50 USC 1802 Permits Warrantless Surveillance

United States Code ^ | 12/19/2005 | Self

[angkor]

Well, I'm not a lawyer. I confess I did miss the omission of 1801(a)(4).

You guys may be right about this, in which case the statute may not be applicable, or is at least questionable.

[Syberyenta]

Don't be so rough on self. I liked 'good lookin' put'.
Put more ! Put More!

[OXENinFLA]

Thanks for finding and posting this though.

Don't hesitate in the future to post things like this.

I know I've had my fair share of posts debunked, or made clearer, by other FReepers.

[Clara Lou]

The domestic surveillance appears to have covered United States persons, which the law expressly prohibits,
By US persons you mean citizens or aliens here legally? What is known about who was spied on? I can't find any hard info on that.

[festus]

If I was arguing against the administration I believe I would take up the points the attorney general must swear to, specifically :

(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;

I think the adminstration could defend against this sort of legal attack successfully but it would be the most challenging part.

[knarf]

Hmmm ... good lookin' put, eh?
I wonder ....
New phrase for 'foxy lookin' lay' ?
(I probably should not dwell on this and you probably should never had expressed a liking to it)

[JOHN ADAMS]

If Al Qaeda is a foreign power (a substantial if) and if the (let's say) US citizen on the US end of the telecon is conspiring with or a member of Al Qaeda, is that US citizen still a US person for purposes of this statute?

[Loud Mime]

Good job, good research!

[jennyjenny]

All I've been able to find is that it was persons in the United States, with no mention of it being US citizens or people here legally. I'm still searching though.

[Alter Kaker]

By US persons you mean citizens or aliens here legally? What is known about who was spied on? I can't find any hard info on that

I have no idea who was spied on, but the Executive Order doesn't seem to make any such distinctions. Moreover, if they took the time to verify immigration status, why couldn't the Administration's people have gone to the FISA court to get a proper warrant? The FISA court almost never turns down national security requests and it is extremely speedy to boot.

[Clara Lou]

Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that people, particularly Democrats, are making serious charges without any facts.

[festus]

How the court views that is an important question.

Also important, and I don't know the answer, is the fact the language of the statute does not say US Citizen but rather US Person.

Given the fact that constitutional protections have been extended by the courts to non citizens in the US both legally.....

You see where this is headed.

Personally I think this whole problem could be fixed if they just amended the constitution one more time and the amendment simply stated "The above doesn't apply to muslims".

[Wolfie]

Yeah, I remember seeing that in the Constitution.

[Textphile]

By US persons you mean citizens or aliens here legally? What is known about who was spied on? I can't find any hard info on that.

See 50 USC 1801(i), which defines "United States Person". Under that section of US Code, even a corporation can be a United States Person.

50 USC 1802(i): “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.

[Sandy]

I think we can rule out (A)(i) as a legal authority since that subsection is about acquiring the contents of communications, and acquisition of communication content is forbidden when U.S. persons are involved. Of course the minimization procedures may be adequate, but who can tell at this point?

*If* Bush's legal authority is located in 1802 at all, my guess is it's here:

(A)(ii): the electronic surveillance is solely directed at 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

Acquisition of technical intelligence. Isn't that right up the NSA's alley?

From property under control of a foreign power.

To...where? To anywhere, apparently.

[r9etb]

Nicely done.

[cwiz24]

It still doesn't explain the fact that there are conceiveably completely legal U.S. citizens communicating with Al Qaeda (John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla come to mind as examples). This law you cite does not make it legal for the U.S. to monitor them secretly.

[Alter Kaker]

This law you cite does not make it legal for the U.S. to monitor them secretly.

FISA (The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) does allow for really easy warrants and secret wiretapping. I can't for the life of me understand why the Administration didn't just use FISA, instead of going the rout of this questionably legal Executive Order.

[Real Cynic No More]

Doesn't (B) in the wording negate this if at least one party is a U.S. person?

[penelopesire]

"I can't for the life of me understand why the Administration didn't just use FISA, instead of going the rout of this questionably legal Executive Order."

Chances are that the dems have loaded this court with a bunch of anti-american leftists over the years...lol