executive Orders and various departmental regulations mandate that US person information not be released without jumping through a LOT of hoops (and the penalties for unauthorized release are pretty painful) and that after a certain period of time (usually a year) all records are destroyed. As a federal government employee who deals tangentially with such information I get the joy of scrubbing my files at least every quarter, and I get inspected by both internal and external auditors to ensure that such information has been properly stored and/or destroyed.

"You know what? Guns are dangerous." "Yeah, I know, but I've been trained to handle them." "But if they're not used right, and certain safeguards aren't imposed, then you can't be trusted with them." "I know, and I abide by those." "But, you used those guns for shooting stuff! That's really dangerous! You could kill someone" "Right, but I followed the guidelines..." "We need to hold some hearings on how you got those guns in the first place. They're really dangerous. You might have shot someone."

Replace guns with electronic surveillance and you'll better see how I feel about this whole issue. As someone with a bit more information about how the whole process works, and a better understanding of the history behind what's going on, it just looks an awful lot like old friends of the Brady Bunch doing what they do best.
 
in order to answer those question the Administration would have to violate the very law that gave them the authority to collect the information at issue.
Click to expand...
Simple question:
Source, please?
Does FISA state that anything an Exec does in its name comes under the law and divulgence of the numbers of American citizens caught in the net is a violation of such law? Does it claim that, upon invoking FISA, the Executive need answer no further questions as to scope?

Again, Source, please.
Rich
 
Simple answer? Regarding Federal Law? Yeah...right.

No. FISA doesn't say exactly that. The Privacy Act of 1978 says that, among other fine pieces of Federal Law. FISA (USC Title 50 Chapter 36 Subsection 1809) does say
"(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed."

The various other implementations of federal law and guidance (Executive Orders 12139 "EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE" and 12333 "UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES" spring immediately to mind) also have stern penalties and even more specifics on what cannot be disclosed. Yes, he's the President, so he can basically ignore most of the administrative orders...but the federal laws bind him too. That means that he can't tell you, except in general terms, anything resulting from eletronic surveillance. In his defense, nothing in any of the laws compels him to provide any such information on request or demand.

That's right...nothing requires the President to give those numbers immediately upon request to anyone who asks, just like nothing says that the NYPD has to give the press a list of everyone they interview during the course of a homicide investigation. That doesn't matter, though, because the information you're looking for is already out there for people who know how to look. Federal law (the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, codified as Title 42 Chapter 46 of the US Code) required the creation of a Bureau of Justice Statistics; among other functions, the BJS is required to report annually to Congress the number and type of all eletronic surveillance activities to include those under FISA applied for by all federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as the number and type actually implemented. The report is a matter of public record, and I'm sure you can find a copy if you dig around on Google. If not, give me a day to rummage around at the office and I can give you a better idea of where to look.
 
Like I said, there's a metric buttload of rules and regulations that govern how eletronic surveillance is conducted. The really fun ones (especially for the folks that have to follow them) are classified, and there are lots of is to dot and ts to cross. From what I've seen, though, they haven't changed substantially during the current Administration. What has changed is the number of people involved, and the volume of information to process.
 
You are back peddling, IZ.

No one here has demanded of "the President to give those numbers immediately upon request to anyone who asks". These taps are now a public issue; a Congressional issue; and soon to be a Judicial issue. That's what checks and balances are about; I embrace them for all three branches, under ALL conditions. Don't you?

The question on the floor is Source for your claim that:
in order to answer those question the Administration would have to violate the very law that gave them the authority to collect the information at issue.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any such "violation" provision in what you've posted. On the contrary, my reading is that violations stem from abuse of that law, not explanation of one's actions under it. Did I miss something?
Rich
 
Come on, Rich.

I didn't claim that anyone here has asked for that, but members of the public, media and Congress have. My bad. I guess just because no one here said something exactly the way I worded it I can't mention it, huh?

I submit, yet again, that from what I know of the topic at hand (which is more than the average guy), it appears that folks are overreacting. I never said that Congress shouldn't hold hearings. I never said that people shouldn't be able to sue the Federal Government in an attempt to get the numbers. I just said that, in my opinion, such folks are wrong, and that nothing outside the bounds of law have occured. Still, even such inquiries are covered by Federal Law, and are part of the process of checking the government's power of electronic surveillance.

As for violation of law, I'll dig up the actual line from the Public Law as enacted by the 95th Congress, and you'll see what I mean. The line has changed in the US Code itself, but similar provisions are in place thanks to other Federal Legislation.

The FISA does not include an "unauthorized disclosure" provision, but does address the issue of what happens when such information does get out. I apologize for printing the wrong section of the FISA in my last post, as I meant to print this one:

1810. Civil Liability
An aggrieved person, other than a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a) or (b)(1)(A) of this title, respectively, who has been subjected to an electronic surveillance or about whom information obtained by electronic surveillance of such person has been disclosed or used in violation of section 1809 of this title shall have a cause of action against any person who committed such violation and shall be entitled to recover—
(a) actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages of $1,000 or $100 per day for each day of violation, whichever is greater;
(b) punitive damages; and
(c) reasonable attorney’s fees and other investigation and litigation costs reasonably incurred.
 
Here's another quick example, from Title 18 Section 119 (which governs electronic intercepts for law enforcement purposes):

"Improper Disclosure Is Violation.--Any willful disclosure or use
by an investigative or law enforcement officer or governmental entity of
information beyond the extent permitted by section 2517 is a violation
of this chapter for purposes of section 2520(a)."

I'll keep digging, but be prepared to see a lot of snippets that look like that.

On the other hand, I may have gotten the wrong impression reading the committe summary of Public Law 95-511 (the original FISA) which stated that the Act

"Imposes civil and criminal liability for such violations and authorizes the recovery of actual damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorney's fees by an aggrieved person other than a foreign power."

As I can find no punitive provisions for unauthorized disclosure other than opening up the agent of such disclosure to lawsuits, perhaps I was in error when I said "in order to answer those question the Administration would have to violate the very law that gave them the authority to collect the information at issue." They would just be violating other Federal laws instead of that one.
 
IZ-
OK, I'll back off a bit, too. I know you're mostly trying to inform; not spin.

But again, I see nothing in 1810 that says there's a violation for the Prez to explain his actions; unless of course he mentions specific names....and, even then, I see only a "civil" remedy; and, even then, it doesn't apply to an "agent of a foreign power".....I thought we were only tapping the calls of terrorists? That's an "agent of a foreign power".....no worries.

C'mon. The info you're providing is quite valuable. But let's not squint so hard that we see permutations of "I can't talk about it" in there.
Rich
 
*chuckles*

C'mon. The info you're providing is quite valuable. But let's not squint so hard that we see permutations of "I can't talk about it" in there.
Click to expand...

The irony is that the really fun documents on this subject are classified, and while I have copies of them at the office I'm fer darn sure not going to quote them here! That's one of the reasons why I'm having so much trouble finding related phrases in publicly available documents. I know for a fact that there are penalties for disclosing some of the things the Prez has been asked to disclose...it's just problematic to explain why and how such disclosures can't immediately be made.

Could he give some broad generalizations? Sure. Would they do him any good? That depends. On one hand, he's getting blasted politically for not giving answers. On the other hand, the answers tend to lead to a lot more questions which he really can't answer without violating a lot of laws.

It's not that I don't think people should ask questions of their government. I just wish they were better educated and less emotional about it.
 
Fair enough.
I think we both agree there's a difference between a "need to know" and a "shadow government". How 'bout he just give enough info out to satisfy the average, intelligent, skeptical, got-no-axe-to-grind American? Thus far he's jumped from FISA to War Powers Act to Other Presidents to "I do what I have to do and when I do it, it must be legal".

If we've passed laws that forbid simple explanation, those who passed them, those who enforce them, those who hide behind them and those who accept them at face value do not believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, except as some "Perfect World" concept to strive for.....some day in future. I reject that reasoning. This President, My President, has some explaining to do.....and, like many other Americans, I'm not willing to wait for his memoirs.

If it is, as you and I suspect, "nothing real sexy", that explanation should be easy. The continued dodge of "we're at War" belies a real easy explanation.
Rich
 
How 'bout he just give enough info out to satisfy the average, intelligent, skeptical, got-no-axe-to-grind American?
Click to expand...
I think you're giving too much credit to the average American. The type of American you speak of isn't the norm anymore; Bush would have to satisfy the majority consisting of generally uncaring sheep (until O'Reilly or Franken start whining and moaning) that will just take whatever opinions their favorite pundit spouts.

I wish I could believe that the average American was intelligent, skeptical, and had no axe to grind but to be honest I rarely meet people like that. :(
 
Red-
Sorry, I should have used the term "reasonable".

If President Bush believes he has provided enough info on this program for "reasonable" Americans, then he has even less respect for them than your post would suggest he should.

Either you believe in this nation and its electorate or you believe that "inconsequential" laws like the Bill of Rights are really just a school child's primer for the Brave New World; controlled, manipulated and determined by those who "know better" but "just can't talk about it".

I choose not to live in that world. I never will.

Rich
 
Simpler laws would make my job a lot easier.

Unfortunately we passed out of the realm of simple laws some time ago. Granted, we're not Russia, but we do have far more laws on the books than we need and laws that sometimes conflict with each other. Every now and again I pine for the late 1880s; the Frontier was still open, there was no income tax and there seemed to be a lot of opportunities to live one's life without Big Brother running 'em over.

I was a Jeffersonian in my younger days, and I still believe that we're about 180 years overdue for the Second Constitutional Convention. A rearrangement and clarification of our Basic Document and it's associated implementing code would make life a lot easier for everyone.

But alas, as is historically the case in every great civilization before it falls apart...the Lawyers are in the driver's seat. Having met the Prez, and heard him speak, I get the feeling that he'd love to sit down and talk all about this mess. That behavior served him well in Texas but has bit him in the butt as Chief Executive of our Great Nation. Either he's getting gun shy on giving up details (which could happen, as people change) or the lawyers have their fingers in what he "can and can't" say.

Anyway, that's my take on the situation. I guess we'll have to see how everything unfolds on C-Span to see how close my instincts match the "truth."
 
There is a spot in the Constitution that requires Mr. Bush to keep Congress briefed. Has this been done?

Pres. Bush need to make a good faith attempt with Congress to ensure that US citizens rights were not violated.

I dont oppose a program for wiretaping on terrorists, FISA courts would not have any trouble issuing a warrant for this.. I do oppose any sort of program that spys on US citizens without due process of law. It may be nothing at all and just buzz, I dont see why Bush could not let the FISA courts/Congrss review these warrantless wiretaps where it occurs in the US against a US Citizen. If there is nothing that makes them illegal then that would end the discussion once and for all.
 
IIRC Bush brief both sets of leader from both houses. I also recollect hearing he reviewed the taps every 30 days. Now does that mean congressional leadership heard about it every 30 day? Don't know. But I'm pretty sure congress knew what was going on.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad the "reasonable American" came into the picture:

"There are times when statesmen must have the courage to do something unpopular. But their unpopular actions must be properly prepared, and must be put in the proper form, so that their peoples will understand. The man on the street is usually not as unreasonable as some think."

Joseph Goebbels said that in 1934.

Karl Rove in 2006:

"Let me be as clear as I can be: President Bush believes if Al Qaeda is calling somebody in America, it is in our national security interest to know who they're calling and why. Some important Democrats clearly disagree."

This positioning seems to have worked for many "reasonable men on the street," despite that it comes from the same people who "believed" that Iraq had WMDs.

I'm not so "reasonable."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top