Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: trebb; p23185

I think you're missing the distinction between "domestic" and "foreign", as they pertain to the present matter involving intelligence gathering.

The difference between "domestic" and "foreign" national security intelligence intercepts has nothing to do with the point of origin, destination or interception of the communication. Nor does it depend on whether either party is a U.S. citizen or resident. The difference between "foreign" and "domestic" national security intercepts, as the term is used by the courts and intelligence agencies, is the source of the threat, i.e., whether at least one party to the communication was acting as, or on the behave of, an agent of a foreign power.

That distinction was never made more clear than it was in the Truong case. Truong, a U.S. resident alien, and Humphrey, a U.S. citizen and an employee of the USIA, conspired to commit espionage by delivering confidential government documents to the communist government of Vietnam from 1976 to 1977. In this case, the court held that the intercepts did not require a warrant since both defendants were acting as agents of a foreign power and thus the intercepts were a legitimate exercise of foreign national security intelligence gathering.

Note that in Truong, both the origin and destination of the intercepted calls were within the United States. Note also, that both defendants were U.S. residents, and in Humphrey's case, a U.S. citizen, as well. Yet the court held that these were foreign national security intercepts.

(p23185: I pinged you only because of your expressed interest in the matter.)

13 posted on 02/03/2006 2:47:31 PM PST by Boot Hill ("...and Joshua went unto him and said: art thou for us, or for our adversaries?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: Boot Hill
Note that in Truong, both the origin and destination of the intercepted calls were within the United States. Note also, that both defendants were U.S. residents, and in Humphrey's case, a U.S. citizen, as well. Yet the court held that these were foreign national security intercepts.

Guess I find this fact rather amazing. Until now I had previously known NSA only to intercept "international traffic" if one side on connection had to be outside the US. In fact Pres GWB stated that in one of his recent speeches. However, as you point out the courts have apparently allowed for GWB to intercept inside US comm traffic as long as it is "foreign national security intercepts". I guess I now understand why the 4th amender's are so upset. Regardless of the courts interpretations (past and future) I still believe GWB is doing the correct thing on WOT. Now I wonder if Toon and Carter were intercepting inside US traffic (other than Echelon and Carnivore)? Was Truong case before GWB Presidency?

15 posted on 02/03/2006 3:17:00 PM PST by p23185 (Why isn't attempting to take down a sitting Pres & his Admin during wartime considered Sedition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson