50 USC 1802 Permits Warrantless Surveillance

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

[chuckles]

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

I haven't figured out how you could monitor 1 side of a call yet. If Osama phones Cindy Shehan with new orders, how can they monitor Osama without hearing Cindy pooh?

Just and old retired telephone man's thinking.

[Willie Green]

No, I don't.
I am not a lawyer.

[angkor]

Amendment IV: The right of the people....

You of course took note that 50 USC 1802 spcifically excludes "United States persons" (citizens and permanent residents) from warrantless surveillance.

Ya think every Mohammad, Akbar, and Sami that sets foot on U.S. soil with a student or tourist visa is "the people" of the U.S. Constitution?

[Souled_Out]

"Actually, the President has done nothing of the sort. He has said that the spying covered US persons (citizens and/or legal residents) communicating with foreigners oversees."

---

Got a source for this statement?

[Willie Green]

Ya think every Mohammad, Akbar, and Sami that sets foot on U.S. soil with a student or tourist visa is "the people" of the U.S. Constitution?

What about every Pedro, Jorge or Vicente who arrives without such documentation?

[angkor]

What about every Pedro, Jorge or Vicente who arrives without such documentation?

Well, no, they're not "United States persons" either, unless they're citizens or permanent residents. So of course they can be subject to FISA surveillance.

Isn't the principle clear enough for you?

[pfony1]

Although you quoted...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

...you seem to have skipped over the word "UNREASONABLE" a little too quickly.

IMHO, it is perfectly REASONABLE for our President, in war-time, to search the international air-waves for conversations between enemies who are plotting to kill Americans -- even if some of those enemies happen to be standing on U.S. soil.

Do not take this personally, but what kind of idiot would a person have to be to conclude that "the law" permits us to dispatch a cruise missle to kill Osama bin Laden, but does not permit us to listen to his phone calls to "sleeper cells" located in America?

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

I didn't say that warrants weren't issues for those two cases. My point was that people who are considered legal U.S. citizens (e.g., John Walker Lindh and Jose Padilla) can and do communicate with Al Qaeda overseas. Monitoring people like these two individuals would not be legal under the law cited by the original poster of this thread. It may be perfectly legal under another law, but not this one.

And that may very well be the trap that the democrats and the media will walk into.

[7mmMag@LeftCoast]

gotta love it.

Why do people insist on electing republicans (rino's) and democrats that are absolutely ignorant of the facts and willfully ingnorant of the law?

[HardStarboard]

>>>Good job, good research! <<<

Actually it is a very confusing post! Raises more questions than it answers.

This does a much better job of explaining the legal rational that Bush has used to tap comminications where one side is suspected al Qaeda on foreign soil......

The FISA Act And The Definition Of 'US Persons'

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1542814/posts

[Marie Antoinette]

Ping

[pointsal]

ping