America... Spying on Americans

Several senior government officials say that when the special operation first began, there were few controls on it and little formal oversight outside the N.S.A. The agency can choose its eavesdropping targets and does not have to seek approval from Justice Department or other Bush administration officials.

Sorry blatham (Mr. Salon.com) .... I just can't past that part where you haughtily exclaim that the conservatives turn to their own media outlets, and yet are reluctant to admit that you libbies do the very same thing.

CARLSON: Did you find a lot of straight news organizations that lean conservative?

MILYO: No, we did not. The only?-we only looked at about 20 different outlets. The only ones that fell on the conservative side were "FOX News Special Report with Brit Hume," which is the only FOX News show that we looked at, and the "Washington Times."

And they come out?-FOX News with "Special Report" comes out with an ideological ranking where it looks a lot like a liberal Republican, say Olympia Snowe.

CARLSON: Interesting. That?'s as right wing as they got? Olympia Snowe? Not good enough, in my view. Jeff Milyo.

The outcome itself (eg washington times no further right than Olympia Snowe!) is, on the face of it, pretty laughable.

tico

So how about the reading survey? You up for some honesty and forthrightness?

blatham wrote:

tico

So how about the reading survey? You up for some honesty and forthrightness?

Sure ... do it again.

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

tico

So how about the reading survey? You up for some honesty and forthrightness?

Sure ... do it again.

We haven't done exactly this previously. The idea is that, as we read our various sources each day through the next week, we note down where we have gone for information, and then post it here. Wanna?

(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;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and

if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General's certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.

(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless?-
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.

(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to?-
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.

(e) Motion to suppress
Any person against whom evidence obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance to which he is an aggrieved person is to be, or has been, introduced or otherwise used or disclosed in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, may move to suppress the evidence obtained or derived from such electronic surveillance on the grounds that?-
(1) the information was unlawfully acquired; or
(2) the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or ­approval.
Such a motion shall be made before the trial, hearing, or other proceeding unless there was no opportunity to make such a motion or the person was not aware of the grounds of the motion.

blatham wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

blatham wrote:

tico

So how about the reading survey? You up for some honesty and forthrightness?

Sure ... do it again.

We haven't done exactly this previously. The idea is that, as we read our various sources each day through the next week, we note down where we have gone for information, and then post it here. Wanna?

As extremely interesting as that sounds, I think I'll pass.

Blatham, did you say that of the last 52 links you have posted, only 2 were from Salon?

There are two explanations for the Bush administration's failure to stay within the boundaries of the legal structures for which it's bargained: One is that the administration believes it is fighting this war on its own; the courts, the Congress, and the American people are all standing in its way. The other is that the administration is convinced that none of our statutes or policies or systems will actually work in a pinch. Our laws aren't just broken. They are unfixable....

So, which is it? Does the Bush administration refuse to honor its legislative and constitutional bargains with Congress, the courts, and the American people because it believes we are all just getting in its way? Or does it sidestep us because it believes that all these trappings of a democracy?-the courts and the laws and public accountability are broken and unfixable? The first possibility is grandiose and depressing. The latter is absolutely breathtaking.