You can dupe me all you want but I have a very specific question.

Will this wire tapping bring down President Bush and harm the Republican position in 06 and 08?

Sorry guys but this has me a little worried.....tin foil on to tight?

Bomber

ETA:

My bad....let me clarify.....I'm not worried about my individual rights (well I am), what I ment is will this bring down the POTUS making way for Hillary and will it take Republican Seats making way for a Dem majority?

Bomber

Why worried? Saying something you shouldnt be?

Not saying I dont wanan be listend in on,cause I do NOT, but im not saying anything to get me in trouble either...

Quoted: Why worried? Saying something you shouldnt be? Not saying I dont wanan be listend in on,cause I do NOT, but im not saying anything to get me in trouble either...

Why worried?  This is the last place I would expect people to be sympathetic to a breach of civil liberties.  I have not followed this closely enough to know specific details, but his question I believe has less to do with what he is saying and more to do with his constitutional rights.

I think we all need to be a little more critical of our current goverment, dems and repubs.  We seem to be sliding down a slippery slope.

My bad....let me clarify.....I'm not worried about my individual rights (well I am), what I ment is will this bring down the POTUS making way for Hillary and will it take Republican Seats making way for a Dem majority?

Bomber

Quoted: You can dupe me all you want but I have a very specific question. Will this wire tapping bring down President Bush and harm the Republican position in 06 and 08? Sorry guys but this has me a little worried.....tin foil on to tight? Bomber

No.

Look.  Every 6 weeks or so an over-hyped non-scandal comes along that makes the Bush administration out to look evil, stupid, corrupt, criminal or combination thereof.  The demagogues start shrieking about how they've never seen anything so atrocious in their lives.  The press fixates on the issue, brings it up every five minutes, White House correspondants ask the same questions over and over again.  The shitheads at DU start foaming at the mouth saying "This is it!  Bush is toast!  This has legs! The tide is turning! Impeachment!"  Everyone thinks that this is the Big Story That Is Going To Change Everything

And you know what comes of it?

NOTHING.  Upon close investigation a few weeks later, the issue turns out to be nothing, overhyped and exaggerated.  There was nothing improper or illegal.  But by then the jackals have a new non-scandal du jour and the cycle repeats itself.

Am I the only one who notices this?

Quoted: My bad....let me clarify.....I'm not worried about my individual rights (well I am), what I ment is will this bring down the POTUS making way for Hillary and will it take Republican Seats making way for a Dem majority? Bomber

personally, i don't think it will. i think ma & pa kettle out in bumfuck, wi are going to be thinking, "well, i don't have anything to hide and it's stopping terrorists so more power to 'em!"

from what little i've read on this, this program was an nsa program eavesdropping on external phone calls and calls coming into the us. calls monitored inside the us have to meet certain natl security protocols and undergo periodic review by the legal eagles in justice.

it's also highly suspect that congress and the media were advised about this a year ago by the administration and are only now bringing it out with bush at such low numbers and all...

This will NOT "bring down" President Bush...no matter how much the Democrats might wish it to be so.  

As usual, that which the Democrats cannot win at the ballot box they will try to steal through other means.Why don't we concentrate on the REAL problems facing our country...like our SURVIVAL!

Our enemy is every bit as dangerous and implacable as the Japanese were in WW II.  This "wire tapping" is in fact legal and just listening to the conversations of our enemies, some of whom who were living here and happened to be discussing terrorism and how to attack US.  I see no reason NOT to use every possible tool available to us to win this war including spying on our enemies that just may be conversing with American citizens...even IF it means I happen to be listening to Americans as well...without a search warrant.

This too shall pass...

Quoted: Quoted: You can dupe me all you want but I have a very specific question. Will this wire tapping bring down President Bush and harm the Republican position in 06 and 08? Sorry guys but this has me a little worried.....tin foil on to tight? Bomber No. Look.  Every 6 weeks or so an over-hyped non-scandal comes along that makes the Bush administration out to look evil, stupid, corrupt, criminal or combination thereof.  The demagogues start shrieking about how they've never seen anything so atrocious in their lives.  The press fixates on the issue, brings it up every five minutes, White House correspondants ask the same questions over and over again.  The shitheads at DU start foaming at the mouth saying "This is it!  Bush is toast!  This has legs! The tide is turning! Impeachment!"  Everyone thinks that this is the Big Story That Is Going To Change Everything And you know what comes of it? NOTHING.  Upon close investigation a few weeks later, the issue turns out to be nothing, overhyped and exaggerated.  There was nothing improper or illegal.  But by then the jackals have a new non-scandal du jour and the cycle repeats itself. Am I the only one who notices this?

BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNNNAAAAAAAA. That is exactly right. It's great when the truth comes out and makes the Dems look even more stupid. Key Congressman knew of this program and add that they are monitoring OVERSEAS calls by and to SUSPECTED TERRORISTS not Joe blow the ice cream truck driver. It's all the friggin NYT communistic horseshit trying to get Americans killed. The investigation needs to be "Who leaked this to the press?"

I know the question cannot be honestly answered without being in the situation, but....would all of you feel the same way if Hillary were the one making this call?

I'm sure DU would be making the same argument many here are, and vice versa.

Raven pretty much nailed it.   I will add that I believe the life span is a bit shorter.  Something closer to 14 days.

What I find laughable is suddenly when Republicans do something that people think goes against the Constitution democrats jump all over it as if they are the sole protectors of individual rights.  I heard Russ Fiengold on the radio saying that this clear violates the right of privacy affording by the Constitution however he had no problem of violating the 1st Amendment with his stupid campaign finance reform law.

I can go on to infringements to the 2nd, 5th, 8th, 9th and 10th.  Bottomline I do see this as a problem for republicans.  Most people don't feel affected by campaign finance reform, oppressive gun laws ect. but they do feel violated if they think that what they say on the phone/email is being monitored by the .gov

Rush Limbaugh was talking about this subject at great length yesterday.  He was quoting President Lincoln who said that the Constitution wasn't a suicide pact.  Rush's point was what good are liberties when you are dead from a nuclear bomb.  While this is true, then the arguement for banning guns holds water.

We can probably not worry about terrorist if we become a police state, but I don't want that.  I can understand why the President did it, but I don't have to feel good about it either.  This is a tough issue for me as I don't want officals hamstrung and unable to do what they can to gather information on terrorists but at the same time we have laws for a reason.  Once the line is crossed you can never go back.  Got a little off subject but those are my thoughts anyway.

I'm a little conflicted myself on this one. I think we should be able to apply pressure to terrorists to get them to talk but at the same time, I don't want the heavy handedness to apply to the police. I think monitoring suspected terrorists conversations is OK. Although it's easy for me to use the "I have nothing to hide" defense, I do see the bigger issue of a slippery slope.

Tough call and if it was Hillary, it would be illegal .

You guys have made me feel a little better about this. Just when I thought President Bush was starting to bounce back, we get this revelation. I see now that it's part of a larger plan to dis-credit him. My biggest disappointment with President Bush is his lack of aggressiveness on these issues. The best defense is a good offense.

Bomber

Abraham Lincoln, in a time of war, suspended habeous corpes, interfered with the Maryland State Assembly, and threw citizens out of the country.

FDR, in a time of wat,  forcibly removed Japansese Americans from their homes on the West Coast and interned them

GWB, in a time of war, had the NSA listen in on international phone calls to suspected terrorists.

Considering that Lincoln and FDR are beloved to this day, I doubt that in the grand scope of things history will judge GWB too harshly for this incident

no, its leagle under the war power act, and all this "pretend" outrage is from a bunch of duche bags that new about it a year ago..

A look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should persuade anyone that what President Bush and the NSA did was specifically authorized by a law that was used extensively by the Clinton Administration, previously, and without a murmur from Congressional DEMOS or the New York Times, against 'economic' spying by other nations.

Section 1802, of the FISA is entitled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order."

"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."

There are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers."

Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power?

Yes, as defined in Section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."

But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum."

So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.

The above was taken, in part, by an article on National Review Online, by James S. Robbins.

Eric The(CutAndPaste)Hun

Quoted: A look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) should persuade anyone that what President Bush and the NSA did was specifically authorized by a law that was used extensively by the Clinton Administration, previously, and without a murmur from Congressional DEMOS or the New York Times, against 'economic' spying by other nations. Section 1802, of the FISA is entitled "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." "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." There are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in Section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations." But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible. The above was taken, in part, by an article on National Review Online, by James S. Robbins. Eric The(CutAndPaste)Hun

Thanks for that bit of info.

I dunno, I don't think we have enough info yet to really MAKE the call whether or not it's a good or bad move re:Bush.

However if it were a DEMOCRAT President doing the SAME THING, this topic would be 20+ pages long by now and ya'll'd be screaming your virtual heads off!

I TEND to be a tad more pessimistic about the outcome when BOTH Democrats AND Republicans see a problem...

I frequently forget, is Specter a Good Guy or a bad guy? (re: Conservative vs. Liberal and firearms rights). He (and a good number of other Republicans) seems pretty twitchy about this, which tends to make ME a bit nervous about if this really IS a good thing or not.

Plus Bush, yesterday said on the subject that they HAD to get the Patriot Act approved... which I do NOT like (a couple sections are OKAY... not GREAT, but okay) but what struck ME is that he kept sayibg that they were critisized for "not connecting the dots".... the PROBLEM IS, we didn't HAVE the Patriot Act THEN, but we DID have the INTELLIGENCE (whiich seems to be largely what they are complaining about NOT being able to get w/o the Patriot Act) we just didn't USE the intelligence we HAD to figure out what they might be planning, and take appropriate action. That's COMPETANCE, NOT "intelligence gathering capabilities" .....

So that too makes me suspicious. BUT, sounds like if one is NOT making calls OUT OF THE COUNTRY, one isn't (yet)  "at risk" for being listened in on.... so as I don't PLACE international calls.... (as I know no one outside of the country who I'd CALL instead of e-mail .... not really all THAT concerned, personally... I DO tend to think it's a slippery slope type sitch though... hope I'm wrong.

Quoted:

Thanks for that bit of info.

It's useful when you need to do a smackdown on some liberal asshat, such as Sen. Carl Levin, or Sen. Harry Reid, when they complain that 'there was NO LAW that permitted President Bush to do this.'

There IS such a LAW, and they voted for it, and didn't say a word when THEIR President Clinton used it to spy on US citizens that administration thought were engaging in economic espionage!

Eric The(BreakingEggsIsRequiredForMakingOmelettes)Hun

Basically, Carter's order says that the AG can surveil foreign communications without a warrant as long as the Congress is kept informed.  Which Bush did.  So where is the fire?


EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

   
    By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and
  104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
  1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
  chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
  foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
  Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
  is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
  intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
  Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

    1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act
  of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to
  approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section
  103 of that Act (50 U.S.C. 1803) to obtain orders for electronic
  surveillance for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence
  information.

    1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
  Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
  officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national
  security or defense, is designated to make the certifications
  required by Section 104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications
  to conduct electronic surveillance:

      (a) Secretary of State.

      (b) Secretary of Defense.

      (c) Director of Central Intelligence.

      (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

      (e) Deputy Secretary of State.

      (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.

      (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

  None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
  capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
  certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
  President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

    1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
  section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
  the end of that section: ''Any electronic surveillance, as defined
  in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be
  conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.

    1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 (set out under
  section 401 of this title) is amended by inserting the following at
  the end of that section: ''Any monitoring which constitutes
  electronic surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence
  Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that
  Act as well as this Order.''.                          

                                                             Jimmy Carter.

very worried about this, hillary rodham will definitely abuse this when she is president and is conducting the "war on guns".

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for that bit of info. It's useful when you need to do a smackdown on some liberal asshat, such as Sen. Carl Levin, or Sen. Harry Reid, when they complain that 'there was NO LAW that permitted President Bush to do this.' There IS such a LAW, and they voted for it, and didn't say a word when THEIR President Clinton used it to spy on US citizens that administration thought were engaging in economic espionage! Eric The(BreakingEggsIsRequiredForMakingOmelettes)Hun

So why question is, why doesn't President Bush make this abundantly clear in a very consise statement that points out the Democratic lies. After all, the Dems consistently accuse President Bush of lying I(Bush lied, people died). Aren't Reids statements overt lies intended to deceive the American public?

Bomber

Quoted: Quoted: You can dupe me all you want but I have a very specific question. Will this wire tapping bring down President Bush and harm the Republican position in 06 and 08? Sorry guys but this has me a little worried.....tin foil on to tight? Bomber No. Look.  Every 6 weeks or so an over-hyped non-scandal comes along that makes the Bush administration out to look evil, stupid, corrupt, criminal or combination thereof.  The demagogues start shrieking about how they've never seen anything so atrocious in their lives.  The press fixates on the issue, brings it up every five minutes, White House correspondants ask the same questions over and over again.  The shitheads at DU start foaming at the mouth saying "This is it!  Bush is toast!  This has legs! The tide is turning! Impeachment!"  Everyone thinks that this is the Big Story That Is Going To Change Everything And you know what comes of it? NOTHING.  Upon close investigation a few weeks later, the issue turns out to be nothing, overhyped and exaggerated.  There was nothing improper or illegal.  But by then the jackals have a new non-scandal du jour and the cycle repeats itself. Am I the only one who notices this?

No.  Excellent analysis.  

Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for that bit of info. It's useful when you need to do a smackdown on some liberal asshat, such as Sen. Carl Levin, or Sen. Harry Reid, when they complain that 'there was NO LAW that permitted President Bush to do this.' There IS such a LAW, and they voted for it, and didn't say a word when THEIR President Clinton used it to spy on US citizens that administration thought were engaging in economic espionage! Eric The(BreakingEggsIsRequiredForMakingOmelettes)Hun

So Eric...why aren't the sane Republicans in Washington referring to this?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Thanks for that bit of info. It's useful when you need to do a smackdown on some liberal asshat, such as Sen. Carl Levin, or Sen. Harry Reid, when they complain that 'there was NO LAW that permitted President Bush to do this.' There IS such a LAW, and they voted for it, and didn't say a word when THEIR President Clinton used it to spy on US citizens that administration thought were engaging in economic espionage! Eric The(BreakingEggsIsRequiredForMakingOmelettes)Hun So why question is, why doesn't President Bush make this abundantly clear in a very consise statement that points out the Democratic lies. After all, the Dems consistently accuse President Bush of lying I(Bush lied, people died). Aren't Reids statements overt lies intended to deceive the American public? Bomber

He does. watch the WHOLE press conference. listen to his speech (the whole thing not just the NBC excerpt)
Harry Reid never answers the question --he sidesteps it and goes on to amke further accuations --listen to his resopnse to Chris Mathewes question the othet night as to wether or not he was briefed on the program. He never answers the question. Not really a lie --he can still go either way.




BTW just one of many that authorize commint and communications monitoring --ther are others that address issues that this one does not or that this one prohibits :


From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 16, 1996]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
 January 16, 1996 and August 28, 1996]
[CITE: 50USC1802]


                  TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

             CHAPTER 36--FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

                 SUBCHAPTER I--ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Sec. 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
       
   (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.

(Pub. L. 95-511, title I, Sec. 102, Oct. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 1786.)

Ex. Ord. No. 12139. Exercise of Certain Authority Respecting Electronic
                             Surveillance

   Ex. Ord. No. 12139, May 23, 1979, 44 F.R. 30311, provided:
   By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and 104
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802 and
1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act [this chapter] for
the authorization of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:
   1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is
authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that Section.
   1-102. Pursuant to Section 102(b) of the Foreign Intelligence Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(b)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve
applications to the court having jurisdiction under Section 103 of that
Act [50 U.S.C. 1803] to obtain orders for electronic surveillance for
the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information.
   1-103. Pursuant to Section 104(a)(7) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1804(a)(7)), the following
officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or
defense, is designated to make the certifications required by Section
104(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct electronic
surveillance:
       (a) Secretary of State.
       (b) Secretary of Defense.
       (c) Director of Central Intelligence.
       (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       (e) Deputy Secretary of State.
       (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense.
       (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.
None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that
capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications,
unless that official has been appointed by the President with the advice
and consent of the Senate.
   1-104. Section 2-202 of Executive Order No. 12036 [set out under
section 401 of this title] is amended by inserting the following at the
end of that section: ``Any electronic surveillance, as defined in the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in
accordance with that Act as well as this Order.''.
   1-105. Section 2-203 of Executive Order No. 12036 [set out under
section 401 of this title] is amended by inserting the following at the
end of that section: ``Any monitoring which constitutes electronic
surveillance as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 shall be conducted in accordance with that Act as well as this
Order.''.
                                                          Jimmy Carter.

                 Section Referred to in Other Sections

   This section is referred to in sections 1801, 1805 of this title.

Puzzle Palace

By James Bamford

Read it ...

Ted...

INTERNATIONAL is the Key Word ...