Posted on 07/11/2008 8:31:58 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul
all of us need to contact President Bush and tell him what we think.
Thanks for the ping!
**** them Rats
(I know the source -I’m too lazy to get actual law but this is good enough to start)
Without a court order
The President may authorize, through the Attorney General, electronic surveillance without a court order for the period of one year provided it is only for foreign intelligence information;[10] targeting foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a)(1),(2),(3)[11] or their agents; and there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.[12]
The Attorney General is required to make a certification of these conditions under seal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,[13] and report on their compliance to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.[14]
Since 50 U.S.C. § 1802(a)(1)(A) of this act specifically limits warrantless surveillance to foreign powers as defined by 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (1),(2), (3) and omits the definitions contained in 50 U.S.C. §1801(a) (4),(5),(6) the act does not authorize the use of warrantless surveillance on: groups engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefore; foreign-based political organizations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or entities that are directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.[15] Under the FISA act, anyone who engages in electronic surveillance except as authorized by statute is subject to both criminal penalties[16] and civil liabilities.[17]
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1811, the President may also authorize warrantless surveillance at the beginning of a war. Specifically, he may authorize such surveillance “for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”[18]
“Smells like BS — under present law there is no requirement for a warrant or probable cause or anything of the sort to wiretap Iraqis. I think someone’s confused here.”
My understanding is that they can get a warrant after the fact if they need to act immediately. If somebody thought they needed a warrant then they didn’t understand the law. FISA has always allowed for this.
True these agencies are part of the executive branch, but are suggesting that they have no autonomy?
The article didn't say they called the president, and odds are he never knew about the incident until well after.
It isn't Bush that these lawyers worried about sending some other lawyers after them, it's the prospect of financial ruin trying to pay other lawyers to defend themselves in front of some senate turd throwing committee.
Getting the OK from Bush isn't going to help - how long has congress been trying to compel Cheney to testify about Bush firing a handful of attorney generals?
If you can't do your job without worrying about getting indicted for it, you're not going to be very effective.
Congress killed that soldier, just as sure as if they pulled the trigger themselves. It's turned into a repulsive circus of witch hunts, freak shows, and spitting contests, nothing more.
The FISA law applies even to a cellphone conversation between two people in Iraq, because those communications zip along wires through U.S. hubs, which is where the taps are typically applied. "
Remember...
That is the procedure for for “after the fact”, this is why it is so dangerous and why some Freepers are dead wrong about this. And Yes, if Hillary or Obama became president I would think the same way. Heck, I would even be ok if McCann was president.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/1802(a)(1)(A).html
This is a ****ing outrage.
“If you can’t do your job without worrying about getting indicted for it, you’re not going to be very effective.”
§ 1809. Criminal sanctions
(a) Prohibited activities
A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally—
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute; or
(2) discloses or uses information obtained under color of law by electronic surveillance, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through electronic surveillance not authorized by statute.
(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) of this section that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(c) Penalties
An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
(d) Federal jurisdiction
There is Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section if the person committing the offense was an officer or employee of the United States at the time the offense was committed.
It used to be that if one end of a conversation was outside the USA, you could listen because outside the USA, you have no expectation of privacy.
Sad that whoever had the final say in this tragedy was more afraid of what the dems would to to him than what the terrorists would do to our Soldiers.
“Democrats like to see Americans die in Iraq. They hate this country and they hate the military.”
Just don’t question their patriotism!
Ditto.
So, all the terrorists need to do is route every communication through a US source and thereby get a longer lead time before a tap is placed.
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.