let's just let the Army patrol the streets while we're at it.

And we would, if there was an Al Qaeda presence that required an Army patrol as a rational response. It's not like they're barred from the country by Posse Comitatus; it just restricts use of the military against domestic threats. Can anyone seriously argue Al Qaeda is a domestic problem?

The executive has authority in matters of an international threat. Courts (the arbiters of what's legal and what isn't) have not found otherwise. It's really that simple.

The thing is the executive does not have complete authority in matters of national security. Congress can make the rules for the armed forces under Article I.

Dammit, folks, if my neighbor is calling Al Qaeda -- or if Al Qaeda is calling him -- I want my government to know about it, and I want them to be gathering intelligence on the bastards. In fact, I would consider any President who knew about these activities and did NOT authorize surveillance operations against them to be derelict in his duty and worthy of impeachment.

How the hell are we supposed to establish links between possible terrorists inside AND outside the country if we don't do some spying?

I'm sorry, but this whole non-scandal is just pissing me off more and more.

Maybe its me, but when I read 1802 (a) (1) (C) which outlines a 'minimization procedure' and that sends me to 1801 (h), I see a bunch of allowances for electronic survaillence to occur on a US citizen if it leads to foreign intelligence

(h) “Minimization procedures”, with respect to electronic surveillance, means—
(1) specific procedures, which shall be adopted by the Attorney General, that are reasonably designed in light of the purpose and technique of the particular surveillance, to minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons consistent with the need of the United States to obtain, produce, and disseminate foreign intelligence information;
(2) procedures that require that nonpublicly available information, which is not foreign intelligence information, as defined in subsection (e)(1) of this section, shall not be disseminated in a manner that identifies any United States person, without such person’s consent, unless such person’s identity is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance;
(3) notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), procedures that allow for the retention and dissemination of information that is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be committed and that is to be retained or disseminated for law enforcement purposes; and
(4) notwithstanding paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), with respect to any electronic surveillance approved pursuant to section 1802 (a) of this title, procedures that require that no contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party shall be disclosed, disseminated, or used for any purpose or retained for longer than 72 hours unless a court order under section 1805 of this title is obtained or unless the Attorney General determines that the information indicates a threat of death or serious bodily harm to any person.

That looks like wiggle room, if there ever was any, to me especially if it is not used for future criminal prosecution. I guess why would the minimization section, 1802 (a) (1) (C), outline allowances for a US person's involvment if it is overriden by section 1802 (a) (1) (B)?

Minimization only refers to the storing or dissemination of the information, not collection. All it means is given names of US persons mentioned in intelligence reports need to be changed to generic terms, like "US Person", "US Political Party", "US Company", etc. This would include any mention, so if a two foreigners are talking about "did you see the new Peter Jackson movie? Naomi Watts is in it" would become "did you see the new US Person movie? US Person is in it." The real names have to be requested in writing, there has to be a need to know.

Which is all pointless, now. The DoJ letter doesn't discuss specifics of FISA, and the leakers didn't either (see next post). I don't particularly like picking through and figuring out our nation's intelligence procedures for the world to see. I was more interested in the constitutional issues regarding Article II and the AUMF. Serves me right.

"if my neighbor is calling Al Qaeda -- or if Al Qaeda is calling him -- I want my government to know about it, and I want them to be gathering intelligence on the bastards."

Sloan: I'm quite sure that everybody wants this, and the FISA court is there to make it happen. If the matter is urgent, then there's a 72 hour allowance where a court order can be issued retroactively. The issue at hand is not that some people want to capture Al Qaeda, and some don't. I would like to know if my neighbor is a terrorist as well. But why did the law need to be broken in this pursuit of knowledge considering the flexibility of the system? If this system was not flexible enough, or responsive enough, then it could have been revamped when the first round of Patriot Act provisions were passed. Or any time really. But, we can't accept that breaking the law is necessary when these people are responsible for making the laws.

Perhaps there were a bunch of people that they were just tapping for non-terrorist related information? You know, maybe they just wanted to find out what their political opponents were saying? The FISA court would not rubber stamp this type of activity. Or, perhaps they were just plain lazy and it seemed like too much work to obey the law?

Congress can make the rules for the armed forces under Article I.

But it can not make a law restricting exeuctive powers, any more than the executive can issue an executive order limiting Congress' power. They're equal branches of gov't.

If the matter is urgent, then there's a 72 hour allowance where a court order can be issued retroactively.

You still need probable cause. Retroactive red tape is still red tape. This is how Moussaoui's wiretap request got tossed out, possibly causing 3,000 American deaths.

"Retroactive red tape is still red tape. This is how Moussaoui's wiretap request got tossed out, possibly causing 3,000 American deaths."

The problem prior to 9/11 was not the law, it was a breakdown of communication between the FBI and the Justice Department. This excerpt from the Joint Congressional Investigation into 9/11 addresses this:

"The RFU agent told the Minneapolis agents that they had to connect Moussaoui to al-Qa’ida, which he believed was a “recognized” foreign power. The Minneapolis case agent later testified before the Joint Inquiry that he had had no training in FISA, but that he believed that “we needed to identify a – and the term that was thrown around was ‘recognized foreign power’ and so that was our operational theory.”

As the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel would later testify, the agents were incorrect. The FBI can obtain a search warrant under FISA for an agent of any international terrorist group…"

Just because Cheney says it doesn't make it true.

more here: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/part3.pdf

The problem prior to 9/11 was not the law, it was a breakdown of communication between the FBI and the Justice Department.

Ummmm... what do you think "red tape" means? Hello?

As the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel would later testify, the agents were incorrect.

So instead of just wiretapping Al Qaeda without a warrant, we expect FBI agents to be top-notch lawyers as well as counter-terrorism agents. Then, when they inevitably screw up, we say "Aha! The system works fine, they just screwed it up!"

Just because Cheney says it doesn't mean it's an evil plot to crush civil rights and oppress the innocent.

I mean, it's one thing to have these bureaucratic hurdles to prevent the FBI from wiretapping your local pot dealer. Someone screws up or gets confused, worst case: a few local kids get high.

It's quite another when you talk about wiretapping Al Qaeda. Worst case: thousands of dead Americans.

I'm inclined to give the executive branch their head on warrantless searches involving Al Qaeda (as they can constitutionally do, when it involves a foreign threat), and if they misuse the power take them to task for it afterward. Remember, the whole point of the warrants is to prevent unreasonable searches. It's hard to construe an unreasonable search of Al Qaeda linked phone calls.

"This is how Moussaoui's wiretap request got tossed out, possibly causing 3,000 American deaths."

TallDave: This is specifically what I was addressing. You are making the case the 3,000 deaths were caused by a failure in the FISA court -- but that's simply not the case. Again, it's a story that is being passed around on the right. Listen to this ... http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CountdownRush-Wo.mov

The newest AP-Ipsos poll (not the Rasmussen) shows that 56% of the country disagrees with what the president has done. 1/3 of this 56% are Republicans. The president should not be conducting warrantless wiretapping -- that's the bottom line.

You can't be 21088 serious?!?

You can't be 21088 serious?!?

let's just let the Army patrol the streets while we're at it.
I do not agree. Go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

ionolsen20 Very good site. Thanks for author!

ionolsen23 Great website! Bookmarked! I am impressed at your work!

let's just let the Army patrol the streets while we're at it.
I do not agree. Go to http://www.apartments.waw.pl

ionolsen40 I like your site

degk fhdatm tcbg imxpkrgod trkaupvh ykcdpn tqxlhm