NSA "spying" on Americans: Another Demosocialist witch hunt

A series of phone numbers was discovered on a captured computer. That list could have been compiled onto a FISA request form, while the numbers were being surveiled. Within 72 hours of the wiretaps, the warrant could have been delivered to the FISA court for approval (which court, approves nearly 95% of everything).

Problem solved. Lawful warrants issued and acted upon. And since FISA is a secret court, no one would have the ability to "break" the news without severe reprocussions.

Further, as new phone numbers, names and addresses became available, new warrants could have been issued.

All of the above was the way things operated before 9/11 and the passage of the Patriot Act. With the Act in place, there were things that could have been done that didn't require a warrant... But the secret wiretaps upon US citizens operating within the borders of the US, needed a warrant. A warrant that was extremely quick and easy to obtain.

To have the Administration say that they needed no such device, in a time of war, opens the door to the types of abuses we haven't seen since Lincoln, who by his own authority, suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War.

Do we really want an executive to have such power? Particularly during a "War" that will never end? If your answer is, yes, then there is no need for the pretense that we live in a Constitutionally protected society. We have become a Tyranny.

I don't want to hear from anyone about how their "rights" have been violated. I don't want to hear from anyone about your right to carry. As your Liberties and Freedoms are only those that the executive says you have at this particular moment and in the next moment you have none. All In The Name Of The War On Terror.

There are only two choices here. Either the Constitution stands, or it falls and our Liberties with it.
 
Anti-
Well said. This is a story that may well "have legs" once we can cut thru the spin and learn the facts.

If, in fact, the Administration was acting outside the Law, it matters not what their "intentions" were or whether they "thought" they were acting under legal authority. It would be a crime; a major one; and a totally unnecessary one.

Is it not enough that we have granted these powers to the Executive, with no more oversight than a Star Chamber, Secret Court proceeding? To take the Judiciary completely out of the equation is to eliminate the last vestige of oversight. The only step necessary to move from there to Tyranny would be an Administration (or NSA) who started targeting Admin Opponents as "potential threats"...and we've certainly seen in Agencies such as the ATF, IRS and TSA the ability to act totally without conscience in such matters.
Rich
 
I am not clear on why people think that Bush violated the law by not going to the FISA Court. 50 USC 1802 says:

(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year...
Click to expand...

... under certain specified circumstances. Does anyone see any language in there or in related sections mandating that the president must apply for a court order?

Section 1802(b) simply authorizes the President to request a court order, and says that the FISA court only has jurisdiction to grant the authorization if a "United States Person" is involved. A "United States Person" only includes US citizens and lawful permanent residents, and an "agent of a foreign power" in 1801(b)(2) includes even US citizens who are working with our enemies.

From the looks of 1802(a)(3), the application for a court order only affects whether or not the AG's certification remains sealed.

Where is this 72-hour window you're talking about listed? I haven't yet read the whole law in detail, so if you could save me some time I'd appreciate it.
 
Mvpel, anyone else:

§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
Source.

§ 1805. Issuance of order
(f) Emergency orders
Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, when the Attorney General reasonably determines that—
(1) an emergency situation exists with respect to the employment of electronic surveillance to obtain foreign intelligence information before an order authorizing such surveillance can with due diligence be obtained; and
(2) the factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists;

he may authorize the emergency employment of electronic surveillance if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title is informed by the Attorney General or his designee at the time of such authorization that the decision has been made to employ emergency electronic surveillance and if an application in accordance with this subchapter is made to that judge as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance. If the Attorney General authorizes such emergency employment of electronic surveillance, he shall require that the minimization procedures required by this subchapter for the issuance of a judicial order be followed. In the absence of a judicial order approving such electronic surveillance, the surveillance shall terminate when the information sought is obtained, when the application for the order is denied, or after the expiration of 72 hours from the time of authorization by the Attorney General, whichever is earliest. In the event that such application for approval is denied, or in any other case where the electronic surveillance is terminated and no order is issued approving the surveillance, no information obtained or evidence derived from such surveillance shall be received in evidence or otherwise disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, grand jury, department, office, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the United States, a State, or political subdivision thereof, and no information concerning any United States person acquired from such surveillance shall subsequently be used or disclosed in any other manner by Federal officers or employees without the consent of such person, except with the approval of the Attorney General if the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person. A denial of the application made under this subsection may be reviewed as provided in section 1803 of this title.
Source.

§ 1811. Authorization during time of war
Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.
Source.

Even if we assume the War Powers of § 1811, this surveilance began to occur immediately after 9/11. Again, immediately after the capture of Zarqawis (however this name is spelled) computer... Both instances well over a year ago.

But the Administration isn't saying they needed to comply with this law. Their response is that under the Constitution as CiC (Art. II), under War Powers Act and under SJR 23 (107th Congress).

Further, according to the White Houses' own Press Release, April 20, 2004:

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."

There are only two questions that need to be answered, and they are both related.

1. Did the wiretaps originate on foreign soil?

2. Did the wiretaps originate by a foreign power? (aka Echelon)

If the answer to either of these questions are yes, then no law has been broken.

Regardless of any hyperbole, we do not know the answers to these questions.
 
But the 72-hour limit in 1805(f)(2) only applies when a "United States person" is or may be involved in the communications, which is a US citizen or a legal permanent resident, based on the "...if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title..."

Under 1802(b), if no "United States person" is or may be involved, the FISA court has no jurisdiction.

This is intriguingly tricky. The Democrat partisans damage national security to level charges against the President, which can only be disproved by further disclosures of Top Secret surveillance information causing further damage to national security to the benefit of the terrorist plotters.
 
The Democrat partisans damage national security to level charges against the President, which can only be disproved by further disclosures of Top Secret surveillance information causing further damage to national security to the benefit of the terrorist plotters.
Click to expand...
Let's be fair here, Mvpel...I've no love for the Dems. Voted for Bush...twice.

Specifically what "Top Secret disclosures" have they made that "damaged national security"? What further "Top Secret disclosures" are necessary for the public to make an informed judgment? Surely, you are not arguing that release of information as to whether these taps were foreign or domestic or whether the targets were US Citizens is some information bonanza for Al Qaeda?
Rich
 
mvpel said:
But the 72-hour limit in 1805(f)(2) only applies when a "United States person" is or may be involved in the communications, which is a US citizen or a legal permanent resident, based on the "...if a judge having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title..."

Under 1802(b), if no "United States person" is or may be involved, the FISA court has no jurisdiction.
Click to expand...
That's just it. Most of the people on one end of the line were "United States Persons" (USP) within the meaning and definition of Title 50 (§1801). I have yet to hear the White House claim that all of the people surveilled were not USP and not calling on US soil.

Perhaps some were not USP and perhaps some were USP but not on US soil. I'd wager that some, fall into this criteria... But not all.
 
Rich - the damage to national security is the worldwide disemination of the fact that this monitoring was going on at all, leading any terrorist cells operating here in the US and overseas to the clear understanding that they are OWNED (in hacker terms) by the NSA and that they need to get serious about strong cryptography and "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" intrigue instead of just yakking away on their telephones.

It may be decades before we know the details of attacks that were prevented by this surveillance, but may not be that long before we find out if the disclosure of this operation prevented the prevention of an attack.

Most of the people on one end of the line were "United States Persons" (USP) within the meaning and definition of Title 50 (§1801).

Has that been stipulated by the White House? If not, how do you know that's true?

Rich, as for what further disclosures, I was thinking along the lines of a statement from the NSA saying, "here's Mohammed al-Mansar who we were monitoring, and he's in the US on a student visa, not a legal permanent resident, so he's not a 'United States Person.'" - as in, "yoo-hoo! Mr. al-Mansar! We're waaatching yoooou!"

Not that that would ever happen, of course, but it would probably be the only thing that would satisfy the Hate-America-First crowd.
 
mvp-
All of this is so over-the-top, I don't know where to begin.

You basically claim that, as a result of this security "breach", terrorists now know we exercise the ability to intercept telephonic calls? Good Lord, do you really believe that was unknown or even just a "suspicion" before?

You also claim that it will now require the Admin to reveal specific names and places? How on earth so? The FISA Court is Secret. The Senate Intelligence hearings on the subject will be secret. Ever seen those released documents with huge sections blacked out? That's what the public (and the terrorists) will see...in the interests of US Civil Liberties. All of Al Zarkawi's contacts were burned the day he was busted. Where's the downside, again?

Would that the enemy were as uninformed as your positions require....we'd have mopped this up, worldwide, two years ago.
Rich
 
mvpel, serious terrorists know the NSA has interception capabilities.

There's some question whether standard crypto (AES-128, and to a greater degree RSA1024, etc) are "safe" from the NSA's prying.

If terrorists don't use encryption, it's because they don't think the NSA is listening, or because the message has low value to the U.S. government, not because they don't believe the NSA can listen.

If you're just in charge of logistics for a terrorist cell and you only send benign-sounding messages, using encryption is a great way to end up getting monitored by the NSA. Security through obscurity works if you blend in.
 
While terrorists aren't uniformly stupid, surely the interception of their communications is an important tool to prevent future attacks, yes?

Rich, CAIR has evidently filed a FOIA request, demanding, among other things, "any and all lists of natural persons, both American and foreign nationals, who have been or are currently being eavesdropped without proper FISA approval."

Delightful, isn't it?

The ULTRA program to intercept and decode German Enigma communications wasn't disclosed until some 30 years after the war. So much for that idea.
 
The way I see it, Bush authorized wiretaps without a warrant. He claims he didn't need a warrant and the argument is that those persons being surveilled were on a list obtained from a foreign terrorist.

Had such a list been known, a warrant would have been easy to obtain. This has been stated as obvious. In response, some mumbo jumbo about Title 50 section 1802 was offered which is TOTALLY incorrect as that law applies to foreign surveillance only. AND it wouldn't immunize the administration because the law only gives one yr and the surveillance has been going on since 2003 (2 yrs).

From there, we now go on to the release of the information under the Freedom Of Information Act requesting the particulars of just who was surveilled. Opposition to this claims that the release of that information would jepardize national security.

At this point I'm confused.

If the persons being surveilled are US citizens, then how would the release of the information that a crime has/may have been committed against them hurt national security?
 
While terrorists aren't uniformly stupid, surely the interception of their communications is an important tool to prevent future attacks, yes?
Click to expand...
If they are terrorists, yes. Unfortunately, when the government doesn't follow the law when wiretapping said "terrorists," the only way for there to be any oversight is to force the government to disclose the identities of the suspects.
 
Rich, CAIR has evidently filed a FOIA request, demanding, among other things, "any and all lists of natural persons, both American and foreign nationals, who have been or are currently being eavesdropped without proper FISA approval."
Click to expand...
Oh, dear. Call the dogs off right now. Surely there is no OTHER law on the books that will cause this FOI request to be denied...***by the COURTS***....which is as it should be.

There's no National Security risk of an airing of these actions, MV. No specific names or places will be released, unless they are NOT a matter of National Security....that's what Checks and Balances is all about. You're reaching way beyond the realm of believable.
Rich
 
mvpel said:
Has that been stipulated by the White House? If not, how do you know that's true?
Click to expand...
The White House has not denied that they have used the NSA to spy upon American citizens. They have been asked about this, repeatedly, since the disclosure.

There is one other important piece of information that seems to have escaped most poeple who think this is no big deal. Although we will never know the "facts," such as they are, the FISA Court is the only and last judicial accountability (read checks and balances) that the intelligence community has.

Do you really want to return to the days of J. Edgar Hoover? I ask in all sincerity, because that is what we will have if we remove the FISA Court from the picture of domestic spying.
 
American citizens making phone calls to known phone numbers of known terrorist ringleaders in the midst of an ongoing worldwide struggle to prevent terrorist attacks.

While I may have engaged in hyperbole earlier, likening this to a Hoover administration most certainly qualifies for that label.

The list of phone numbers was obtained from the computer system of a known terrorist leader, al-Zarqawi. Any US citizen in contact with these agents of an enemy foreign power is committing treason, a capital offense. So we can put them to death, but not clandestinely monitor their phone calls to the enemy?

The "penalty" for failing to obtain an order in the 72-hour window is that you can't use the information gathered in a criminal prosecution, based on my reading of 1805(f).

But treating terrorism merely as a criminal enterprise with Marqis of Queensbury rules was the big fat mistake that the Clinton and earlier administrations made, a mistake which led to the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center. Evidently this administration is more concerned about preventing further 9/11 attacks, and finding and killing terrorists, than with securing criminal convictions.
 
The "penalty" for failing to obtain an order in the 72-hour window is that you can't use the information gathered in a criminal prosecution, based on my reading of 1805(f).
Click to expand...
Try sections 1809 and 1810.
Finding someone guilty of treason requires a trial. These cases weren't given so much as a cursory inspection by the FISA court.
 
(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;

I guess the interpretation of this phrase is exactly what this comes down to. Did Congress cede more power to the Executive Branch than they intended when they called for any means necessary, in defending the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic? If so, they need to dial it back a bit.
 
Hmmm. After all the hullabaloo about outing a CIA agent there is now a move afoot to out the entire crew of operatives in this case (I know, not CIA).

As a former contributor of raw data to NSA my first take was that Bush was authorizing collection of data coming out of the US of a type already likely being collected by any number of other countries--without warrants.

I am now confused as to whether I or the media am/are confused about the type of data being targeted. Shaky terminology here something akin to "high powered assault weapons" under the recent bans, etc.

My take was that the type of data being collected is sort of like the argument about whether taking a photo of a suspect in the middle of a public street violates that person's right to privacy. All going on in a public place in a way accessible to the general public.
 
for those who think that if a terrorist calls you, you are guilty, here is some humor.

disclaimer: I am not in the know in any way.

lets say the nsa moniters a call from OBL to a guy in chi.(we should moniter right?) the guy in chi. calls a guy in NY(should probably listen right?)
In this senario if the no such agency did its job right this is what you would want to happen.

now what happens if there are no checks and balances.

same senario as above, but the NY guy is found to be innocent(for whatever reason). the new york guy talks on his phone alot. he makes hundreds of calls. the people he makes calls too make calls(should the nsa be listening?). are YOU one of them? is this fair? do YOU think someone should be making some noise if this happened? ah hell if it went on long enough they could just tap every phone in the u.s. and we would safe from the boogey man.........right?

disclaimer: work of fiction in laymans terms, laced heavily with sarcasm. I take no responsibility for people who cant take sarcasm, and may jump off of bridges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top