Posted on 08/22/2006 9:19:26 AM PDT by El Oviedo
P.L. 103-359 10/14/1994
Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act of 1994 Physical Searches under FISA. Sec. 807(a) amends FISA to redesignate former title III as title IV and former Section 301 as Section 401. The new title III of FISA, 50 U.S.C. § 1821 et seq., provides for physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes. The new title:
– provides pertinent definitions (Sec. 301 of FISA).
Physical searches without a court order of property used exclusively by certain foreign powers.
– authorizes the President, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes without a court order for periods of up to 1 year upon Attorney General certification that (1) the search is directed solely at premises, information, material, or property used exclusively by, or under the open and exclusive control of a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States; a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons; or an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;
(2) that there is no substantial likelihood that the physical search will involve the premises, information, material, or property of a U.S. person;
(Excerpt) Read more at fas.org ...
In my book, the law states that it is okay to listen when a US persons is not involved.
Now to bring this law into the real world. When one listens to a cellphone conversation - can anybody determine the citizenship of the people involved?
The "Useful Idiots" would claim that the benefit of the doubt should be that if the surveillance in made in the US that two US persons are involved. But this thinking is not right, it is wrong.
This is the same as interpreting the rules of engagement to mean if a "baby" is in the house where the terrorist are fighting the US troops, that the baby should also be designated as a "combatant" just because the baby is within the same geographic location.
What these "useful idiots" must also understand and I am sure that they know it too, that there are 14 million non-citizens roaming around in this country.
Or these liberal judges consider them US citizens too?
FISA states that evesdropping or surveillance on these people is excluded from warrants.
What says you?
Additional links -
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1228964,00.html
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4443
http://www.theamericanmind.com/mt-test/archives/018774.html
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/federal-judge-rules-terrorist-wiretaps-unconstitutional
Illegal aliens? Aliens inside the U.S.?
Lanaguage huh?
Resident Aliens here legally are also US Persons.
In my opinion, it does not include non-US citizens who come here and learn how to fly airplanes or learn how to mix liquid into bombs, or buy 1000 cellphones. Am I right?
NSA can listen to them.
Still how can you differentiate the citizenship of two people talking over the phones?
May be the ACLU can answer.......
I agree but that is only a drop of the 14 miilion who are now here.
Intertwined in this group are those whose belief is to be awarded 72 virgins if they die for the cause.
Not that I would defend the judge, but your citing is about "physical searches" not the wiretaps in question.
Further, the judge ruled the actions were unconstitutional. Even Congress can't write law contra-constitutional.
However, it is really a mute point since FISA is not applicable. The President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for obtaining foreign intelligence, and FISA cannot encroach upon that authority. At least that is what the FIS Court of Review ruled in 2002.
The recent case in Michigan will promptly be overturned. Judge Taylor cannot overrule her very own Appellate Court which already decided this matter in 1969. (US v. Sinclair)
US person is broader than US citizen (o.w. the statute would have said US citizen). I'm certain it includes permanent residents ('Green Card' holders), and may include others, though I'm not sure.
I don't think a US visa does make the holder a US person. A non-citizen to be a US person must be legally admitted to the US for permanent residence, i. e. given a "green card".
Which brings me to this point - a Lebanese with a green card but decides to live in Lebanon, is not a US person.
From what I understand, permanent residence means continues residence within the geographical limits of the US for 5 years after which one can then apply for citizenship.
If a permanent resident does not meet the residency, then she can not apply for US citizenship.
A green card holder who stays outside the US for over 1 year has broken the residency requirements therefore she must reapply for a green card.
The opposite of "THEM people".
I want my MTV.
RIF. Those here on other than resident visas are not US Persons.
Why do people have to point out typos?
Maybe because some people refer to others as dolts?
When doing so It's usually a good idea to spell check, and have your facts straight.
Since the definition is quite explicit, and even easily understood, I conclude that you're just bitching to bitch.
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.