Quoted: Hey SPADE, is this part of the undergrad curriculum?  Or is this covered at the PhD level?  If you can show something that supercedes this, I'll be happy to eat humble pie.   From the FISA: § 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 Release date: 2005-03-17 (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

That's only if the target is a US person. If the target is foreign it doesn't apply.

Although orders issued under FISA are sometimes called FISA "warrants," this is misleading because it suggests that the FISA order is like an ordinary search warrant or Title III intercept order -- and it isn't. Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must be based on probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed. This is not the general rule under FISA.

Quoted: Quoted: Hey SPADE, is this part of the undergrad curriculum?  Or is this covered at the PhD level?  If you can show something that supercedes this, I'll be happy to eat humble pie.   From the FISA: § 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 Release date: 2005-03-17 (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 That's only if the target is a US person. If the target is foreign it doesn't apply.

No, it's saying if either end of the conversation is a US person.  It doesn't matter if they are the target or not. They just have to be "party" to the communication.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hey SPADE, is this part of the undergrad curriculum?  Or is this covered at the PhD level?  If you can show something that supercedes this, I'll be happy to eat humble pie.   From the FISA: § 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 Release date: 2005-03-17 (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 That's only if the target is a US person. If the target is foreign it doesn't apply. No, it's saying if either end of the conversation is a US person.  It doesn't matter if they are the target or not.

Here's the deal. If we gather an email, let's say,  and we get the email from outside the US but the originator is inside the US, FISA doesn't apply. It is unclear to me wether or not they intercepted the electronic communications inside of this country or targeted elec comms outside this country that orignated here. If the later is the case they effectively circumvented the rules within the letter of the law.

Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.  

(f) “Electronic surveillance” means— (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes; (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication to or from a person in the United States, without the consent of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United States, but does not include the acquisition of those communications of computer trespassers that would be permissible under section 2511 (2)(i) of title 18; (3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender and all intended recipients are located within the United States; or (4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio communication, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes.

If ALL communications eminating from the USA to cellphone # 222-777-8888 located in Saudi Arabia or sent from the USA to email address [email protected] are monitored REGARDLESS of the sender, that does not look like it would be considered "electronic surveillance" because it's not intentionally targetting a "known" American person but rather it's targetting ANY US person calling that cell phone number or mailing to that email address (that is known to belong to a known Al Qaeda terrorist for example).

Quoted: Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.

If the NYT is right, they're not using it as evidence. They're using it to spoil terrorist attacks in this country and abroad.

Hey guys, let's just settle down a minute.

I'm sure you're all forgetting that we can trust the government.

And, we can trust that the democratic one that replaces the one we have now (it cycles, you know) will be even more trustworthy.

Therefore, and I'm sure you'll all agree with me here, we have nothing to hide and the more the government looks into the affairs of its citizens, the better. I mean, if it saves just one life, it's worth it, right?

Right?

.

Quoted: Hey guys, let's just settle down a minute. I'm sure you're all forgetting that we can trust the government. And, we can trust that the democratic one that replaces the one we have now (it cycles, you know) will be even more trustworthy. Therefore, and I'm sure you'll all agree with me here, we have nothing to hide and the more the government looks into the affairs of its citizens, the better. I mean, if it saves just one life, it's worth it, right? Right?

I agree wholeheartedly.  I'm willing to give up all my freedoms to prevent a bunch of fanatical terrorists from taking away my freedoms.  Scorched earth all the way.  

Quoted: Quoted: Hey guys, let's just settle down a minute. I'm sure you're all forgetting that we can trust the government. And, we can trust that the democratic one that replaces the one we have now (it cycles, you know) will be even more trustworthy. Therefore, and I'm sure you'll all agree with me here, we have nothing to hide and the more the government looks into the affairs of its citizens, the better. I mean, if it saves just one life, it's worth it, right? Right?

You do realize that the reason we havent had any more terrorist attacks on US soil is that our intelligence agencies are allowed to do thier jobs.  And now you want to take away one of thier most effective tools.  Thanks a lot.

Quoted: You do realize that the reason we havent had any more terrorist attacks on US soil is that our intelligence agencies are allowed to do thier jobs.  And now you want to take away one of thier most effective tools.  Thanks a lot.

Thats right.  As a citizen you have rights, but those rights can not be absolute when it comes to protecting the country.  The Government needs to revoke those rights in order to protect the country.  It's for the greater good.

The government needs to torture people, set up secret prisons in foreign lands so US law doesn't apply, compile firearm and library records for registration, use searches and wiretaps with no probable cause or jusicial oversight, and other things to protect us.  

They have spoiled thousands of terroristic attacks in the last few years using these tools.  You are safe today because you have no rights.

Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.   If the NYT is right, they're not using it as evidence. They're using it to spoil terrorist attacks in this country and abroad.

NSA is not a law enforcement agency. What they collect is almost never used for a criminal prosecution, and until 9-11, was almost never shared with law enforcement agencies for such use. That, along with no monitoring of US citizens without FISA warrant(and in some cases not just citizens but US residents of non-diplomatic status ie aliens, tourists, etc.) was not allowed.

Quoted: Where did you draw the conclusion that I don't vote from?  I always vote, including local elections, even when I'm deployed.  Second, if you think printing a list of names on a sheet of paper, then having a bunch of illiterates (who don't know anything about the views of the people on that list) select some names and stuff a ballot box is a democracy, then mission accomplished.

You're one of those "liberal" racists that think Arabs aren't capable of self government.

Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.   If the NYT is right, they're not using it as evidence. They're using it to spoil terrorist attacks in this country and abroad.

Truly a chilling abuse of power by the president

Quoted: Quoted: You do realize that the reason we havent had any more terrorist attacks on US soil is that our intelligence agencies are allowed to do thier jobs.  And now you want to take away one of thier most effective tools.  Thanks a lot. Thats right.  As a citizen you have rights, but those rights can not be absolute when it comes to protecting the country.  The Government needs to revoke those rights in order to protect the country.  It's for the greater good. The government needs to torture people, set up secret prisons in foreign lands so US law doesn't apply, compile firearm and library records for registration, use searches and wiretaps with no probable cause or jusicial oversight, and other things to protect us.   They have spoiled thousands of terroristic attacks in the last few years using these tools.  You are safe today because you have no rights.

You're being melodramatic and buying the newspapers and the CIA's exaggerated and hysterical leaks designed mainly to politically damage the president.

Have you noticed the common denominator in all the latest attacks on the president over the way he's handling the not-so-covert aspects of the war on terrorism?

1.  Detention of terror suspects must be known, presumably so they can be protected by human rights organizations and anti-American advocacy groups

2.  John McCain has insisted that current interrogation methods used against terro suspects amount to torture and must be stopped.

3.  The NSA aggressively follows communication leads obtained from al-Qaeda leaders' computers, which lead to arrests and foiled terror attacks, and this is reported as a BAD thing.

4.  The Patriot Act and the expanded powers it grants to fight terrorism aren't going to be renewed.

The common denominator is that all these charges/changes in policy have the practical effect of protecting al-Qaeda, its secrets, and its killers from our government who we have trusted with our security.  Also, advocating for the rights of al-Qaeda killers and helping protect their operational security has been adopted as a deeply misguided method of proxy attack against George Bush.  Basically, national security and the security of potential victims is being sacrificed at the altar of gotcha politics.  It's absolutely repellent.  I wonder if the people calling for more rights and protection for terrorism will step up and accept responsibility or acknowledge maybe that wasn't a good idea when a nuke goes off in New York and we have to REALLY get serious about terrorism.

You really think that any law enforcement agency plays by the rules all of the time?

For example, you have to get a warrant to tap a phone.  You don't think that if the police can't get a warrant for, let's say a drug dealer, that they couldn't just tap the phone anyways, listen to it and maybe set themselves up for a chance bust later on?  Such as, they learn that the guy will be making a deal at 5pm Saturday at the corner of 5th and Elm... and just HAPPEN to have an officer there at that time, who sees something suspicious?  He arrests him, it appears to be by chance, and no one knows about the wiretaps.

I bet it happens more than you would like to think.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You do realize that the reason we havent had any more terrorist attacks on US soil is that our intelligence agencies are allowed to do thier jobs.  And now you want to take away one of thier most effective tools.  Thanks a lot. Thats right.  As a citizen you have rights, but those rights can not be absolute when it comes to protecting the country.  The Government needs to revoke those rights in order to protect the country.  It's for the greater good. The government needs to torture people, set up secret prisons in foreign lands so US law doesn't apply, compile firearm and library records for registration, use searches and wiretaps with no probable cause or jusicial oversight, and other things to protect us.   They have spoiled thousands of terroristic attacks in the last few years using these tools.  You are safe today because you have no rights. You're being melodramatic and buying the newspapers and the CIA's exaggerated and hysterical leaks designed mainly to politically damage the president. Have you noticed the common denominator in all the latest attacks on the president over the way he's handling the not-so-covert aspects of the war on terrorism? 1.  Detention of terror suspects must be known, presumably so they can be protected by human rights organizations and anti-American advocacy groups 2.  John McCain has insisted that current interrogation methods used against terro suspects amount to torture and must be stopped. 3.  The NSA aggressively follows communication leads obtained from al-Qaeda leaders' computers, which lead to arrests and foiled terror attacks, and this is reported as a BAD thing. 4.  The Patriot Act and the expanded powers it grants to fight terrorism aren't going to be renewed. The common denominator is that all these charges/changes in policy have the practical effect of protecting al-Qaeda, its secrets, and its killers from our government who we have trusted with our security.  Also, advocating for the rights of al-Qaeda killers and helping protect their operational security has been adopted as a deeply misguided method of proxy attack against George Bush.  Basically, national security and the security of potential victims is being sacrificed at the altar of gotcha politics.  It's absolutely repellent.  I wonder if the people calling for more rights and protection for terrorism will step up and accept responsibility or acknowledge maybe that wasn't a good idea when a nuke goes off in New York and we have to REALLY get serious about terrorism.

Exactamundo.

Well said raven.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.   If the NYT is right, they're not using it as evidence. They're using it to spoil terrorist attacks in this country and abroad. NSA is not a law enforcement agency. What they collect is almost never used for a criminal prosecution, and until 9-11, was almost never shared with law enforcement agencies for such use. That, along with no monitoring of US citizens without FISA warrant(and in some cases not just citizens but US residents of non-diplomatic status ie aliens, tourists, etc.) was not allowed.

Read the legal definition of "electronic surveilance" and comments that I posted above and how it clearly ALLOWS for monitoring US citizens without FISA warrants.

This is NOT "news"! It's been known to Congress and allowed under law for YEARS!!!

Why don't you people get the REAL story here - the mainstream media are dredging this OLD story up simply to 1) push the HUGE success of Iraq's elections out of the public view and 2) the "journalist" behind this story is TIMING this story's release to coincide with the release of a book he's writing on this very same story.

BOTTOMLINE:
This is all just pure self-serving, anti-Bush propoganda put out by the media..... once again. And you all are dancing to their tune like the well-trained puppets you are!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen.  There is no ambiguity there.  An international to international call is another matter, fully legal.  But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant. Read the goddamn law. You are wrong. Can you cite what you are referring to?  The law that says a US citizen can be monitored if he is talking to a non-US citizen.  I'm serious.  I want to read that.

Let me get this straight, if Johnny Walker was sening a radio transmission to OBL INSIDE Afghanistan,  the CIA would have to obtain a warrant.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen.  There is no ambiguity there.  An international to international call is another matter, fully legal.  But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant. Read the goddamn law. You are wrong. Can you cite what you are referring to?  The law that says a US citizen can be monitored if he is talking to a non-US citizen.  I'm serious.  I want to read that. Let me get this straight, if Johnny Walker was sening a radio transmission to OBL INSIDE Afghanistan,  the CIA would have to obtain a warrant.

Yes that is EXACTLY what he is proposing. It is absurd on its face and if put in to practice would cripple US ability to stop future attacks.

He is just flat wrong on the law, clearly does not understand the law or is simply willfully ignoring the truth. And when show proof he is wrong he just want to ignore that. In the field we must be able to monitor communication to terrorist even from US citizens.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.   If the NYT is right, they're not using it as evidence. They're using it to spoil terrorist attacks in this country and abroad. NSA is not a law enforcement agency. What they collect is almost never used for a criminal prosecution, and until 9-11, was almost never shared with law enforcement agencies for such use. That, along with no monitoring of US citizens without FISA warrant(and in some cases not just citizens but US residents of non-diplomatic status ie aliens, tourists, etc.) was not allowed. Read the legal definition of "electronic surveilance" and comments that I posted above and how it clearly ALLOWS for monitoring US citizens without FISA warrants.

Read the part where I wrote "until 9-11". Also note there is a difference between "US persons" and "US citizens". Mohammed Atta was a US person, not a US citizen.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Perhaps....but I doubt it would be admissable as evidence for anything.   If the NYT is right, they're not using it as evidence. They're using it to spoil terrorist attacks in this country and abroad. NSA is not a law enforcement agency. What they collect is almost never used for a criminal prosecution, and until 9-11, was almost never shared with law enforcement agencies for such use. That, along with no monitoring of US citizens without FISA warrant(and in some cases not just citizens but US residents of non-diplomatic status ie aliens, tourists, etc.) was not allowed. Read the legal definition of "electronic surveilance" and comments that I posted above and how it clearly ALLOWS for monitoring US citizens without FISA warrants. Read the part where I wrote "until 9-11". Also note there is a difference between "US persons" and "US citizens". Mohammed Atta was a US person, not a US citizen.

Ah - got it.
Didn't read it the right way the first time.

Quoted: Ah - got it. Didn't read it the right way the first time.

No problem. I worked at NSA. What eddiein1984 says about monitoring of US citizens is correct. It comes direct from EO 12333. I no longer work there, but that is pretty much how it was since the mid-70s. The PA seems to have loosened up some of the requirements about non US citizens in the US, as you pointed out.

As more facts come out about this program come out, it does [EDIT insert not] NOT seem like anything illegal was done - non us citizens have always been eligible for surveillance.

Quoted: The common denominator is that all these charges/changes in policy have the practical effect of protecting al-Qaeda, its secrets, and its killers from our government who we have trusted with our security.  Also, advocating for the rights of al-Qaeda killers and helping protect their operational security has been adopted as a deeply misguided method of proxy attack against George Bush.  Basically, national security and the security of potential victims is being sacrificed at the altar of gotcha politics.  It's absolutely repellent.  I wonder if the people calling for more rights and protection for terrorism will step up and accept responsibility or acknowledge maybe that wasn't a good idea when a nuke goes off in New York and we have to REALLY get serious about terrorism.

Anything that protects our citizens protects our enemies.  You can't have it both ways.  Do you want a "safe" police state, or an unsafe free state?  You don't get to be free and safe, it's not in the cards.

Quoted: Anything that protects our citizens protects our enemies.  You can't have it both ways.  Do you want a "safe" police state, or an unsafe free state?  You don't get to be free and safe, it's not in the cards.

Quoted: Quoted: Anything that protects our citizens protects our enemies.  You can't have it both ways.  Do you want a "safe" police state, or an unsafe free state?  You don't get to be free and safe, it's not in the cards.

Oh snap, you sure showed me.  I bow to your awesome rhetorical skill.

Quoted: <snip> You're being melodramatic and buying the newspapers and the CIA's exaggerated and hysterical leaks designed mainly to politically damage the president. Have you noticed the common denominator in all the latest attacks on the president over the way he's handling the not-so-covert aspects of the war on terrorism? 1.  Detention of terror suspects must be known, presumably so they can be protected by human rights organizations and anti-American advocacy groups

So you are all for the US Government having secret prisons in other countries with an unknown amount of prisoners being held for unknown "crimes".  You are for this and any policy dealing with this being kept secret from the American public?

Quoted: 2.  John McCain has insisted that current interrogation methods used against terro suspects amount to torture and must be stopped.

So in the secret US prisons on foreign soil US citizens are allowed to do whatever it takes to interrogate an unknown amount of prisoners who are being held for unknown "crimes".  You feel any interrogation methods are to be used by people acting supposedly on behalf of the American people who profess to believe in due process rights, no cruel and unusual punishment, and other noble notions guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights?  Whether it meets the definition of torture needs to be looked at by the American people, since it is our government who we vote in doing these things.

Quoted: 3.  The NSA aggressively follows communication leads obtained from al-Qaeda leaders' computers, which lead to arrests and foiled terror attacks, and this is reported as a BAD thing.

The NSA shouldn't need probably cause and a warrant supplied by judicial oversight to wiretap and spy on US citizens in this country?  This should be kept a secret from the American people also, like the prisons and alleged torture that may go on in them?

Quoted: 4.  The Patriot Act and the expanded powers it grants to fight terrorism aren't going to be renewed.

The Patriot Act in its current incarnation wasn't passed, yet will probably be passed for a limited time until further review (3 months to a year).  

Quoted: The common denominator is that all these charges/changes in policy have the practical effect of protecting al-Qaeda, its secrets, and its killers from our government who we have trusted with our security.  Also, advocating for the rights of al-Qaeda killers and helping protect their operational security has been adopted as a deeply misguided method of proxy attack against George Bush.  Basically, national security and the security of potential victims is being sacrificed at the altar of gotcha politics.  It's absolutely repellent.  I wonder if the people calling for more rights and protection for terrorism will step up and accept responsibility or acknowledge maybe that wasn't a good idea when a nuke goes off in New York and we have to REALLY get serious about terrorism.

The common denominator is that there are "Americans" who feel that inalienable rights need to be eroded and given up and that the ideals that founded and influence this country need to be thrown away when the boogeyman that is terrorism is brought up.  There is some misguided notion that eroding civil rights will do anything to allievate "terrorism" when the northern and southern border of this country are wide open for anyone to walk accross,  illegal aliens from every other country in the world are here and are not deported when caught, student and other visas are given out like candy to other countries citizens with no oversight on who is coming here( Saudi Arabia just had their limit on student visas raised from 10k to 25k people), people here on visas are not checked up on or monitored and when they expire are still allowed to stay here, and numerous other things.

Quoted: The common denominator is that all these charges/changes in policy have the practical effect of protecting al-Qaeda, its secrets, and its killers from our government who we have trusted with our security.  Also, advocating for the rights of al-Qaeda killers and helping protect their operational security has been adopted as a deeply misguided method of proxy attack against George Bush.  Basically, national security and the security of potential victims is being sacrificed at the altar of gotcha politics.  It's absolutely repellent.  I wonder if the people calling for more rights and protection for terrorism will step up and accept responsibility or acknowledge maybe that wasn't a good idea when a nuke goes off in New York and we have to REALLY get serious about terrorism.

And this is the price we will pay for living in a free state. Free people should endure any level of terror they have to in order to stay free. Or isn't that what you conservatives keep telling the people of Iraq?

You want to be protected from terrorism? Then move to a police state, pick one. But not my United States!

Bush should be impeached for this. Wiretaps on American citizens without warrants? No fucking way. You open the door to that even once and you'll never close it without a revolution. And since most Americans don't have the balls for another revolution...

Quoted: Quoted: Ah - got it. Didn't read it the right way the first time. No problem. I worked at NSA. What eddiein1984 says about monitoring of US citizens is correct. It comes direct from EO 12333. I no longer work there, but that is pretty much how it was since the mid-70s. The PA seems to have loosened up some of the requirements about non US citizens in the US, as you pointed out. As more facts come out about this program come out, it does seem like anything illegal was done - non us citizens have always been eligible for surveillance.

Okay so the way it seems to me is that monitoring international calls & emails originating from the US without warrants is legal as long as the person sending the messages is not "targetted".

Quoted: BOTTOMLINE: This is all just pure self-serving, anti-Bush propoganda put out by the media..... once again. And you all are dancing to their tune like the well-trained puppets you are!

This is true in that the purpose of most of this is just anti-Bush propaganda.  There are people that are more concerned with the future of America than with the political career of George Bush, though.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Ah - got it. Didn't read it the right way the first time. No problem. I worked at NSA. What eddiein1984 says about monitoring of US citizens is correct. It comes direct from EO 12333. I no longer work there, but that is pretty much how it was since the mid-70s. The PA seems to have loosened up some of the requirements about non US citizens in the US, as you pointed out. As more facts come out about this program come out, it does seem like anything illegal was done - non us citizens have always been eligible for surveillance. Okay so the way it seems to me is that monitoring international calls & emails originating from the US without warrants is legal as long as the person sending the messages is not "targetted".

Yes, I went back and edited my post as I left out the word "not", but you figured out what I meant. From what I am reading about the program, what is going on is the monitoring of non US citizens inside the US who are communicating to people in foreign countries. And these non US citizens are not being chosen at random, they are suspecting of hostile intent so there is some reasonable suspicion.

Quoted: Think...ECHELON!

Or Carnivore... <hijack>

A few years ago (not sure if it was pre-9/11 or post) a fellow ARFCOMmer and I were discussing a series of measures we would use if we had full "tactical capability" and were providing security/XP at a convention for several hi-profile dignitaries.  (not to mention the unlimited budget)

I was on a "hard line" (copper land telephone line), he was on his cell phone.

We used several "buzz words" including:

flash-bang
nightvision
detonation
C-4
MP5
MP5SD
Glock
AR-15
supressors

etc., etc.

All of a sudden the phone goes dead.

His phone died, reading "no service". He didn't think too much about it, since he was in the basement of a friend's house. He turned his phone off and continued with his project. His phone turned back on, showing an incoming call. He lloks at the screen to read his own telephone number  being listed as the "call from". Then the "call" ends, and his phone powers down again.

We were almost waiting for the black van to pull down the street.

Get the tinfoil out boys...  </hijack>

Quoted: Quoted: Think...ECHELON!   Or Carnivore...

The FBI abandoned Carnivore and went to other software.

Quoted: You want to be protected from terrorism? Then move to a police state, pick one. But not my United States!  YOUR United States?????  Oh, you are the only one who lives here or matters.  Yeah, right! Bush should be impeached for this.  Yeah, you DUMOCRATS would love that, just because the NYT makes some accusations. Wiretaps on American citizens without warrants? No fucking way. You open the door to that even once and you'll never close it without a revolution. And since most Americans don't have the balls for another revolution...Again, this is based on what the NYT says, as if they have nooooooo agenda.  Some of you are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

Quoted: Quoted: Where did you draw the conclusion that I don't vote from?  I always vote, including local elections, even when I'm deployed.  Second, if you think printing a list of names on a sheet of paper, then having a bunch of illiterates (who don't know anything about the views of the people on that list) select some names and stuff a ballot box is a democracy, then mission accomplished. You're one of those "liberal" racists that think Arabs aren't capable of self government.

Yeah, I'm a racist because I don't buy into the idea that a country with no democratic tradition, ruled for the last 30 years by a brutal dictator, and with an unindustrialized economy and undereducated population will suddenly transform into a pillar of freedom and democracy.  I bet you really eat that shit up on Fox news.

Happy holidays.

Hell if I am making a international call to a POSSIBLE  threat suspect I expect to be monitored. How many movies have talked about this in the last 20 years?
Can they do it? DUH
Would they? DUH
Should they? DUH
While freedom allows us to discuss we don't like the government, it doesn't give us the the freedom to plot the ending of such by violent means.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because it's not news. maybe to you. Looks like you might to need to change your on screen name. "Fight4yourrights". hinking.gif Yea OK hinking.gif Lets see the NYT is upset the US is intercepting INTERNATIONAL cell-phone and e-mail communications? something neither illegal or unconstitutional. This distorted revelation comes 10 days before the author releases his bew book and the day after Iraqi elections? ya think maybe the NYTs has an agenda. And the NYTs could care less that a town in Florida is confiscating 6000 homes under eminent domain so the town can scoop up prime water front property. I suggest we not be distracted by phantom threats to liberty and focus on real ones.

That was my understanding of the legal rights of the intelligence community also.  I am extremely worried about our apparent lack of rights to private property too. "he (prince or government) must abstain from taking the property of others , for men forget more easily the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony(inheritance)"  Machiavelli  "The Prince" It's one thing to loose your property for a road or school but entirely a different thing to loose it for commercial developement.


Alvin

Quoted: Quoted: The common denominator is that all these charges/changes in policy have the practical effect of protecting al-Qaeda, its secrets, and its killers from our government who we have trusted with our security.  Also, advocating for the rights of al-Qaeda killers and helping protect their operational security has been adopted as a deeply misguided method of proxy attack against George Bush.  Basically, national security and the security of potential victims is being sacrificed at the altar of gotcha politics.  It's absolutely repellent.  I wonder if the people calling for more rights and protection for terrorism will step up and accept responsibility or acknowledge maybe that wasn't a good idea when a nuke goes off in New York and we have to REALLY get serious about terrorism. And this is the price we will pay for living in a free state. Free people should endure any level of terror they have to in order to stay free. Or isn't that what you conservatives keep telling the people of Iraq? You want to be protected from terrorism? Then move to a police state, pick one. But not my United States! Bush should be impeached for this. Wiretaps on American citizens without warrants? No fucking way. You open the door to that even once and you'll never close it without a revolution. And since most Americans don't have the balls for another revolution...

Is it clear whether the bugs were on calls made within the US or from with out?


Alvin

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yet because Bush did it, and Iraqis got a purple thumb on the same day, then it's okay to violate it?   Those "purple thumbs" mean a hell of a lot. Try arguing the point on the merits without detracting from the historic event that happened yesterday. By dismissing those elections as a mere colored appendage, you scoff at the principles that founded this great nation. First, holding an election (even a legitimate one) does not a functional government make.   Second, the government cannot monitor calls unless neither end of the call is a US citizen.  There is no ambiguity there.  An international to international call is another matter, fully legal.  But if a US citizen is on one end, that half of the conversation cannot be monitored without a warrant.

Huh? I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, but huh?
how does a US computer know if a caller is a US citizen when the call is placed from one overseas location to another? It doesn't. The transmission is captured, analyzed for what the computer is programed to look for, and if it finds it, the transmission is sent on for further analyzation. This means that technically transmissions are not monitored (in general) until a target is identified. Once a target is identified, then decisions have to be made as to handle it: will criminal charges be issued at the end therefore a need for LE involvement, or is this an intelligence matter that will be handled in a multitude of ways?

One of the big differences in the US in comparison with other countries is that US intelligence agencies are not law enforcement meaning these agencied cannot arrest, apprehend or bring charges against someone or some people, and it's a  process to turn over evidence to a law enforcement agency.
But intelligence agencies can spy on US soil and on US citizens if the current operation had its origin in a foreign country or territory.

Echelon is currently done by the US, Canada and the United Kingdom. (I don't know if there are any other countries involved.) Did you know that if you're in CONUS and you call Alaska, that's an international call to the Canadians because it goes through Canada? Well did ya? The Canandians and the Brits can tell the NSA what they heard on these calls.

RICO is another interesting thing, but this is a law enforcement issue. Originally designed to get Italian-Americans mobsters and mafiosa until the Clinton Admin expanded it to political protest organizations.

In my opinion, the difference between RICO and what we're currently bitching about, is that (whatever this current directive is called) has been much more specific and targeted than RICO ever was. RICO just cast a big net, and people that were never a target in the orginal investigation would find themselves the target of some other criminal investigation that the Gov't would not have known about if they hadn't been wiretapping someone else. From all the news reports I've read or heard, this current project has been very specific and targeted. They've been looking for operational information as well as known individuals or the mention of their names as they have been doing for decades.

In my opinion, RICO after the Clinton Adminstration changes is a greater threat to our civil liberties than the currnet actions taken by the NSA under this current directive.

And I don't mean to give offense, but you put your opinion in the same sentence as you state a fact. That's a common trick done by propagandists which I hope you're not one.

Quoted: www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/politics/15cnd-program.html?ei=5065&en=80681ada74c04ce9&ex=1135314000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print Why is it so hard to obtain a warrant and do it the right way?

Because the type of warrant needed takes anywhere from 6-9 months to ramrod through the bureaucracy before it is issued

Were dealing with taps on E-mail accounts and or Phones #'s who's lifespans can be counted in days if not hours once the capture of the contacts source is known by the badguys.

These are very specific targeted taps, with a high level of oversight, not "fishing nets" cast out to the ether to find whatever might be out there,

It's a non story being pushed by a political hack at the NYT to sell his new book.

The people who leaked the information about the program should be taken out and hung for treason.

Quoted: Hey SPADE, is this part of the undergrad curriculum?  Or is this covered at the PhD level?  If you can show something that supercedes this, I'll be happy to eat humble pie.   From the FISA: § 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 Release date: 2005-03-17 (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

And you don't believ that the Atty. General has authorized this? Do you believe the correct Congressional commitees were not briefed?

What I find truly amazing is the fact that we haven't been attacked since the anthrax debacle. Somebody, considering the border situation in this country, must be doing something right.

ANALYSIS
By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:56 a.m. ET Dec. 18, 2005
Washington Post


In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s.

The president's emphatic defense yesterday of warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and residents marked the third time in as many months that the White House has been obliged to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. In each case, the Bush administration concealed the program's dimensions or existence from the public and from most members of Congress.

Since October, news accounts have disclosed a burgeoning Pentagon campaign for "detecting, identifying and engaging" internal enemies that included a database with information on peace protesters. A debate has roiled over the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans. And now come revelations of the National Security Agency's interception of telephone calls and e-mails from the United States -- without notice to the federal court that has held jurisdiction over domestic spying since 1978.

Waging an adamant defense
Defiant in the face of criticism, the Bush administration has portrayed each surveillance initiative as a defense of American freedom. Bush said yesterday that his NSA eavesdropping directives were "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." After years of portraying an offensive waged largely overseas, Bush justified the internal surveillance with new emphasis on "the home front" and the need to hunt down "terrorists here at home."

Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as "plenary" -- a term defined as "full," "complete," and "absolute."

A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

In describing the briefings, administration officials made clear that Cheney was announcing a decision, not asking permission from Congress. How much the legislators learned is in dispute.

Extent of policy shift disputed
Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."