Skip to comments.Unwarranted Outrage - The Times blew our cover.
Posted on 12/19/2005 1:53:38 PM PST by Cinnamon
Unwarranted Outrage The Times blew our cover.
I have no doubt that revelations in the New York Times that the NSA has been conducting selective and limited surveillance of terrorist communications crossing into or out of the United States will be immensely valuable to our enemies. I also have no doubt that these and similar actions can be legal, even when conducted without warrants.
How could that be? From the sound and fury of the last few days from politicians and pundits, you would think this is a development as scandalous as Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's authorization to wiretap Martin Luther King Jr. But the legality of the acts can be demonstrated with a look through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). For example, check out section 1802, "Electronic Surveillance Authorization Without Court Order." It is most instructive. There you will learn that "Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year" (emphasis mine).
Naturally, there are conditions. For example, the surveillance must be aimed at "the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers." Wait, is a terrorist group considered a foreign power? Yes, as defined in section 1801, subsection (a), "foreign power" can mean "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore," though the statue language would explicitly apply to "a faction of a foreign nation or nations."
But isn't international terrorism that which takes place abroad, as opposed to homegrown domestic terrorism? Not exactly: Section 1801 subsection (c) defines international terrorism as, among other things, terrorist actions that "occur totally outside the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum." So if you are hiding, making plans, facilitating, attacking, or intending to spread fear inside the US, and have a link abroad, you are an international terrorist. Quite sensible.
O.K. fine, but what about the condition that there be "no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party?" Doesn't that necessarily cut out any and all communication that is domestic in origin or destination? Well, not quite. Return to section 1801, subsection (i): "United States person," which includes citizens, legal aliens, and businesses, explicitly "does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power."
Well sure, but does that mean that even if you are a citizen you cash in your abovementioned rights by collaborating with terrorists? Yes you do. You have then become an "Agent of a foreign power" as defined under subsection (b)(2)(C). Such agents include anyone who "knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power," and even includes those who aid and abet or knowingly conspire with those engaged in such behavior.
Wait, that includes anyone, even citizens? Yes subsection (b)(1) is the part that applies to foreigners; (b)(2) covers everybody. And the whole point of the act is to collect "foreign intelligence information," which is defined under section 1801 subsection (e)(1)(B) as "information that relates to, and if concerning a United States person is necessary to, the ability of the United States to protect against sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power."
Whoa, you say, that is way too much power for the president to wield without checks and balances! Well, true, and since Congress wrote this law, they included reporting requirements. The attorney general must report to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 30 days prior to the surveillance, except in cases of emergency, when he must report immediately. He must furthermore "fully inform" those committees on a semiannual basis thereafter, per section 1808 subsection (a). He must also send a copy of the surveillance authorization under seal to the so-called FISA Court as established in section 1803; not for a warrant, but to remain under seal unless certification is necessary under future court actions from aggrieved parties under section 1806 (f).
This is significant, because it means that some of the same politicians who have been charging abuse of power may also have been briefed on what was going on long ago. The White House should get ahead of the story by noting which congressmen were informed of these activities, instead of allowing them to grandstand so shamelessly. It would also help if the White House released some information on how the surveillance has helped keep the country safe. What attacks were disrupted, what terrorists were taken down, how many people saved? A few declassified examples would be very useful to ground the discussion in reality rather than rhetoric.
So how do the revelations in the Times help the terrorists? Think it through if you were a terrorist and you believed (as most people seem to) that the NSA would ignore your communications if they crossed U.S. borders, your best move would be to set up communications relay stations inside the U.S. Terrorists are well known for their ability to find and exploit loopholes in our laws, and this would be a natural. For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end?
You can answer that one.
This isn't just partisanship. The Democrats have actively gone over to giving aid to the enemy.
Oh My God! Too many facts!
The NYT can't be bothered with this.
Bookmark for later, more close, reading.
"The Democrats have actively gone over to giving aid to the enemy."
Another example: Democratic AG Clark is the lead lawyer defending Saddam Hussein.
They hate America.
Sorry, but the government has gone overboard here and is probably in violation of the law. See we have a Bill of Rights that precludes spying on citizens without a warrant.
Really? So if Saddam Hussein didn't have an attorney, that would still be a fair trial?
That's about as smart as saying that defense attorneys in the U.S. love crime.
"Sorry, but the government has gone overboard here and is probably in violation of the law. See we have a Bill of Rights that precludes spying on citizens without a warrant."
there is an exception to that - if the citizen is functioning as an enemy agent. But if any of these citizens were not enemy agents then there would be a problem . But we will never know because they can't release the intelligence. It's more of an election issue than anything else.
Perhaps you should read before commenting.
Take it to DU.
You'd look less foolish if you actually read the article, first.
"This isn't just partisanship. The Democrats have actively gone over to giving aid to the enemy."
Don't forget Arlen Specter. It's not just the Democrats, but RINOs as well, that have jumped on this bandwagon.
"there is an exception to that - if the citizen is functioning as an enemy agent. But if any of these citizens were not enemy agents then there would be a problem . But we will never know because they can't release the intelligence. It's more of an election issue than anything else"
NO. There are no "exceptions" to the Bill of Rights just because the President says so. That's the whole purpose of a warrant, to provide a check on the executive by requiring some type of evidence that the "citizen is functioning as an enemy agent."
Saddam has competent Iraqi attorneys.
Clark, who has no knowledge of Iraqi law, volunteered in order to hurt this Administration's efforts in Iraq --- there's no other reason for his actions, and you know it.
Exactly right and the Republicans need to bulldog these facts to the American public and play the clips of these Democrats saying treasonous things. Also trying to sabotage our ability to defend ourself.
The Democrats have provided opposition Republicans with unprecedented media of them being traitors and it should all be used to remove their worthless butts from office.
The President should again and again go to the American people and tell them to call, write and Email the traitors and to threaten their removal. (biweekly fireside chats time)
"See we have a Bill of Rights that precludes spying on citizens without a warrant."
No, it does not. When applicable, it merely makes the date inadmissible in a criminal proceeding.
Further, the wiretaps are specifically authorized by FISA Article 1802.
"Saddam has competent Iraqi attorneys."
So by your logic those attorneys "hate America?"
"Clark, who has no knowledge of Iraqi law,"
There is no Iraqi law written dealing with mass murder and oppression, or crimes against humanity. Who would that have applied to pre-liberation?
"volunteered in order to hurt this Administration's efforts in Iraq"
Do tell, how do his efforts hurt the Administration's efforts in Iraq? I'm no fan of Clark, but he deserves recognition and respect for stepping to to assist US in getting Saddam Hussein a real trial so we can do this right.
Read paragraph 5 again, carefully.
What who said that this activity was targeting citizens?
Did you have some classified information leaked to you that we are not privy to?
"NO. There are no "exceptions" to the Bill of Rights just because the President says so. That's the whole purpose of a warrant, to provide a check on the executive by requiring some type of evidence that the "citizen is functioning as an enemy agent."
Wiretapping is illegal under a specific Federal law, not the bill of rights. There is indeed an exception for enemy agents. But If any of the citizens was not an agent then it does appear to be illegal.
But then again, anybody who thinks international phone calls are private is is really misinformed to start with.
My concern in the current case is with Alberto Gonzalos' justification of the tapping - that the war powers act made it ok. That is absurd but following that logic then are all kinds of other laws that the President would no longer have to follow.
Precisely. I have no idea why Holdek would make a statement in vaccum about citizens being targeted and their rights being violated without fully reading and understanding the article.
"For all we know our intelligence agencies have been exploiting these types of communications for years without the terrorists knowing it. Now they will fall silent, because now the bad guys know better. So New York Times writer James Risen will sell his book, the Times will increase circulation, politicians will beat their breasts and send out fundraising letters, and who will pay in the end? "
I would hope the leakers and publishers also pay.A very tiny glimmer of hope is all I have.
As long as it pays monetarily OR ideologically.
I think you need to do some more research.
Oh boy. You just don't want to read the article still, do you?
He deserves to be spit on THEN hung for aiding and abetting an enemy AND as a traitor to the United States of America....
And that's just for his past "work."
I've read the article.
You can't dance around the fact that spying on U.S. citizens private communications is ILLEGAL and because it goes against the Constitution. No amount wiggling will get you out of it.
How does one prove a negative?
"I've read the article."
Happy you read the article. But you just have not understood what you have read. No hope.
You are stating it as fact,I want your source.
Read the New York Times article on this. It's what blew the whole thing up.
I have read what Clark says..Try it.
Of course Saddam must have defense attorneys for a fair trial..Clark is still anti American. He has been for years.
THE MYSTERIOUS RAMSEY CLARK:
STALINIST DUPE OR RULING-CLASS SPOOK?
Then your comprehension skills are lacking.
Actually, any US citizen working in concert with a foreign power is not longer protected.
Go read the law:
Can't get there from here,how about you explain it to me? the New York Times has proof that US citizens are being tapped? where did they get the info? and did the Times say that tapping is illegal because of the Bill Of Rights?
That is basic knowledge. If I have to explain it to you further, it's not likely you'll understand any other points made regarding this topic (or many others for that matter, lol!).
If it's legal then why doesn't Bush or some official just come out and say that this type of privacy was, is, nor ever will be a protection offered by the Constitution and it is perfectly legal. All I'm hearing is that someone blew their "covert operations", now they have to defend their actions. Why they did not say is "this is not news we've been doing this lawfully for years, where have you people been?".
You are wrong..read the article.
That is as logical as saying that criminal defense attorneys love crime. An Iraqi citizen, on trial in Iraq, represented by Iraqi attorneys. It would look very bad if the US brought an attorney to prosecute or a judge. It would look like we were trying to fix the trial. It is an Iraqi trial. Clark was pulling an attention getting stunt by jumping in this which he had absolutely no business doing. The world is watching this trial, and if the US is overly involved and Saddam is sentenced to death, some could alledge that the US sent Clark to trip up the defense. Not everyone is familiar with Clark and his anti-american stunts.
"Do tell, how do his efforts hurt the Administration's efforts in Iraq?"
Wow. Climb out of your spider hole and read the reports of his strategy. Clark's defense strategy it to attack the Iraqi invasion as illegal and unjustified. He'll lie, the media will drop to its collective needs and do a Lewinski, and useful idiots like you will repeat it as the Gospel, thereby giving him the necessary 20-30% of the population needed to continue the insurgency.
What a crock! You might as well have said "Because I say so.."
Your rudeness aside...
Clark's defense strategy is the business of himself, the rest of his legal team, and his client. A judge will make decisions on what is allowable in court. It's called due process of law. It's not always popular, but their is a reason why we're doing it instead of taking him out back and putting two in his head.
Yes, well, my patience does have limits.