Posted on 01/19/2006 5:39:46 AM PST by conservativecorner
DEMOCRATS who criticize President Bush for using warrantless wiretaps to elicit information about potential terrorist activity should be aware that the American people strongly support his decision to do so. Believe it or not, they trust their own government and the president they elected to use the information wisely and for our own protection. The Fox News poll of Jan. 11 asked voters whether the president "should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?" By 58 percent to 36 percent, the answer was "yes." Indeed, 42 percent of the nation's Democrats agreed that the president should have this power.
The poll also tells us that Americans attribute the absence of terrorist attacks over the past 41/2 years to our government's efforts to protect us. Asked if the fact that there has been no major terror attack since 9/11 was due to "security measures working" or to "no attack having been planned" by terrorists, Americans credited government efforts by 46 percent (to 22 percent for the terrorists, with another 20 percent saying both factors contributed).
Other results: Some 61 percent — including a majority of the Democrats — said they'd be willing to surrender some of their own privacy to help prevent terror attacks. Respondents support renewal of the Patriot Act by 57 percent to 31 percent. (Even Democrats only oppose renewal by 40-47.)
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Did I say anything about being 'okay' with it? No. I said it isn't what is at issue here. "Clinton did it too" is inaccurate, at least if you are talking about Ames. "Clinton did something kinda similar" is what you are living off now.
Are you capable of a response that doesn't ascribe statements to me I haven't made? I doubt it.
By that time, the government had a pretty good pile of other evidence. Tossing his house wasn't done to determine whether or not he was a spy working for Russia, that was already well established.
And as you noted, Congress added the warrantlesss physical entry provisions in reaction. That is, Congress saw eye-to-eye with the actions of the Clinton administration.
I predict that Congress will see eye-to-eye with the Bush administration too. There is no political harm in expanding the scope of the statute. At some point, a majority of the people will agree to anything, if you scare them enough.
That's not an answer.
How do we know that? And if they did have plenty of evidence, why not just get a warrant for the search? Because they didn't have a warrant for what they did have?
In any case, I'm more interested in whether Ames was the only Amercian subjected to a warrantless search under Toon's watch.
The AP question of January 7, 2006:
Should the Bush administration be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists, or should the government be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant?
56 yes - 43 no - 2 not sureJanuary 7, 2006: AP/Ipsos Poll: Most Say U.S. Needs Warrant
This poll oversampled DEMs, and the reader can blow past the phrase "and suspected terrorists" pretty easily. In that case, the question in the reader's mind would reduce to, "Should a warrant be required to monitor communications between American citizens in the United States?"
Also notice that the question does not introduce the limitation of foreign calls. Not that we know for sure the surveillance is limited to that, just saying that people will be more accepting of warrantless monitoring of their foreign calls if their domestic calls are not caught in the same surveillance.
The Rasmussen question of December 26-27, 2005:
Should the National Security Agency be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States?
64 yes - 23 nohttp://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
This question says NOTHING about obtaining a warrant, but I have to concede that in the context of the survey and timely news, many poll subjects may have imputed that qualification to the question. The the extent that participants figured a warrant would be involved, this result is tainted.
The CNN/USA Toady/Gallup Questions:
Question: As you may know, the Bush administration has been wiretapping telephone conversations between U.S. citizens living in the United States and suspected terrorists living in other countries without getting a court order allowing it to do so. How closely have you been following the news about this?These questions includes the international nature, the warrantless nature, and the fact that a terrorist is at the other end. I disagree with the way CNN characterized the question, it is not "total" electronic surveillance of people suspected of having ties to terrorists abroad, but only surveillance of their international calls to suspected terrorists. That is, as if the terrorist's end is tapped. I think this question resembles the Rasmussen question in that regard.
29 very closely - 46 somewhat closely - 16 not too closely - 9 not at allQuestion: Do you think the Bush administration was right or wrong in wiretapping these conversations without obtaining a court order?
46 wrong - 50 rightSAMPLE: Interviews with 1,003 adults, conducted January 6-8.
Zogby poll Questions:
If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment.This poll question omits the qualifying notions of "international calls," and "contact with suspected terrorists." The question also inserts the weasly "should Congress consider" phrase regarding impeachment. That is not the same as "should the President be," that most readers of the results will impute.
52 agree - 43 disagree - 6 don't knowSAMPLE: 1,216 adults in the U.S., conducted January 9-12
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1558790/posts
Fox News (Opinion Dynamics) Questions of January 11:
30. Do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States?This poll has lots of interesting questions, generally favoring the DEMs point of view and suggesting that the majority of people would prefer DEMs in power. In that light, note the oversampling of DEMs and the resulting majority in questions 30 and 31, just the same. To question 28, "Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the treat of terrorism?" REPs are more willing (at 74%) than DEMs (at 53%).
58 should - 36 should not - 6 not sure31. In an effort to identify terrorist activity, do you think the president should or should not have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to do computer searches of large numbers of international phone calls comings in and out of the United States without getting warrants?
60 should - 34 should not - 7 not sureSAMPLE: 900 registered voters in the U.S., conducted January 10-11
38 democrat - 33 republican - 22 independent - 4 other - 2 don't knowhttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181462,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/poll_011206.pdf <- Raw Poll
It damn sure is when the question assumes opinions I've never stated. If you are asking for opinion, none of it is okay. Now I'll expect you to get it right next time you want to make some comment on my view. There it is.
Your words above. Please note, the NSA issue does not involve a wiretap. You need to brush-up on the technology. FISA needs to brush-up on the technology. Congress needs to brush-up on the technology.
Current NSA "monitoring" techniques do not require the use of a wiretap. In a technological sense, the NSA is eavesdropping on selective telecommunications.
Now, review the laws and show me even one that has determined the Federal Government requires a warrant to "eavesdrop".
How do we know that? And if they did have plenty of evidence, why not just get a warrant for the search? Because they didn't have a warrant for what they did have?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1553690/posts?page=109#109
The FBI had warrants for electronic surveillance of his home and work, plus had snagged notes from his garbage, and had a "tail" on him, among other activities.
According to the CIA IG report, by mid 1993, significant information had been obtained from the relevant financial institutions, which further implicated Ames. The completed financial analysis showed that Ames had a total income of $1,326,310 that could not be accounted for through salary and other known sources.Lots more at the link and cited materials from there. As to "why not get a warrant," the reason given is thatteh involved FISA court did not have the authority to grant a physical entry warrant. As a tactical matter (secrecy), the government did not want to involve a non-secret court, etc.On September 15,1993, a search of Ames's trash disclosed a torn note in Ames's handwriting which appeared to relate to a clandestine meeting planned for Bogota, Colombia on October 1, 1993.
On September 29, 1993, in a telephone conversation with his wife, Ames said that "my visit was canceled." His wife responded, "Does that mean you retrieve something?" Ames replied, "Yeah," presumably referring to new KGB instructions setting up a an alternate meeting. The following day Ames canceled his airline reservation to Bogota.
On October 6, 1993, a search of Ames's trash turned up a typewriter or printer ribbon which contained two documents which Ames appeared to have prepared in 1992. Among other things, these documents discussed CIA personnel, access to classified information, and classified operational matters.
On October 9, 1993, FBI agents conducted a search of Ames's residence in Arlington. ...
In any case, I'm more interested in whether Ames was the only Amercian subjected to a warrantless search under Toon's watch.
I would think that in general, learning about warrantless incursions is difficult. Absent a prosecution or admission, how would one know? And if you don't know, is it really a violation?
The Jabara case is a good example, FWIW.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550960/posts?page=30#30
Same thread, see also posts 35, 195, 197 (intersection of drug trade and terrorism), 221, 226, and 238.
Clinton did obtain a FISA warrant for the electronic surveillance of Aldrich Ames.
Now there's a GREAT argument for making the NSA/FISA brou-ha-ha disappear.
/ rolls eyes /
Nope. Jabara came in under the 'agent of a foreign power' exception. Got any authority where the gov can do it to US persons who are not 'agents of a foreign power'? Good luck - you'll be looking for a long time.
I could care less what 'polls' say, who was surveyed for the polls, and what their political affiliation is. There is a right and there is a wrong. Republicans and Democrats are in the wrong, and now we're going to have to listen to months of them blaming each other instead of doing their job.
I hope you didn't take a look at the law before you urged me to go read it. If you did, that'd be pretty sad.
I don't think so. Jabara stands for the proposition that information in the hands of the NSA does not amount to warrantless surveillance (because Jabara never asserted that it did), and passing that information to the FBI without a warrant does not amount to a "search without a warrant."
Here is the Appellate Court summary of the record in regard to the "foreign agent" allegation.
The district court, in its unreported memorandum denying the motion to reconsider (App. at 190), determined that the question whether there was cause to believe Jabara was a foreign agent had been an issue in the case and that it had theretofore determined (75 F.R.D. at 493) that, in the record then before it, there was no evidence that Jabara was connected with or was a foreign agent. ^7 ...Plus, there is no '"agent of a foreign power" exception' for warrantless surveillance under FISA. 1802 provides for warrantless surveillance of a "foreign power" per 1801(a)(1) - (3) (and surprisingly -excludes- 1801(a)(4) "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor"), but does not provide for warrantless surveillance of an "agent of a foreign power."Since, however, we determine herein that Jabara's fourth amendment rights were not violated when the summaries of his overseas telegraphic messages were furnished to the FBI irrespective of whether there was reasonable cause to believe that he was a foreign agent and whether there is a foreign agent exception to the warrant requirement, we need not consider the question whether the district court abused its discretion in not weighing the contents of the in camera French affidavit and whether the affidavit established such reasonable cause.
FN 7 We agree that, as the record stood at the time the district court granted summary judgment to Jabara, it did not support reasonable cause to believe that Jabara was a foreign agent when the FBI requested the summaries from the NSA.
Got any authority where the gov can do it to US persons who are not 'agents of a foreign power'?
We're still waiting for that case. Kieth is the closest, I think, and it calls for a warrant when the target is a US person.
As far as I know, all the cases that permit warrantless surveillance (even those that predate or extend FISA) also hinge on obtaining "foreign intelligence information." And Clinton's FBI bothered to get a warrant to surveil Ames, even though he was an agent of a foreign power (!!!).
Sure there is - it is an explicit exception to the definition of 'US Person.'
It sounds like we probably agree that a warrant is needed to electronically surveil US persons.
Where we probably disagree is that I strongly believe it is ongoing.
Sure there is - it is an explicit exception to the definition of 'US Person.'
Show me. Here are the parts that I think you're referring to. The way I parse it, interception of communications of an agent of a foreign power is NOT within the class of entity recited in 1802(a).
50 USC 1801(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means--It sounds like we probably agree that a warrant is needed to electronically surveil US persons.
(1) any person other than a United States person ...
(2) any person [presumably including United States persons] who-- ...
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;50 USC 1801(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.
50 USC 1801 <- Link to all of 50 USC 1801
50 USC 1802 (a)(1) 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 if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that--
(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
(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;
(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 ...50 USC 1802 <- Link to all of 50 USC 1802
I'd say "it depends," but agree that FISA doesn't give any such blanket authority. Not even if the US person is part of a foreign power of 1801(a)(4), "a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor." Amazing. But that is where CONGRESS drew the line.
Where we probably disagree is that I strongly believe it is ongoing.
I'm not sure we agree or disagree, since I'm not sure what you mean by "it" being ongoing. If you mean in general, surveillance outside of Title III and FISA, I agree that such surveillance has always occurred - but we don't how much of that activity is encouraged, demanded, authorized or "winked at" by management. THere are MANY details that play into the calculus of "reasonable," and we lack the details. I doubt we'll ever have the dtails, I fully count on my government to lie to me "for my own protection."
The objection is to not having a judicial warrant for wiretaps on American citizens, which cannot be disagreed upon by honorable, honest people.
Where in the Constitution is a judicial warrant required for "reasonable" search and seizure? No where. It doesn't exist.
I'm a libertarian. Nobody hates government searches more than I. But my opinion not withstanding, the Supreme Court has a long and consistent history of deciding that the executive branch can search citizens without a warrant and without any judicial permission .... if the search is reasonable.
The Supreme Court has ruled that roadblocks to search cars and drivers "just in case some driver is DUI or not wearing a seatbelt" is "reasonable". I disagree with that.
The Supreme Court has ruled that if a police officer sees a person who fits a specific drug sub-culture profile (that doesn't involve race) in a known drug area, it is reasonable to search that person.
The above do not contain any "probable cause". There is no factual knowledge that a law has been broken. There is no factual knowledge required other than what the court, in numerous cases has decided is "reasonable".
(Again, this does not apply to radio (cell phone, microwave, satelite) transmissions which the court has consistently and correctly held cannot be expected to contain any right to privacy at all as privacy on radio waves is technologically impossible... which is why some things are encrypted.)
other courts not-withstanding the Supremes have consistently ruled that nobody using radio transmissions (cellphone, microwave, satelite) has a right to privacy or is protected by the 4th.
Radio waves are "in plain sight" in the same way that a stolen car in a driveway is in "plain sight".
That is why there is encryption and "code words".
This debate about FISA is bogus because FISA is not a comprehensive court. It is a specialized court with a very narrow and limited scope.
Many legal activities can and always have legally and constitutionally bypassed FISA.
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.