America... Spying on Americans

DrewDad wrote:

Your search - "warrantless search of Aldrich Ames" - did not match any documents.

Maybe you have an old version of Google. My search returned 167 hits.

DrewDad wrote:

Your search - "warrantless search of Aldrich Ames" - did not match any documents.

Maybe you have an old version of Google. My search returned 167 hits.

Your search - "warrantless search of Aldrich Ames" - did not match any documents.

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Your search - "warrantless search of Aldrich Ames" - did not match any documents.

Maybe you have an old version of Google. My search returned 167 hits.

Just funnin' with ya. Include the quotes in your search, and it turns up bupkis.

The distinction is quite clear.

WHAT he did was try to intercept communciation for the purpose of foreign intelligence gathering which is clearly a power under FISA.

HOW he did it was without a warrent.

So apparently, you do not want ANY President to have the ability to intercept communication for the purpose if foreign intelligence gathering.

Am I correct?

President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.

BTW, FD. I'm confident you'll be aghast at the Ames search.

So apparently, you do not want ANY President to have the ability to intercept communication for the purpose if foreign intelligence gathering.

Am I correct?

woiyo wrote:

So apparently, you do not want ANY President to have the ability to intercept communication for the purpose if foreign intelligence gathering.

Am I correct?

Not quite. I do not want any president to intercept communication between American citizens without a warrant issued by a court. I find it irrelevant for what purpose he purports to wiretap, and I also find it irrelevant whether he has the technical ability to intercept. What the constitution denies him is the legal ability to do so. Does that answer your question?

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/privacy/fisa.htm

Pay attention to this part...
"The court also noted, however, that ordinary crimes would sometimes be inextricably intertwined with foreign intelligence crimes. In these intertwined cases, the government will now be able to use FISA and bypass traditional criminal law standards, provided that its investigation also serves some counterintelligence purpose.21"

Here is the footnote,#21

"21 See In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review., pp. 28-30"

So,there are times that US Citizens can be monitored without a warrant

mysteryman wrote:

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/privacy/fisa.htm

Pay attention to this part...
"The court also noted, however, that ordinary crimes would sometimes be inextricably intertwined with foreign intelligence crimes. In these intertwined cases, the government will now be able to use FISA and bypass traditional criminal law standards, provided that its investigation also serves some counterintelligence purpose.21"

Here is the footnote,#21

"21 See In Re Sealed Case No. 02-001, U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review., pp. 28-30"

So,there are times that US Citizens can be monitored without a warrant

That's not exactly what that says. That decision deals with "the wall" that used to be between foreign intelligence and domestic law inforcement. They are saying that "foreign intelligence" can be A purpose of the surveillance and not necessarily THE purpose.

Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not
dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a
crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even
without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government
showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant
standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test
drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it
authorizes are reasonable.

parados wrote:

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

Apparently, an objective analysis is beyond your ability.

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.

What I find amusing, is how you Bushwackers are more concerned with "GOTCHA HATRED", then to objectively analyze what GW did and is trying to accomplish.

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.

Until someone can show me more than 2 instances whereby communications between 2 US Citizens on our soil, I will take the administration at it's word that they are only looking at specific communications ocurring between foreign soil and US Soil. To me , I feel it is important to our security.

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

MM: Here is the text I believe you were referring to in that .pdf file.

Quote:

Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not
dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a
crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even
without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government
showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant
standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test
drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it
authorizes are reasonable.

Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even
without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government
showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant
standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test
drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it
authorizes are reasonable.

Accordingly, we reverse the FISA court's orders in this case to the extent they imposed
conditions on the grant of the government's applications,

Ticomaya wrote:

MM: Here is the text I believe you were referring to in that .pdf file.

Quote:

Although the Court in City of Indianapolis cautioned that the threat to society is not
dispositive in determining whether a search or seizure is reasonable, it certainly remains a
crucial factor. Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even
without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government
showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant
standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test
drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it
authorizes are reasonable.

That was it.

TEll me,how did you cut and paste that from the document?

From that decision:

Quote:

Our case may well involve the most serious threat our country faces. Even
without taking into account the President's inherent constitutional authority to conduct
warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, we think the procedures and government
showings required under FISA, if they do not meet the minimum Fourth Amendment warrant
standards, certainly come close. We, therefore, believe firmly, applying the balancing test
drawn from Keith, that FISA as amended is constitutional because the surveillances it
authorizes are reasonable.

The court seems to be saying that 4th amendment concerns are addressed by FISA. It would seem, then, that circumventing FISA would eliminate those protections of 4th amendment rights.