America... Spying on Americans

The court seems to be saying that the President has an "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

Er.... Foreign Tico. That issue isn't under debate.

The court seems to be saying that the President has an "inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance."

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

(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.

may very well have been replaced by the case law described in my earlier post.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.

DrewDad wrote:

Er.... Foreign Tico. That issue isn't under debate.

Correct ... foreign, DD. As I understand it, that is what the focus of the secret NSA program is: Monitoring telephone calls of agents of a foreign power (al Qaeda) when the calls are initiated within the US.

Are you suggesting al Qaeda isn't a "foreign power"?

Careering or careening? That one always gets my goat....

Richard A. Posner

Our Domestic Intelligence Crisis

More on Posner


From Marty Lederman:


What's remarkable about Posner's Op-Ed is that his whole point is that the FISA law on this presently is (in his view) woefully inadequate to the task. He never even mentions the serious implication of this point, which is that, if he is right that FISA currently prohibits this -- and he is right -- then the Administration's data mining for the past four years has been a violation of criminal law. (No specious suggestions from Posner, who knows better, that this was authorized by the AUMF: He's forthright that the law needs to be amended.)

Posner may be right that current law is too restrictive. Congress should have that debate. But isn't it troubling that an esteemed federal judge seems so indifferent to the fact that, in the meantime -- before the Nation and the Congress have had the opportunity to debate Posner's proposal -- the Nation's Chief Executive is systematically authorizing criminal felonies?

This is the way Posner characterizes what's been happening: "The Defense Department is rushing to fill [the] gaps." I suppose that's one way of putting it. (I can imagine lawyers for criminal defendants with appeals to Posner's court: "Your honor, as you've written, this criminal restriction is very unwise and needs amending. My client was merely rushing to fill the statutory gap.")

Here's the most chilling line in Posner's column, taking euphemism to a new level: "It is no surprise that gaps in domestic intelligence are being filled by ad hoc initiatives." That's Posner's kinder, gentler way of saying "It is no surprise that current federal laws, which unwisely criminalize this conduct, are being circumvented by the President's authorization to commit felonies."

So in sumation Tico it's ok to have "secret" surveillance of US citizens (meaning without judicial review) because Clinton may have done it (whomever)? Where, in your mind Tico, is the line that separates personal liberty from national security by a judgement that circumvents judicial oversight?

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

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?

[/color]

What I'm trying to accomplish, kuvasz, is make some sense out of your prior post where you complained about my posting Byron York's article about Jamie Gorelick's July 14, 1994 testimony before Congress. ....... right after you pompously instructed me to go read the source --I cautioned you not to rely upon sophist, advocacy journalism that leaves out important details from cited sources to support ideological positions not based upon the totality of the facts you highlighted that Gorelick was referring to warrantless searches of "foreign powers" or their agents. You seemed to be drawing a distinction between what Gorelick was advocating, and what the Bush Administration is done. At least that's what I interpreted you last sentence to mean:

your interpretation was wrong.


"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."

If you were trying to make such a distinction, the distinction was not made by me, but by Congress in the FISA law, the law Bush broke

I would point out that the focus of the eavesdropping under the NSA secret program is on suspected al Qaeda targets -- which certainly do qualify as a "foreign power" (as defined) or an agent therefor. Thus, it seems clear that Jamie Gorelick, at least in 1994, was advocating that the President had the inherent authority to authorize warrantless searches on al Qaeda operatives for intelligence gathering purposes. Your argument is with Jamie Gorelick.

no, yours and york's are with congress

Now, if you weren't trying to distinguish the warrantless searches under Bush, with the circumstances under which Gorelick was arguing the President had authority to conduct warrantless searches, you probably need to explain the meaning of your above quote. What was your point in highlighting the fact that Gorelick was referring to "foreign powers" in her testimony?

york pointed out the position of the clinton administration on warrantless searches of foreign powers prior to the change in the FISA law on warrantless surveillanes that exluded terrorists. and york went so far as to deign to imply that since the clinton administration did not comment on this change they still maintained their earlier position on this matter

silence on an issue is not an admission of advocacy.

and i would point out that the subsection defining "foreign power" excluded definitions (4-6) as relevant to statute 1802, viz., terrorist orgnizations

shall we use the proper term here about Bush's actions, i.e., "surveillance" not "searches?" the reference highlight was obvious. it defined her subject matter, which was later further delineated by the definitions held relevant in FISA statute 1802.

[quote="kuv"][quote="Tico"][quote="kuvasz"]<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.

Ticomaya wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

Er.... Foreign Tico. That issue isn't under debate.

Correct ... foreign, DD. As I understand it, that is what the focus of the secret NSA program is: Monitoring telephone calls of agents of a foreign power (al Qaeda) when the calls are initiated within the US.

Are you suggesting al Qaeda isn't a "foreign power"?

It's not whether the power is foreign or not, Tico. It's whether the parties and soil are foreign.

I'm a bit baffled as to your logic. How can a call initicated from within the US be foreign?