Posted on 12/19/2005 4:25:09 AM PST by angkor
At any rate, I assumed and expected this was being done anyway. I have no problem with it.
If this had cited (4) under 1801
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;
Then I think this would apply.
All you needed to do was look at 50 USC 1801 (a)(1), which is specifically referenced above:
"As used in this subchapter: (a) “Foreign power” means.... ( 4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;"
See #16.
You're right that "United States person" and "substantial likelihood" are issues, but not as simple as they seem at first glance.
No, a United States person is a citizen or a permanent resident. It is not someone in the US on a tourist, student or diplomatic visa, nor does it cover illegal immigrants.
So, Al Qaeda is a "domestic Power?"
It's one or the other.
But 1802 doesn't cite (4), just 1,2,&3, under 1801.
U.S. citizen or permanent resident only.
It does cite 1801 (1)(a). Terrorist organizations are foreign powers for the purpose of the statute.
That's my question....I don't know how the Fed's classed Al-Queda in regards to this provision........
i heard that, ping
I think that was one of Rice's points w/ Russert yesterday, that the laws were tailored for foreign intelligence assets and not "stateless" terrorists.
Foreign power under the scope of the statute.
Correct, which means that even if the surveillance fails to intercept communications of any US Persons, it can still violate the law, if it was conducted recklessly without regard to status.
So you have a Catch-22: Either the administration failed to confirm immigration status and violated the law, or they did take the time to confirm immigration status, in which case why on earth didn't they get a FISA warrant (which would have been faster anyway)??? I'm thoroughly confused.
No, it cites 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3).
For (4) to be included it would have to be cited in 1802.
(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;
This is for foreign intelligence only, not US citizens
(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
More limitations to foreign powers only, not US citizens
(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
Exclusion of US persons.
This does not cover what Bush has permitted.
An official process isn't necessarily 'due process', although government always claims it is. In this case, citing 'the law' ignores the question of whether the law is Constitutional -- and if it isn't, it's no law at all.
The reason for the urgency is that they ALREADY had it.
If you read many spy novels you will understand that they sift through everything, and then look for special keywords or groups of words. Once they come up with it, they have to decide whether or not they can legally use it.
THEN, they go to the courts. With the volume of emails, cel phone calls, and regular calls, it is a process that makes sence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.