Posted on 02/09/2006 5:22:06 AM PST by AZRepublican
Whatever happened to "impeachment"? Only two months ago, that was the word on leading Democratic lips as they assailed President Bush for "illegal" warrantless NSA wiretaps against al Qaeda suspects. But at Monday's Senate hearing on the issue, the idea never even made an appearance.
The reason isn't because liberal critics have come to some epiphany about the necessity of executive discretion in wartime. The reason is they can read the opinion polls. And the polls show that a majority of Americans want their government to eavesdrop on al Qaeda suspects, even--or should we say, especially--if they're talking to one of their dupes or sympathizers here in the U.S.
In short, the larger political battle over wiretaps is over, and the President has won the argument among the American people. We hope Dan Bartlett, Steve Hadley and other White House message-makers notice the difference between this outcome, on a matter on which they bothered to fight, and so many other controversies when they ceded the field to their opponents ("torture," Joe Wilson).
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I suspect that is going on too - but I posted to you the statments made by Hayden and others that amount to an admission thatthe NSA is reviewing contents of the contentious communications.
The word "wiretap" is being bandied about, but there is zero evidence that any wiretapping is being done by NSA. I mean zero.
Depending on how narrowly one construes the words "wiretapping," "evidence," and "by NSA," one will be able to find defintions that cause the statement to be correct.
Where? When?
In the section that says "The congress shall have the power to make war" which has recently been interpreted to mean "The congress shall have the power to authorize the president to use all means necessary"
In case you missed it, we did not declare war on Sept 12, 2001 because our congress is full of cowards.
That said, they did give the president Authorization to use Force which is equivalent and that included "all means necessary" which we all know includes the use of Nukes.
Where? When?
angkor: ... they know that "wiretap" is not legally equal to "trap and trace" and "pen registers", which are quite likely what has been used in the program.I recall reading that the administration has stated the surveillance was beyond PR/TT level of information.
"What I'm talking about is the intercept of certain communications emanating between somebody inside the United States and outside the United States and one of the numbers would be reasonably suspected to be an Al Qaeda link or affiliate," Bush told an audience at Kansas State University.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182824,00.html
Atty'y General Gonzales: The President has authorized a program to engage in electronic surveillance of a particular kind, and this would be the intercepts of contents of communications where one of the -- one party to the communication is outside the United States.http://www.politechbot.com/2005/12/20/transcript-of-briefing/
I forgot to mention, it is completely plausible that NSA does in fact "wiretap", and it is also possible that FISA warrants have been obtained in the instances where "wiretapping" is done.
My earlier statement referred to "illegal" wiretapping.
Example:
NSA Trap&Trace -> Communication Transactions -> Communication Pattern -> Probable Cause -> FISA warrant -> NSA Wiretapping
You are aware, of course, that T&T and PR certifications cannot be blocked by the judiciary, even domestically.
The first quote from GWB does not definitively tell us what "intercept certain communications" actually means. "Certain communications" could just as easily be Caller ID numbers as they could be voice content. The statement is ambiguous and does not tell us what "certain communications" means.
As for Gonzales, he (and others) have repeatedly stressed the ongoing usefulness of FISA. It is very conceivable that FISA is used in conjunction with an NSA T&T/PR program once it has been determined that a certain pattern of communication transactions (from T&T and PR) is sufficient to establish probable cause, and thus a FISA warrant for wiretapping of content.
I am of course speculating. Just like everyone else, including Senators, talking heads, analysts, FReepers, and Washington pols.
Understood. And if I get the jist of your speculation, it is describing a set of activities that fully comports with FISA, without resort to the "AUMF" as being authority to "act otherwise."
So, we conclude that there are activities within FISA. Does that meant there are none outside of FISA?
Actually I'm speculating that the program is run within the established NSA charter, the AUMF, the Constitution, and FISA where necessary.
There is a huge and completely baseless amount of speculation that some element of the program must be - has to be - illegal (beginning with the cynical misuse of the term "wiretapping" by United States Senators).
I'm simply doing the opposite: presuming that the program is absolutely legal, and demonstrating how that might be the case. In fact I believe my scenario is actually the way the program is implemented.
1) Obtain phone numbers and email addresses from al Qaeda laptops and cell phones. -- LEGAL
2) Insert those numbers into monitoring devices at core international (non-US) voice/data switches for Trap & Trace and Pen Register. -- LEGAL
3) Collect "hits" to/from targeted numbers/addresses into an analytic program. -- LEGAL
4) Add new numbers/addresses to monitoring program as needed. -- LEGAL
5) Analyze communication transaction patterns within the universe of targeted entities. -- LEGAL
6) If a significant communication transaction pattern is identified and probable cause established, obtain a FISA warrant. -- LEGAL
7) Continue to monitor - via content wiretap - communications to/from selected telephones and email addresses under FISA warrant. -- LEGAL
I won't address the issue here of "whistleblower" NSA employees who (a) work in a compartmentalized environment that would isolate them from non-NSA activities (e.g., whether a FISA warrant had or hadn't been obtained), and (b) NSA "whistleblowers" who report their comaplaints to the NY Slimes and not to their internal NSA Security Officer and/or Legal Counsel.
IMHO, it is simplistic, and quite honestly, lazy, to presume the program is illegal.
To be more direct, I think you must know that Trap & Trace and Pen Register surveillance do not require a warrant. I think you must also know that such activities conducted from foreign soil by the NSA also do not require a warrant.
FISA is not a universally applicable surveillance standard. It has its limits.
Then I was correct in interpreting your point, being that the program is absolutely legal, complete with details of how the various stautory levers are being applied. That being the case, there is no "leak," because there is nothing to leak. End of discussion.
The administration should have used your approach, instead of putting Gonzales on the stand, putting Hayden up there, preparing the whitepaper and other legal rhetoric that drags in the AUMF, etc.
I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.
Legal, illegal, quasi-legal, whatever, a cleared DoD employee is required to sign a confidentiality statement prohibiting the dissemination of classified information or materials. As we've seen from very recent cases, people go to jail for breaking that oath.
"Legal" doesn't equate to "unclassified". Don't know why you'd say such a thing.
I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.
Allow me to rephrase - the "leak" relates to classified activity undertaken in full conformity with the law. We will endeavor to find the leaker, but beyond that, there is no news. There is no story. We are not doing anything today that is ouside of previously established legal activities. End of discussion.
That would be correct.
That would be correct.
Just to reiterate, I mean that to represent the situation as you described it.
I do not think that reprents the situation as it is. I think something was undertaken following 9/11/2001 that is different from previously established legal activities, where the difference legitimately raises a Constitutional question. At this point, the Constitutional question has been resolved unilaterally by the administration.
I think the so-called "constitutional/legality question" regarding the different post 9-11 handling is a red herring, an invention of the media and the left, taking what is a marginal question regarding the time shifting of such intercepts, and making it into the "domestic surveillance" story we have currently.
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.