Bush on TV right now defending NSA

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush on TV right now defending NSA (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 1/26/2006 6:17:03 AM EDT

Let's see what he says.

Posted: 1/26/2006 6:23:27 AM EDT

[#1]

"We are not eavestapping on domestical conservations. However, innerceptions of innernational communercations are the targets when those targets are targetted to known Al Qaeda opertives and terrists."

Posted: 1/26/2006 6:55:40 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

Posted: 1/26/2006 7:14:26 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Hans calls his local contact Joe, a native-born American citizen and member of the Metropolitan Atlanta German-American Bund to get directions to the tower. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls the Bund president, Franz, a native-born American citizen, to confirm that Hans is really a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Franz calls the officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin to verify that Hans is really a German agent. The officer is at lunch, so he leaves a message. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

The officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin returns Franz's call to let him know that Hans is in fact a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls his unsuspecting neighbor Bob to ask him to give his "cousin" Hans a ride to the radio station. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

We are at war. Only the most appaling sort of fool or fifth columnist could question the authority of the executive to intercept known or suspected enemy communications in the course of prosecuting the war. I could accept without serious reservation the proposition that if those intercepts picked up a communication about a completely unrelated drug deal or garden-variety murder, they should be inadmissible in a civil prosecution. I also accept without reservation the proposition that a person who thinks judicial approval would have been required in 1944 to tap a phone call from a house near the Brooklyn Navy Yard to a suspected Japanese spy operating in San Francisco is an unmitigated ass.

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:36:14 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Hans calls his local contact Joe, a native-born American citizen and member of the Metropolitan Atlanta German-American Bund to get directions to the tower. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls the Bund president, Franz, a native-born American citizen, to confirm that Hans is really a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Franz calls the officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin to verify that Hans is really a German agent. The officer is at lunch, so he leaves a message. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

The officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin returns Franz's call to let him know that Hans is in fact a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls his unsuspecting neighbor Bob to ask him to give his "cousin" Hans a ride to the radio station. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

We are at war. Only the most appaling sort of fool or fifth columnist could question the authority of the executive to intercept known or suspected enemy communications in the course of prosecuting the war. I could accept without serious reservation the proposition that if those intercepts picked up a communication about a completely unrelated drug deal or garden-variety murder, they should be inadmissible in a civil prosecution. I also accept without reservation the proposition that a person who thinks judicial approval would have been required in 1944 to tap a phone call from a house near the Brooklyn Navy Yard to a suspected Japanese spy operating in San Francisco is an unmitigated ass.

OK it's february 2009, President rodham-clinton has good information that AQ is planning on buying guns from a gunshow via the gunshow loophole and will be shooting up a mall. since the gunshow loophole only applies to private citizens she institutes wiretaps on all citizens known to posses guns, since one of them will be the person to sell to the AQ members. she gets the list of gun owners by seizing all the 4473s from local FFLs under authority of the patriot act.
we are at war with an idea, and stand about as much chance of ever declaring this war over as we do the war on (some) drugs and the war on poverty.

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:42:55 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

Terrorists' civil rights must be protected at all costs. And when they commit terrorists acts that kill thousands of americans after 9/11, we'll turn around and blame Bush for not doing enough to stop them.

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:45:00 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Hans calls his local contact Joe, a native-born American citizen and member of the Metropolitan Atlanta German-American Bund to get directions to the tower. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls the Bund president, Franz, a native-born American citizen, to confirm that Hans is really a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Franz calls the officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin to verify that Hans is really a German agent. The officer is at lunch, so he leaves a message. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

The officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin returns Franz's call to let him know that Hans is in fact a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls his unsuspecting neighbor Bob to ask him to give his "cousin" Hans a ride to the radio station. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

We are at war. Only the most appaling sort of fool or fifth columnist could question the authority of the executive to intercept known or suspected enemy communications in the course of prosecuting the war. I could accept without serious reservation the proposition that if those intercepts picked up a communication about a completely unrelated drug deal or garden-variety murder, they should be inadmissible in a civil prosecution. I also accept without reservation the proposition that a person who thinks judicial approval would have been required in 1944 to tap a phone call from a house near the Brooklyn Navy Yard to a suspected Japanese spy operating in San Francisco is an unmitigated ass.

OK it's february 2009, President rodham-clinton has good information that AQ is planning on buying guns from a gunshow via the gunshow loophole and will be shooting up a mall. since the gunshow loophole only applies to private citizens she institutes wiretaps on all citizens known to posses guns, since one of them will be the person to sell to the AQ members. she gets the list of gun owners by seizing all the 4473s from local FFLs under authority of the patriot act.
we are at war with an idea, and stand about as much chance of ever declaring this war over as we do the war on (some) drugs and the war on poverty.

So actual real terrorists should be allowed to have free run, because you're afraid of phantom conjectures about how a Democrat president might act against your gun fetish in the future?

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:47:52 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face...it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:50:15 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call.

Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:56:03 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Hans calls his local contact Joe, a native-born American citizen and member of the Metropolitan Atlanta German-American Bund to get directions to the tower. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls the Bund president, Franz, a native-born American citizen, to confirm that Hans is really a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Franz calls the officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin to verify that Hans is really a German agent. The officer is at lunch, so he leaves a message. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

The officer in charge of the Sabotage Desk at the Abwehr in Berlin returns Franz's call to let him know that Hans is in fact a German agent. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

Joe calls his unsuspecting neighbor Bob to ask him to give his "cousin" Hans a ride to the radio station. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call?

We are at war. Only the most appaling sort of fool or fifth columnist could question the authority of the executive to intercept known or suspected enemy communications in the course of prosecuting the war. I could accept without serious reservation the proposition that if those intercepts picked up a communication about a completely unrelated drug deal or garden-variety murder, they should be inadmissible in a civil prosecution. I also accept without reservation the proposition that a person who thinks judicial approval would have been required in 1944 to tap a phone call from a house near the Brooklyn Navy Yard to a suspected Japanese spy operating in San Francisco is an unmitigated ass.

OK it's february 2009, President rodham-clinton has good information that AQ is planning on buying guns from a gunshow via the gunshow loophole and will be shooting up a mall. since the gunshow loophole only applies to private citizens she institutes wiretaps on all citizens known to posses guns, since one of them will be the person to sell to the AQ members. she gets the list of gun owners by seizing all the 4473s from local FFLs under authority of the patriot act.
we are at war with an idea, and stand about as much chance of ever declaring this war over as we do the war on (some) drugs and the war on poverty.

So actual real terrorists should be allowed to have free run, because you're afraid of phantom conjectures about how a Democrat president might act against your gun fetish in the future?

As over the top as his example CLEARLY is, I do have concerns about maintaining war-time powers for the President in a war with no identifiable end nor achievable objective. Unlike the other 'bad things' wars this one is real and the President does have powers he would not otherwise have at hand. Some limit needs to be placed to determine when *this* war is done. It can't be when there are no no terrorists either.

On the other-hand FLAL1A's post is tack on in my opinion. Perfect.

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:58:35 AM EDT

[#10]

what was done was legal, if you guys are going to blame anyone, blame those who created the law.

Posted: 1/26/2006 10:58:41 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"

OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call.

Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.

Yes, almost like a Hollywood script... just foil the plan and call the court, no red-tape, or statutory problems at all.....

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:07:37 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
OK it's february 2009, President rodham-clinton has good information that AQ is planning on buying guns from a gunshow via the gunshow loophole and will be shooting up a mall. since the gunshow loophole only applies to private citizens she institutes wiretaps on all citizens known to posses guns, since one of them will be the person to sell to the AQ members. she gets the list of gun owners by seizing all the 4473s from local FFLs under authority of the patriot act.
we are at war with an idea, and stand about as much chance of ever declaring this war over as we do the war on (some) drugs and the war on poverty.

The problem with your little scenario is that we already know how Hitlery will act, with or without the law to back her up. Remember the FBI files? All stolen from the FBI by Hitlery. How about those people BBQed in Waco by Hitlery's pick to be AG? Again, no consquences at all to the Clintons for their acts. They don't care what the checks and balances are, what the law is, or what's right, they just care about seizing the power and using it for self-aggrandizement. Just where were you from 1993-2001?

This is why I like Pres. Bush and why I voted for him. I trust him. He isn't in it for the power trip or to push a socialist agenda. I trust him with extra-ordinaty power.

GunLvr

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:09:32 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Yes, almost like a Hollywood script... just foil the plan and call the court, no red-tape, or statutory problems at all.....

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

Who wrote this? Not that I doubt you, but, as a victim of this "misconception," I want to be sure of the facts before I mea culpa.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:16:46 AM EDT

[#14]

The main points in my view are these. First, no one has even suggested that any improper use has been made of the executive claim of war-related intelligence gathering authority. Nobody has alleged that Muslims are being wiretapped at random, or that Nancy Pelosi's cell phone is bugged. Second, it is simply irrational to conclude that while the president has plenary authority to intercept enemy communications worldwide, his activities must be crammed into a law-enforcement model, under judicial supervision when the enemy's communications and activites cross the border onto American territory and/or involve American citizens engaged in acts of war against their own country. It's like saying that if bin Laden and his top operatives were holed up in Aspen, the president would need arrest and search warrants to lay hands on them and a death warrant to kill them. Horseshit! He would have full authority to send a SEAL team in to blow them to hell, right there in the back booth at Ted Turner's restaurant. He is not enforcing the law. He is making war.

The mere existence of the technology needed to intercept communications raises the specter of governmental abuse. Bear in mind that much legal thought prior to the Katz decision held that wiretaps didn't implicate the 4th Am at all, because there was no entry into protected premises. If it turns out that there is credible evidence that the executive's warmaking power is being abused to create a domestic security state, the Congress has full authority to put a stop to it. Just as the Congress could mandate that the Army be armed with muzzleloaders or pointy sticks and all its other weapons destroyed, it could forbid the surveillance of communications with any nexus to US territory. The facts (as distinguished from alarmist fantasies) are that the government is tracking and intercepting the communications of enemy operatives and associates. That's what I'm paying them to do.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:17:59 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, almost like a Hollywood script... just foil the plan and call the court, no red-tape, or statutory problems at all.....

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

Who wrote this? Not that I doubt you, but, as a victim of this "misconception," I want to be sure of the facts before I mea culpa.

The AG of the United States. So either he is lying about the process or it is not as simple as the press would have you believe.

www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_0601241.html

Let's be clear... I'm not a great fan of his, but on this I agree with him nearly in whole. I may not like all the cases and the implications of the court precidents but they have a case for this beyond a simple desire to spit on the constitution.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:22:49 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
OK it's february 2009, President rodham-clinton has good information that AQ is planning on buying guns from a gunshow via the gunshow loophole and will be shooting up a mall. since the gunshow loophole only applies to private citizens she institutes wiretaps on all citizens known to posses guns, since one of them will be the person to sell to the AQ members. she gets the list of gun owners by seizing all the 4473s from local FFLs under authority of the patriot act.
we are at war with an idea, and stand about as much chance of ever declaring this war over as we do the war on (some) drugs and the war on poverty.

The problem with your little scenario is that we already know how Hitlery will act, with or without the law to back her up. Remember the FBI files? All stolen from the FBI by Hitlery. How about those people BBQed in Waco by Hitlery's pick to be AG? Again, no consquences at all to the Clintons for their acts. They don't care what the checks and balances are, what the law is, or what's right, they just care about seizing the power and using it for self-aggrandizement. Just where were you from 1993-2001?

This is why I like Pres. Bush and why I voted for him. I trust him. He isn't in it for the power trip or to push a socialist agenda. I trust him with extra-ordinaty power.

GunLvr

I voted for him and I don't trust him, or any other politician. tell me when was the last time that that we were voluntarily given back any rights that were taken from us ?

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:24:05 AM EDT

[#17]

My ENTIRE problem with this whole issue is that EVERY time I have heard administration officials defend this, they say stuff like "known Al Qeada" or "known terrorists" are at one end of the conversation. If that is the case, there would be NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER to get a FISA warrant. It would literally be a rubber stamp, and FISA allows you to get those warrants after the fact, in case the situation is urgent.

I completely accept the administrations arguemnt for WHY this kind of surveillance is necessary. Of course it is. But, by their own logic, they have NOT explained why it was necessary for them to avoid getting FISA warrents. Every single example and illustration they use to explain what this surveillance supposedly covers are cases that would be no-brainer slam-dunks for FISA warrants. The secret FISA court is known for pretty much granting a warrant for almost any request - and "known terrorists" woudl certainly get a warrant without delay.

I am also somewhat troubled by the claim that executive power somehow "trumps" the FISA law, since the Attorney General told congress (when the FISA act was created) that FISA covers every case of surveillance involving U.S. citizens, and that executive power could not supercede FISA.

I guess the second point is one of debate - and depend on precisely what "war powers" might mean. (But weren't we at war during the Nixon administration - both Vietnam and Cold? - which prompted the FISA act).

But my main problem is the logical inconsistency - that the justifications given by the administration for WHY they ignored the FISA law, are all cases where following the FISA law would not have been any hindrance or inconvenience. That just seems to make no sense.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:28:10 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

So the explanation is that it is just too much work to comply with the law. Yeah, same with me and paying taxes. Do you suppose that explanation will work for me?

And how many applications for warrants did they say the court had turned down -- 4 out of 13,000 or so? Yeah, this is definitely too much trouble to ask the AG to obey the law.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:33:58 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
My ENTIRE problem with this whole issue is that EVERY time I have heard administration officials defend this, they say stuff like "known Al Qeada" or "known terrorists" are at one end of the conversation. If that is the case, there would be NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER to get a FISA warrant. It would literally be a rubber stamp, and FISA allows you to get those warrants after the fact, in case the situation is urgent.

I completely accept the administrations arguemnt for WHY this kind of surveillance is necessary. Of course it is. But, by their own logic, they have NOT explained why it was necessary for them to avoid getting FISA warrents. Every single example and illustration they use to explain what this surveillance supposedly covers are cases that would be no-brainer slam-dunks for FISA warrants. The secret FISA court is known for pretty much granting a warrant for almost any request - and "known terrorists" woudl certainly get a warrant without delay.

I am also somewhat troubled by the claim that executive power somehow "trumps" the FISA law, since the Attorney General told congress (when the FISA act was created) that FISA covers every case of surveillance involving U.S. citizens, and that executive power could not supercede FISA.

I guess the second point is one of debate - and depend on precisely what "war powers" might mean. (But weren't we at war during the Nixon administration - both Vietnam and Cold? - which prompted the FISA act).

But my main problem is the logical inconsistency - that the justifications given by the administration for WHY they ignored the FISA law, are all cases where following the FISA law would not have been any hindrance or inconvenience. That just seems to make no sense.

He is saying that every new instance of tapping would require approvals all the way up the lawyer chain from the NSA to him. He can't just tap and then tell, he has to prepare a legal brief on each instance and sign off on the emergency use himself only after being certain that the FISA court requirements would be satisfied. That does not fit the model of getting intel on moving, rapidly changing targets and groups. He wants that to remain a job for the agents involved in gathering the intel so they can act quickly without going into paperwork melt-down to keep up.

I think they are overstating the certainty of thier program in it's defense myself. I'm sure a few people have been marked and listened in on that are not terrorists, but do we think the NSA is busy getting jollies listening to Molly Brown call her husband to ask what kind of lettuce he wants? They aren't interested and would be working to weed that out.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:36:30 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

So the explanation is that it is just too much work to comply with the law. Yeah, same with me and paying taxes. Do you suppose that explanation will work for me?

And how many applications for warrants did they say the court had turned down -- 4 out of 13,000 or so? Yeah, this is definitely too much trouble to ask the AG to obey the law.

Did you read it? All of it not just the quote but the link? Either the President has the authority to gather intel on foreign enemies while at war (authorized by Congress) or he doesn't. If you are arguing he doesn't I can not disagree more strongly.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:38:21 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

So the explanation is that it is just too much work to comply with the law. Yeah, same with me and paying taxes. Do you suppose that explanation will work for me?

And how many applications for warrants did they say the court had turned down -- 4 out of 13,000 or so? Yeah, this is definitely too much trouble to ask the AG to obey the law.

Did you read it? All of it not just the quote but the link? Either the President has the authority to gather intel on foreign enemies while at war (authorized by Congress) or he doesn't. If you are arguing he doesn't I can not disagree more strongly.

He does, as long as he complies with the law. He doesn't if he is just picking and choosing who he wants to wiretap without any oversight. Either the excuse is that it is entirely legal, or that it is too much paperwork? Which one do you want to stick with? But he requires paperwork, either way.

ETA: Don't tell me such spying is limited to good suspects, either. Been there, done that, and seen that it ain't true.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:41:44 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Some have pointed to the provision in FISA that allows for so-called “emergency authorizations” of surveillance for 72 hours without a court order. There’s a serious misconception about these emergency authorizations. People should know that we do not approve emergency authorizations without knowing that we will receive court approval within 72 hours. FISA requires the Attorney General to determine IN ADVANCE that a FISA application for that particular intercept will be fully supported and will be approved by the court before an emergency authorization may be granted. That review process can take precious time.

Thus, to initiate surveillance under a FISA emergency authorization, it is not enough to rely on the best judgment of our intelligence officers alone. Those intelligence officers would have to get the sign-off of lawyers at the NSA that all provisions of FISA have been satisfied, then lawyers in the Department of Justice would have to be similarly satisfied, and finally as Attorney General, I would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. And we would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within the 72 hours.

A typical FISA application involves a substantial process in its own right: The work of several lawyers; the preparation of a legal brief and supporting declarations; the approval of a Cabinet-level officer; a certification from the National Security Adviser, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate-confirmed officer; and, finally, of course, the approval of an Article III judge.

So the explanation is that it is just too much work to comply with the law. Yeah, same with me and paying taxes. Do you suppose that explanation will work for me?

And how many applications for warrants did they say the court had turned down -- 4 out of 13,000 or so? Yeah, this is definitely too much trouble to ask the AG to obey the law.

Did you read it? All of it not just the quote but the link? Either the President has the authority to gather intel on foreign enemies while at war (authorized by Congress) or he doesn't. If you are arguing he doesn't I can not disagree more strongly.

He does, as long as he complies with the law. He doesn't if he is just picking and choosing who he wants to wiretap without any oversight. Either the excuse is that it is entirely legal, or that it is too much paperwork? Which one do you want to stick with? But he requires paperwork, either way.

Read the damn link or don't comment. He has the statutory authority to use his 'war powers' to their full extent based on the satute congress passed authorizing him to go to war. The qoute was to address the comment that he should just use the FISA process anyway because he "could" and it's easy so "why not".

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:42:21 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

ETA: Don't tell me such spying is limited to good suspects, either. Been there, done that, and seen that it ain't true.

You work for the NSA?

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:43:07 AM EDT

[#24]

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:44:54 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:

ETA: Don't tell me such spying is limited to good suspects, either. Been there, done that, and seen that it ain't true.

You work for the NSA?

I did.

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:46:15 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
My ENTIRE problem with this whole issue is that EVERY time I have heard administration officials defend this, they say stuff like "known Al Qeada" or "known terrorists" are at one end of the conversation. If that is the case, there would be NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER to get a FISA warrant. It would literally be a rubber stamp, and FISA allows you to get those warrants after the fact, in case the situation is urgent.

I completely accept the administrations arguemnt for WHY this kind of surveillance is necessary. Of course it is. But, by their own logic, they have NOT explained why it was necessary for them to avoid getting FISA warrents. Every single example and illustration they use to explain what this surveillance supposedly covers are cases that would be no-brainer slam-dunks for FISA warrants. The secret FISA court is known for pretty much granting a warrant for almost any request - and "known terrorists" woudl certainly get a warrant without delay.

I am also somewhat troubled by the claim that executive power somehow "trumps" the FISA law, since the Attorney General told congress (when the FISA act was created) that FISA covers every case of surveillance involving U.S. citizens, and that executive power could not supercede FISA.

I guess the second point is one of debate - and depend on precisely what "war powers" might mean. (But weren't we at war during the Nixon administration - both Vietnam and Cold? - which prompted the FISA act).

But my main problem is the logical inconsistency - that the justifications given by the administration for WHY they ignored the FISA law, are all cases where following the FISA law would not have been any hindrance or inconvenience. That just seems to make no sense.

He is saying that every new instance of tapping would require approvals all the way up the lawyer chain from the NSA to him. He can't just tap and then tell, he has to prepare a legal brief on each instance and sign off on the emergency use himself only after being certain that the FISA court requirements would be satisfied. That does not fit the model of getting intel on moving, rapidly changing targets and groups. He wants that to remain a job for the agents involved in gathering the intel so they can act quickly without going into paperwork melt-down to keep up.

I think they are overstating the certainty of thier program in it's defense myself. I'm sure a few people have been marked and listened in on that are not terrorists, but do we think the NSA is busy getting jollies listening to Molly Brown call her husband to ask what kind of lettuce he wants? They aren't interested and would be working to weed that out.

I understand that, but it does smack a LITTLE of what wolfman is saying - that their defense for not following the law is that it would be too logistically difficult to do so? More accurately, I guess the argument is that they didn't follow the FISA law because it was too cumbersome and no longer fit the sitatuon they were forced to conffront. I can understand that, but ...

It's been over 4 years since 9/11 - I can understand that kind of defense as a stop-gap measure for a while, maybe even a year - but how hard woudl it have been to either
(a) get congress to update the FISA law, because we are now clearly in a differetn ballgame, and everyone can agree that we need this kind of surveillance
or
(b) hire a fucking army of lawyers, set up several additional FISA courts, and streamline the logistical process so that these issues are no longer a problem.

Again - I agree that this kind of surveillance is absolutely necessary - but then my question truly becomes one of WHY they didn't work to change the law to make it fit with the new reality on the ground? ...if the law isn't suitable to deal with the current situation (which seems to be the arguemnt), I would like to think that the LONG-TERM solution is to change the law to fit the situation, not to circumvent the law. I don't really have a problem with circumventing it in the short term, following 9/11.

Again, I'm certainly not a lawyer, and I'm not all freaked out by this - I'm just slightly confused at the arguments I'm hearing, because they don't quite make sense to me (which of course may just be precisely because I'm not a lawyer

)

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:47:52 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Did you read it? All of it not just the quote but the link? Either the President has the authority to gather intel on foreign enemies while at war (authorized by Congress) or he doesn't. If you are arguing he doesn't I can not disagree more strongly.

I did read it. Any lawyer who thinks that phrase authorizes wiretaps without warrants is living in Fantasyland. But, according to the AG's reading, that would mean no more legal limits on the President at all anymore, right?

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:49:11 AM EDT

[#28]

Put on your

, wade in, and read it. FISA is clearly not intended to comprehend ongoing wartime intelligence gathering. Abu Sixpack in Islamabad hangs up the phone from a chat with OBL and immediately dials up Jack Bateh in Detroit. Bateh immediately makes 6 other calls to motels near the Hanford nuclear installation. Do you want those calls listened to? I do, and FISA is not in any way designed to keep up with that.

For Pete's sake, think about what you're saying when you grouse about these intercepts. You're saying that you want legal briefs, certifications, and court orders for interception of communications if there are three Chinese armored divisions operating in Nebraska and communicating via Nextel!

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:52:29 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Put on your , wade in, and read it. FISA is clearly not intended to comprehend ongoing wartime intelligence gathering. Abu Sixpack in Islamabad hangs up the phone from a chat with OBL and immediately dials up Jack Bateh in Detroit. Bateh immediately makes 6 other calls to motels near the Hanford nuclear installation. Do you want those calls listened to? I do, and FISA is not in any way designed to keep up with that.

For Pete's sake, thing about what you're saying when you grouse about these intercepts. You're saying that you want legal briefs, certifications, and court orders for interception of communications if there are three Chinese armored divisions operating in Nebraska and communicating via Nextel!

This is in NO WAY intended to be sarcastic and ironic - but since you clearly understand this stuff better than me, I will take your word for it.

Let me ask you this - do you believe that a NEW law, or a change to FISA is necessary - to specific the conditions under which US citizens can be surveilled during war time, or does your understanding tell you that the president automatically has those powers? ... and would that assumption extend to completely domestic wiretapping as well, for the duration of any war?

(I'm not arguing, just curious to learn)

Posted: 1/26/2006 11:56:18 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Did you read it? All of it not just the quote but the link? Either the President has the authority to gather intel on foreign enemies while at war (authorized by Congress) or he doesn't. If you are arguing he doesn't I can not disagree more strongly.

I did read it. Any lawyer who thinks that phrase authorizes wiretaps without warrants is living in Fantasyland. But, according to the AG's reading, that would mean no more legal limits on the President at all anymore, right?

Wrong. It would mean the office of the Executive, in accord with it's role as Commander and Chief has the tradional war power of intel gathering against the enemy. He would not be authorized to rape your wife, or beat your dog, or burn your fields as the no legal limits would suggest.

“In 2004, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the Force Resolution in the Hamdi case. There, the question was whether the President had the authority to detain an American citizen as an enemy combatant for the duration of the hostilities.

In that case, the Supreme Court confirmed that the expansive language of the Resolution —“all necessary and appropriate force”—ensures that the congressional authorization extends to traditional incidents of waging war. And, just like the detention of enemy combatants approved in Hamdi, the use of communications intelligence to prevent enemy attacks is a fundamental and well-accepted incident of military force.”

.......

Hamdi involved a statutory prohibition on all detention of U.S. citizens except as authorized “pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Even though the detention of a U.S. citizen involves a deprivation of liberty, and even though the Force Resolution says nothing on its face about detention of U.S. citizens, a majority of the members of the Court nevertheless concluded that the Resolution satisfied the statutory requirement. The same is true, I submit, for the prohibition on warrantless electronic surveillance in FISA.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:06:23 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Put on your , wade in, and read it. FISA is clearly not intended to comprehend ongoing wartime intelligence gathering. Abu Sixpack in Islamabad hangs up the phone from a chat with OBL and immediately dials up Jack Bateh in Detroit. Bateh immediately makes 6 other calls to motels near the Hanford nuclear installation. Do you want those calls listened to? I do, and FISA is not in any way designed to keep up with that.

For Pete's sake, thing about what you're saying when you grouse about these intercepts. You're saying that you want legal briefs, certifications, and court orders for interception of communications if there are three Chinese armored divisions operating in Nebraska and communicating via Nextel!

This is in NO WAY intended to be sarcastic and ironic - but since you clearly understand this stuff better than me, I will take your word for it.

Let me ask you this - do you believe that a NEW law, or a change to FISA is necessary - to specific the conditions under which US citizens can be surveilled during war time, or does your understanding tell you that the president automatically has those powers? ... and would that assumption extend to completely domestic wiretapping as well, for the duration of any war?

(I'm not arguing, just curious to learn)

I personally think the quick solution would be an absolute prohibition on use or disclosure of any information obtained by what I'll call for convenience "inherent authority" surveillance for any purpose other than carrying out the war, with stiff minimum penalties for violation. If it turns out that Bateh and his pals are running meth labs for pocket money unconnected to the anti-US war, the information dies. If NSA calls the Washington State Police, everybody involved goes to prison. If the powers that be don't see a military use for whatever they get, but think Bateh & his pals are dangerous, they would be prohibited from using the wiretaps to prosecute them for money laundering or conspiracy or what have you. A solution would require a lot more thought, but off the top of my head I think that the answer is to eliminate the incentive for abuse.

ETA: There's also the fact that it's hard to use information without letting on that you have it and how you got. If Bush decided to listen in on the DNC or the Black Block Anarchists, the inability to make a plausible connection to the war effort would expose the interceptions as unjustified and therefore criminal.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:06:49 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Put on your , wade in, and read it. FISA is clearly not intended to comprehend ongoing wartime intelligence gathering. Abu Sixpack in Islamabad hangs up the phone from a chat with OBL and immediately dials up Jack Bateh in Detroit. Bateh immediately makes 6 other calls to motels near the Hanford nuclear installation. Do you want those calls listened to? I do, and FISA is not in any way designed to keep up with that.

For Pete's sake, think about what you're saying when you grouse about these intercepts. You're saying that you want legal briefs, certifications, and court orders for interception of communications if there are three Chinese armored divisions operating in Nebraska and communicating via Nextel!

Call me back when you can verify the three Chinese divisions in Nebraska. If the call is worth listening to, and involves a domestic connection, what is the big deal in getting some paperwork done? That is, unless they have something to hide.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:09:59 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
I personally think the quick solution would be an absolute prohibition on use or disclosure of any information obtained by what I'll call for convenience "inherent authority" surveillance for any purpose other than carrying out the war, with stiff minimum penalties for violation. If it turns out that Bateh and his pals are running meth labs for pocket money unconnected to the anti-US war, the information dies.

So how would you do that if no one but the guys doing the tap know about the tap?

If NSA calls the Washington State Police, everybody involved goes to prison.

How about if NSA just gathers for their own use a big book about a whole lot of people's political affiliations and activities? Not related to terrorism, just ordinary Republicans and Democrats that they think they want to watch because those folks expressed an opinion NSA wasn't too fond of?

If the powers that be don't see a military use for whatever they get, but think Bateh & his pals are dangerous, they would be prohibited from using the wiretaps to prosecute them for money laundering or conspiracy or what have you. A solution would require a lot more though, but off the top of my head I think that the answer is to eliminate the incentive for abuse.

How do you eliminate the incentive for something that has no oversight?

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:11:45 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Let's see what he says.

"I'll wipe my ass on the BoR if I feel like it"
OK. It's June, 1942. German saboteurs have been landed by submarine at Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. They go their separate ways, heading for predetermined targets. Hans calls Fritz to ask if he blew up the radio tower in Atlanta yet. Does the President need a judge's approval to intercept the call.

Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.

WHY???

Why tell the court to "okay" an interception that already occured? Except to give the courts unconstitutional oversight of the CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations in a time of war?

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:12:40 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
The main points in my view are these. First, no one has even suggested that any improper use has been made of the executive claim of war-related intelligence gathering authority. Nobody has alleged that Muslims are being wiretapped at random, or that Nancy Pelosi's cell phone is bugged. Second, it is simply irrational to conclude that while the president has plenary authority to intercept enemy communications worldwide, his activities must be crammed into a law-enforcement model, under judicial supervision when the enemy's communications and activites cross the border onto American territory and/or involve American citizens engaged in acts of war against their own country. It's like saying that if bin Laden and his top operatives were holed up in Aspen, the president would need arrest and search warrants to lay hands on them and a death warrant to kill them. Horseshit! He would have full authority to send a SEAL team in to blow them to hell, right there in the back booth at Ted Turner's restaurant. He is not enforcing the law. He is making war.

The mere existence of the technology needed to intercept communications raises the specter of governmental abuse. Bear in mind that much legal thought prior to the Katz decision held that wiretaps didn't implicate the 4th Am at all, because there was no entry into protected premises. If it turns out that there is credible evidence that the executive's warmaking power is being abused to create a domestic security state, the Congress has full authority to put a stop to it. Just as the Congress could mandate that the Army be armed with muzzleloaders or pointy sticks and all its other weapons destroyed, it could forbid the surveillance of communications with any nexus to US territory. The facts (as distinguished from alarmist fantasies) are that the government is tracking and intercepting the communications of enemy operatives and associates. That's what I'm paying them to do.

Very well said. Your other posts in this thread too.

It seems to me that the Democrats were bitching that our intelligence agencies "Didn't connect the dots" prior to 9/11 - convieniently ignoring that they were the ones (specifically Jamie Gorelic who should have been BEFORE the commision rather than ON it) who put up the wall making sure that we could not connect the dots. Then, when we (Bush) take steps to connect the dots to prevent future attacks - the Patriot Act, the terrorist surveilance program we are discussing now, Gitmo, Padilla, etc. - the Dems scream that Bush is evil and should be impeached for his actions and the trampleing of terrorists rights.

-K

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:15:04 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Put on your , wade in, and read it. FISA is clearly not intended to comprehend ongoing wartime intelligence gathering. Abu Sixpack in Islamabad hangs up the phone from a chat with OBL and immediately dials up Jack Bateh in Detroit. Bateh immediately makes 6 other calls to motels near the Hanford nuclear installation. Do you want those calls listened to? I do, and FISA is not in any way designed to keep up with that.

For Pete's sake, think about what you're saying when you grouse about these intercepts. You're saying that you want legal briefs, certifications, and court orders for interception of communications if there are three Chinese armored divisions operating in Nebraska and communicating via Nextel!

Call me back when you can verify the three Chinese divisions in Nebraska. If the call is worth listening to, and involves a domestic connection, what is the big deal in getting some paperwork done? That is, unless they have something to hide.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suggest that you haven't written a whole lot of wiretap applications and orders. "Some paperwork" doesn't begin to describe what's involved. The more fundamental question is this: Do you honestly believe that judicial involvement should be required before the government can put a roving wiretap on some guy who walked out of a meeting with known AQ affiliates in Islamabad to the airport and flew to Reagan National Airport and bought a disposable cell phone in the terminal? Really?

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:18:28 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I personally think the quick solution would be an absolute prohibition on use or disclosure of any information obtained by what I'll call for convenience "inherent authority" surveillance for any purpose other than carrying out the war, with stiff minimum penalties for violation. If it turns out that Bateh and his pals are running meth labs for pocket money unconnected to the anti-US war, the information dies.

So how would you do that if no one but the guys doing the tap know about the tap?

If NSA calls the Washington State Police, everybody involved goes to prison.

How about if NSA just gathers for their own use a big book about a whole lot of people's political affiliations and activities? Not related to terrorism, just ordinary Republicans and Democrats that they think they want to watch because those folks expressed an opinion NSA wasn't too fond of?

If the powers that be don't see a military use for whatever they get, but think Bateh & his pals are dangerous, they would be prohibited from using the wiretaps to prosecute them for money laundering or conspiracy or what have you. A solution would require a lot more though, but off the top of my head I think that the answer is to eliminate the incentive for abuse.

How do you eliminate the incentive for something that has no oversight?

Because in the absense of the "disappearing" of those involved in criminal activity that was caught in the net of the war-time taps they would need to be prosecuted, with evidence. That evidence would need to be disclosed. So the President would have to either cap them in the head, or let it die.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:19:32 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.
WHY???

Why tell the court to "okay" an interception that already occured? Except to give the courts unconstitutional oversight of the CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations in a time of war?

Because that is what is required under the emergency authorization section of the FISA law.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:20:53 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.
WHY???

Why tell the court to "okay" an interception that already occured? Except to give the courts unconstitutional oversight of the CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations in a time of war?

Because that is what is required under the emergency authorization section of the FISA law.

That's not my question. My question is for what purpose should the court be "notified" after the fact?

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:25:39 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.
WHY???

Why tell the court to "okay" an interception that already occured? Except to give the courts unconstitutional oversight of the CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations in a time of war?

Because that is what is required under the emergency authorization section of the FISA law.

So, if the Civil War started up again tomorrow, you would have the President and the AG going to court every time an army signal unit wanted to intercept and decrypt Confederate radio transmissions in the field (yes, radio transmissions are covered under FISA)? Great. I guess every Confederate POW would be entitled not only to Habeas hearings in District Courts, but to file suit over the conditions of confinement, too.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:26:31 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.
WHY???

Why tell the court to "okay" an interception that already occured? Except to give the courts unconstitutional oversight of the CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations in a time of war?

Because that is what is required under the emergency authorization section of the FISA law.

That's not my question. My question is for what purpose should the court be "notified" after the fact?

To determine if the information gathered could be used in a criminal prosecution? "Fruit of the poisonous tree" and all that? I'm guessing, here, as the whole law seems sketchy.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:29:11 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
So, if the Civil War started up again tomorrow, you would have the President and the AG going to court every time an army signal unit wanted to intercept and decrypt Confederate radio transmissions in the field (yes, radio transmissions are covered under FISA)? Great. I guess every Confederate POW would be entitled not only to Habeas hearings in District Courts, but to file suit over the conditions of confinement, too.

I'm not arguing for or against the law. Just that the law exists. It is an open question as to whether it applies in all terror cases.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:30:19 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh, no. The President intercepts the call, foils the plan, and, within 72 hours, tells the courts.
WHY???

Why tell the court to "okay" an interception that already occured? Except to give the courts unconstitutional oversight of the CiC's authority to conduct foreign intelligence operations in a time of war?

Because that is what is required under the emergency authorization section of the FISA law.

That's not my question. My question is for what purpose should the court be "notified" after the fact?

Because things quickly go to hell in a handbasket if there is no oversight.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:30:38 PM EDT

[#44]

Klintoon did not have to go on National TV to defend his extensive illegal eavedropping because he had the lib media to cover for him.

80% of what is going on right now started with his administration, yet (amazingly enough) it is Bush's fault.

Posted: 1/26/2006 12:33:12 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suggest that you haven't written a whole lot of wiretap applications and orders. "Some paperwork" doesn't begin to describe what's involved.

Where in any law would that even become a relevant argument?

The more fundamental question is this: Do you honestly believe that judicial involvement should be required before the government can put a roving wiretap on some guy who walked out of a meeting with known AQ affiliates in Islamabad to the airport and flew to Reagan National Airport and bought a disposable cell phone in the terminal? Really?

No, the relevant question is whether the government can conduct all kinds of surveillance activities within the US and involving US citizens without any oversight at all.

The law does allow them to act immediately and do the paperwork later. If you can't do the paperwork, what are you hiding?

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:04:08 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:

I'm going to take a wild guess here and suggest that you haven't written a whole lot of wiretap applications and orders. "Some paperwork" doesn't begin to describe what's involved.

Where in any law would that even become a relevant argument?

The more fundamental question is this: Do you honestly believe that judicial involvement should be required before the government can put a roving wiretap on some guy who walked out of a meeting with known AQ affiliates in Islamabad to the airport and flew to Reagan National Airport and bought a disposable cell phone in the terminal? Really?

No, the relevant question is whether the government can conduct all kinds of surveillance activities within the US and involving US citizens without any oversight at all.

The law does allow them to act immediately and do the paperwork later. If you can't do the paperwork, what are you hiding?

He doesn't have to abide that law when given the power to execute a war by statute. Do you simply ignore that argument or do you have anything to suggest that it is wrong?

Please also detail where "all kinds of surveillance activities within the US" are taking place under this authority? Please be certain each case you outline or produce that it was entirely in the US and there was not a foriegn actor involved, and that was the intention of the tapping.

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:19:13 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

He doesn't have to abide that law when given the power to execute a war by statute. Do you simply ignore that argument or do you have anything to suggest that it is wrong?

Then how come various members of Congress don't agree with the way he interprets the law?

And why shouldn't he fill out the paperwork if there is any question at all? What is he trying to hide? Wouldn't filling out the paperwork a few times be more efficient than dealing with the shitstorm it caused when he didn't?

What is he trying to hide?

Please also detail where "all kinds of surveillance activities within the US" are taking place under this authority? Please be certain each case you outline or produce that it was entirely in the US and there was not a foriegn actor involved, and that was the intention of the tapping.

Saw it myself. It is a long story, but I have posted it here numerous times before. Trust me, if you don't think it happens, you are not living in the modern world.

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:27:39 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have to abide that law when given the power to execute a war by statute. Do you simply ignore that argument or do you have anything to suggest that it is wrong?
Then how come various members of Congress don't agree with the way he interprets the law?

Yeah and how come the SCOTUS doesn't decide all cases 9-0 either?

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:29:22 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have to abide that law when given the power to execute a war by statute. Do you simply ignore that argument or do you have anything to suggest that it is wrong?
Then how come various members of Congress don't agree with the way he interprets the law?

Yeah and how come the SCOTUS doesn't decide all cases 9-0 either?

And they are, every one, legal scholars of the highest order.

Posted: 1/26/2006 1:31:29 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He doesn't have to abide that law when given the power to execute a war by statute. Do you simply ignore that argument or do you have anything to suggest that it is wrong?
Then how come various members of Congress don't agree with the way he interprets the law?

Yeah and how come the SCOTUS doesn't decide all cases 9-0 either?

That would make a better argument if it was only Democrats expressing reservations about this.

Well, wouldn't it be better to fill out a little paperwork than deal with this shitstorm? Kinda stupid to spend all his time arguing about this shit in public when he could have had a few clerks prevent the problem.

What is he trying to hide, anyway?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush on TV right now defending NSA (Page 1 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us