I never cease to be amazed at your ability to pick and choose quotes out of a body of text without once comprehending how all the bits work together. It's amazing actually...
Smasharoo wrote:
The section of the code you quoted specifically states that a FISA authorization isn't needed for such domestic tapping as long as no US person's conversation is listened in on
Bingo.
Oh you can read.
*cough* Yes. But you apparently can't. You're eternally missing the key component.
domestic tapping Smash. That's the issue here. That section really just means that a non US person can be tapped on US soil for up to a year without FISA authorization (but with other restrictions).
Domestic tapping. They don't need this or FISA in order to conduct foreign or international wiretaps Smash. Never have. All that section says is that if the US government can tap a foreign embassy employee (for example) who is *not* a citizen or legal alien of the US for up to one year without FISA approval. It says *nothing* about the government's power to conduct taps outside the US. It's totally irrelevant.
Quote:
Whether the person being tapped is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power or a "United States person" is of significance within the FISA rules, but have absolutely no bearing on the actual program we're talking about.
It's the crux of the whole argument. The whole issue is when it involves US citizens.
No. The crux of the issue is *where* the tap is. Period. The NSA does not need FISA approval to operate a listening post in Turkey and use it to pick up cell phone conversations between people in the middle east and anywhere else in the world, including the US.
Ultimately, that's exactly what this program does. The *only* difference is that they have the technology to actually sort their taps based on where the call is coming from. So they can specifically target a single cell phone in the US and pick up any call it makes anywhere else in the world outside the US.
This is also why this is a *huge* national security issue, and potentially represents a leak of vastly greater proportions then the Plame leak. We didn't want anyone to know we had the ability to do that. It requires a pretty vast amount of intercept and fast connect capability on a global scale. We probably didn't even want our allies to know we could do this. We definitely didn't want the various terrorist groups operating around the world to know we could do this.
Quote:
That's it.
You are the only person on the planet who doesn't think FISA was violated here.
Really? That's funny...
Because in the very link that started this thread, this was said:
"This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the US. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al-Qaeda." Hmmmm... Seems to be defending it on the ground that we're not conducting domestic wiretaps, but only international ones.
And...
Mr Hayden's speech marked the beginning of a three-day campaign by the administration to counter allegations that Mr Bush broke the law by approving the programme, which it says is justified under the constitution. Hmmmm... Can you please provide an interpretation of a "three-day campaign by the administration to counter allegations that Mr Bush broke the law", that does not include claiming that the program does not violate the law? The FISA court is only needed in the specific situtions defined in the law. It does not prohibit tapping that does not match those definitions. It's right there in black and white Smash. I quoted it for you. I bolded the important sections. Yet you *still* don't get it.
And just for grins, how about
another article with more statements from the Bush administration:
President Bush will visit the ultra-secret National Security Agency on Wednesday, underscoring his claim that he has the constitutional authority to let intelligence officials listen in on international phone calls of Americans with suspected ties to terrorists. Hey! Look at that. Didn't he just say "international phone calls"? Yup. He did. Same argument I've been making Smash. You jusst aren't hearing it. The Bush administration is repeatedly saying that it's not a violation of the constitution for the president to order taps on international phone calls. And guess what? It's *not* a violation of the constitution to do so.
How about we look at the Justice Departments
Myth V. Reality in which they spell out the misconceptions the public (that means you Smash!) have about the program.
Really funny part is myth2:
Quote:
Myth: The NSA program is a domestic eavesdropping program used to spy on innocent Americans.
Reality: The NSA program is narrowly focused, aimed only at international calls and targeted at al Qaeda and related groups. Safeguards are in place to protect the civil liberties of ordinary Americans.
-- The program only applies to communications where one party is located outside of the United States.
-- The NSA terrorist surveillance program described by the President is only focused on members of Al Qaeda and affiliated groups. Communications are only intercepted if there is a reasonable basis to believe that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda.
-- The program is designed to target a key tactic of al Qaeda: infiltrating foreign agents into the United States and controlling their movements through electronic communications, just as it did leading up to the September 11 attacks.
-- The NSA activities are reviewed and reauthorized approximately every 45 days. In addition, the General Counsel and Inspector General of the NSA monitor the program to ensure that it is operating properly and that civil liberties are protected, and the intelligence agents involved receive extensive training.
Hey. Lookit that. All stuff I've been saying all along. Maybe if you actually educated yourself about the issue instead of listening only to Liberal rhetoric, you might know some facts.
And
Quote:
Myth: The NSA program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Reality: The NSA activities described by the President are consistent with FISA.
-- FISA expressly envisions a need for the President to conduct electronic surveillance outside of its provisions when a later statute authorizes that surveillance. The AUMF is such a statute.
-- The NSA activities come from the very center of the Commander-in-Chief power, and it would raise serious constitutional issues if FISA were read to allow Congress to interfere with the President's well-recognized, inherent constitutional authority. FISA can and should be read to avoid this.
Wait! I thought I was the only one saying that the program doesn't violate FISA! Looks like you're wrong again Smash (which is consistent for you at least).
Um... In case you're wondering, "outside its provisions" means in reference to surveilance outside that defined in FISA. In other words, non-domestic electronic surveilance (as defined in FISA). What they're saying is exactly what I've been saying. FISA is not being violated because the program being operated is "outside its provisions". FISA simply does not in anyway address or restrict the executive's power to conduct wiretapping on international or foreign electronic media. You don't get to pretend it does because you want it to. And you can't just demand that the same rules apply to international calls as they apply to domestic ones. Well... You *can*. But you'd be wrong to do so.
And just to nail the coffin shut on your ridiculous arguments:
Quote:
Myth: FISA has "emergency authorizations" to allow 72-hour surveillance without a court order that the Administration could easily utilize.
Reality: There is a serious misconception about so-called "emergency authorizations" under FISA, which allow 72 hours of surveillance without a court order. 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 can be granted, and the review process itself can and does take precious time.
-- The Justice Department does not approve emergency authorizations without knowing it will receive court approval within 72 hours.
-- 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, the Attorney General would have to be satisfied that the search meets the requirements of FISA. The government would have to be prepared to follow up with a full FISA application within 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 Advisor, the Director of the FBI, or another designated Senate- confirmed officer; and, finally the approval of an Article III judge.
-- The FISA process makes perfect sense in almost all cases of foreign-intelligence monitoring in the United States. Although technology has changed dramatically since FISA was enacted, FISA remains a vital tool in the war on terrorism -- one that we are using to its fullest and will continue to use against al Qaeda and other foreign threats.
-- But the terrorist surveillance program operated by the NSA requires maximum speed and agility to achieve early warning, and even a very brief delay may make the difference between success and failure in detecting and preventing the next attack.
There's your "but they can get an emergency tap for up to 72 hours!" argument. Um... Debunked by the Justice Department. Apparently, it's not as easy as you (and others) make it out to be.
Read the whole thing. I skipped a couple minor but still relevant points. This document does a pretty good job of debunking every single argument that I've seen in this thread.
Quote:
Sorry, Corky. Try cutting and pasting some GOP press releases or something. They'll do a better job of at least attempting to vaguely deal with reality.
Just did Smash. And not just press releases. Once again, you are on the side of ignorant rhetoric. Why am I not surprised...?
