America... Spying on Americans

More left wing hysteria. You are exagerating and misrepresenting the actions GW took. There is no DOMESTIC SPYING going on anywhere!
This issue is directed ONLY at intercepting communications where one side of the communication is NOT on US soil.

From what I hear, there are precedents and case law to support GW;s actions.

From what I hear and read, partial (if not full) disclousure was made by GW to the leaders in Congress.

Some of you here (Especially D. Law) are as bad as the media in representing what actually occurred.

Finn, You make a strong point that there has been no attacks on American Soil since 9/11. It feels like you are giving the impression that it is due to the governments excessive efforts and therefore justifys any abuses it has performed.

Firstly, the Towers were attacked in 1993, less than 60 days after a new President took over. I assume that since no attacks occured for the next 8 years, you would also call that a great success, since you consider 4 years to be so remarkable. This was done without the repressive steps taken by this administration. Although a major effort was made to attack during the year 2000 celebration, it was foiled by the administration in power. Again, this was done without the measures this administration has deemed necessary!

If the length of time since a previous attack seems to be a determining factor in how well the job has been done, I suggest that this administration is only half way there.

...

You know, it's not an accident that we haven't been hit in four years," the vice president said, speaking with reporters Tuesday on Air Force Two en route from Pakistan to Oman.

Another "chump" with no guts to make a statement in 2001. NOW HE RESIGNS??

woiyo,

The president can authorize without warrant for FOREIGN intelligence under federal law. But the law SPECIFICALLY restricts it to FOREIGN. It can NOT include a US citizen as a party to the communitication. The law is VERY SPECIFIC about that. The courts did not AUTHORIZE the President to use warrantless searches or wiretaps on US Citizens.

You can keep repeating this crap woiyo but it has been answered many times here. FOREIGN intelligence does NOT include US citizens no matter HOW you want to torture the language. It is very clearly defined under US law.

parados wrote:

woiyo,

The president can authorize without warrant for FOREIGN intelligence under federal law. But the law SPECIFICALLY restricts it to FOREIGN. It can NOT include a US citizen as a party to the communitication. The law is VERY SPECIFIC about that. The courts did not AUTHORIZE the President to use warrantless searches or wiretaps on US Citizens.

You can keep repeating this crap woiyo but it has been answered many times here. FOREIGN intelligence does NOT include US citizens no matter HOW you want to torture the language. It is very clearly defined under US law.

Let me see if I have this right.
Foreign intelligence does not include US Citizens?
What if those US citizens are conversing with foreign govts?
Does the name Aldrich Ames mean anything to you?

Well, therein lies the disagreement since the law is NOT as specific as you think it is.

kuvasz wrote:

tico, you really should go back to the original sources instead of relying on the selective cherry picking of propagandists like York.

<snip>

gorelick was talking about warrantless searches conducted on foreign powers. As cited earlier, an even more clear distinction was made under FISA as to what "Foreign Power" was defined as, and still further which target definition was included as acceptable for warrantless electronic surveillance authorization.

Al Qaeda is a "foreign power." I would certainly argue it is a "group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Do you disagree?

Your argument is with the Congress of the United States. They wrote the FISA law. and while the definition of a "foreign power" under 1801 included "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore" they also specifically did not include such enties as subject to warrantless surveillance legally under the section 1802.

so just what are you trying to accomplish here with that question? the statutes already answered that question. just because you don't like the answer you ask it again?

Bush broke that law as you see, and you are now left to pounding your fist on the table attacking the law itself because you do not have the facts to suport your position.

bush broke the law, and not as an act of perjury like Clinton, but one that can have a profound impact on the civil rights of american citizens.

as a lawyer you should be aghast at it

If you do disagree, please explain why you think the rules on intelligence gathering -- specifically as they relate to warrantless searches -- ought to be different when you are spying on an agent for al Qaeda, as opposed to an agent for a foreign government. Do you find one to be more of a threat to the United States than the other?

why should i have to explain why i agree with congress? why dont you explain why you disagree with congress, they wrote the law and they made the distinction...it might help if you read up on what drove Gorelick's remarks in 1994, searches on the homes of foreign nationals and ambassadorial personnel.

regardless, of your position that there is no difference between the definitions (1-6) of section 1801 Congress felt there was under the pertinent statute Bush broke.

Bush broke the law.

But, if you or Bush found no differences and believed that the law restricted his ability, all he had to do was ask congress to change the law. there was a majority in the house and senate of his own party.

so why did not bush call upon congress to change the the law instead of break it?

He could have cut short one of his many vacations to do that if he was serious about it. but apprently, he was stuck with the adolescent attitude any parent of teenagers knows so well... "it is better to ask forgiveness than permission."

kuvasz wrote:

<snip>

York is stating that since Gorelick maintained that Clinton had the authority to conduct warrantless searches on foreign powers and their agents, then Bush had a right to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on Americans on American soil suspected of terrorism, even thought FISA specifically stated otherwise.

Did York state that? Really? I didn't see Bush's name mentioned in his article.

haha, cute. I note that you didn't disagree with that assessment did you? york wrote that article without any context of current events. imagine that. all on his own he went back and reviewed "obscure" testimony for an article with no relationship to the daily news.

York's Article

woiyo wrote:

Well, therein lies the disagreement since the law is NOT as specific as you think it is.

Really? Care to tell us what isn't specific about it? I have posted it twice. It is BOLD as hell in my last post. (Maybe you have an eyesight problem. )What is NOT specific about the requirement that it can only be warrantless if there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party

Who told you about this MYTHICAL case law?

mysteryman wrote:

parados wrote:

woiyo,

The president can authorize without warrant for FOREIGN intelligence under federal law. But the law SPECIFICALLY restricts it to FOREIGN. It can NOT include a US citizen as a party to the communitication. The law is VERY SPECIFIC about that. The courts did not AUTHORIZE the President to use warrantless searches or wiretaps on US Citizens.

You can keep repeating this crap woiyo but it has been answered many times here. FOREIGN intelligence does NOT include US citizens no matter HOW you want to torture the language. It is very clearly defined under US law.

Let me see if I have this right.
Foreign intelligence does not include US Citizens?
What if those US citizens are conversing with foreign govts?
Does the name Aldrich Ames mean anything to you?

Foreign intelligence act covers just that contingency if you cared to read where it has been posted SEVERAL times on this thread.
If a US citizen is spying then the US govt MUST get a warrant. Pretty simple stuff here MM. There is no way to NOT get a warrant if the person doing the conversing with a foreign power is a US citizen.

What you post (which is vague at best since there is no definition of a US PERSON) may very well have been replaced by the case law described in my earlier post.

(i) "United States person" means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

I would have preferred he went to FISA to obtain the warrents, which I am sure would have been approved but taken a long period of time to obtain. However, in this day of electronic communications, speed is necessary in the intelligence community.

Statutes can be amended through legislation and this may be something that needs to be better defined to allow a President the ability to conduct these types of searches.

I am sure some of you will feel otherwise, but I feel that that opinion will be based not upon logic, but on partisenship.

I'll repeat MM's question ... Aldrich Ames?

Parados, Squinney, DrewDad, Kuvasz, Debra, FreeDuck, and anyone I may have forgotten --

Your patience is obviously much greater than mine. I have pretty much given up on this thread. So I just want you to know that I'm sitting here, reading along, occasionally tipping my hat to you.

Thomas wrote:

Parados, Squinney, DrewDad, Kuvasz, Debra, FreeDuck, and anyone I may have forgotten --

Your patience is obviously much greater than mine. I have pretty much given up on this thread. So I just want you to know that I'm sitting here, reading along, occasionally tipping my hat to you.

Thank you, Thomas, and back at you. I wish we could have had more lawyer participation on your thread in legal, but this seems to be where everyone gathers.