After 9/11 the President made the decision to wire tap phone conversations from suspected terrorists to phone numbers in the U.S. This was discolsed by a leaked report to the New York Times and has since been on the front pages and made top news stories on the major news networks. Even today it was the focus on Meet the Press with Tim Russert in which he had Senate Intelligence Chair Pat Roberts, R-KS, former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD, House Intelligence Cmte. Chairman Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-MI and Ranking Member Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA on the domestic spying controversy.
One of the biggest issues presented by the media and jumped on by Democrats is that the President is going around FISA laws and spying on U.S. Citizens without obtaining a warrant.
The President and Republicans are saying that it was authorized by Congress in the fight against terrorism. And if a terrorist is contacting someone in the U.S. We want to know what they are talking about and there isn't time to follow the FISA law which could take days to obtain the necessary approval when the call could only be minutes.
Did the President break the law? Should the NSA be spying on U.S. Citizens talking with Terrorists?
From what I understand, the President can get a warrant up to three days AFTER he begins doing the spying. Three days! How hard is it to get a warrant from a court that is set up to approve such things? Not very. They are abusing their power and using the excuse of going after terrorists to do it. We all want them to get the bad guys, but for some odd reason, they refuse to involve the court as they should. Bush should continue the spying, but do it the right way and get the warrants. He should not be above the law.
According to FISA the President without a court or still must have the approval of the Attorney General which still could take hours or days.
quote:
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and
(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of this title; and
if the Attorney General reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at least thirty days prior to their effective date, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and notifies the committees immediately of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.
(2) An electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures adopted by him. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence under the provisions of section 1808 (a) of this title.
(3) The Attorney General shall immediately transmit under seal to the court established under section 1803 (a) of this title a copy of his certification. Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—
(A) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under sections 1801 (h)(4) and 1804 of this title; or
(B) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 1806 (f) of this title.
(4) With respect to electronic surveillance authorized by this subsection, the Attorney General may direct a specified communication common carrier to—
(A) furnish all information, facilities, or technical assistance necessary to accomplish the electronic surveillance in such a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier is providing its customers; and
(B) maintain under security procedures approved by the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence any records concerning the surveillance or the aid furnished which such carrier wishes to retain.
The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing rate, such carrier for furnishing such aid.
(b) Applications for a court order under this subchapter are authorized if the President has, by written authorization, empowered the Attorney General to approve applications to the court having jurisdiction under section 1803 of this title, and a judge to whom an application is made may, notwithstanding any other law, grant an order, in conformity with section 1805 of this title, approving electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information, except that the court shall not have jurisdiction to grant any order approving electronic surveillance directed solely as described in paragraph (1)(A) of subsection (a) of this section unless such surveillance may involve the acquisition of communications of any United States person.
First of all, you don't know whether the president is spying on "suspected terrorists." He's just saying he is and that means nothing because he's not even a trustworthy person. But even if he were an honest Boy Scout, that still is not enough. They can try to pull the terrorism/fear card all they want, but that doesn't give them the right to circumvent the law, which is exactly what's happening here.
I have a feeling the Republicans may try to change the law this year just so they avoid the subject matter, and that's why the news media keeps asking Democrats if there's something wrong with the law. If Democrats are smart, they'll say, there's nothing wrong with the law, the problem is the president, one who wishes to ignore the requirement of a warrant. What I think will happen is Democrats will be stupid and they'll allow this to turn into a debate about whether they support wiretaps of suspected terrorists, which this isn't even about. It's about illegally warrantless searches of U.S. citizens. It's not hard to get a warrant if the person is truly a subject and all this talk about the time it takes is a smoke screen, you don't hear police constantly complaining about getting warrants.
What's the point of the Constitution if you won't even uphold it? Many Republicans just show how little they care about principle, and how much they care about supporting those in power. Whatever happened to small and limited government? Oh yeah, that's just they use to get conservatives to vote for them.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
No the Republicans believe for the most part that the President has the authority under the constitution because we are at war. The Dems believe that the President needs to be able to do it and should be doing it but think that maybe the law needs to be changed to allow him to. So it's the Dems and a few Republicans who are pushing for changing the law.
I believe the Constitution gives the President the authority to do it under time of war which we are currently in.
Every President since Hurbert Hoover has wire tapped Americans.
Make no mistake about it, we are at war and it is the Presidents reposibility per the Constitution to protect Americans.
FISA was enacted in 1979 after Watergate and was designed to restrict the use of domestic wire taps by the Government. It basically says that the Government MUST obtain a warrant to wire tap someone in the United States. The Government can conduct a wire tap without a warrant providing the proper paperwork is given to the Attorney General which can take hours or days just like obtaining a warrant.
Look, surveillance on American citizens has been occuring for decades without warrants, without FISA blessing. Do NOT kid yourselves.
It's just now...the Executive Branch wants all the i's dotted and the t's crossed, the blessing of Congress and the people to do exactly what they've been doing for years.
I don't need you to 'teach' me a civics lesson.... I am fully aware of what I said...it seems you don't understand a word I said...nor do you understand what is going on here.
The President as advised by his peeps is wanting both Congress and the people to bless surveillance done by HIS cabinets: Homeland Security, Directorate of Intelligence, Dept of Justice (FBI, Attorney General), Military etc.
Yes....we are at war against a noun, now it sounds even more stupid that they want to have these powers in a perpetual war. What really makes this stupid is that they aren't even going after al Qaeda, they went to Iraq, and this just makes it harder for them to execute a campaign against al Qaeda. The result, a much longer conflict, a perpetual war. The time for warrantless surveillance is gone.
I hope you don't mind if I move the Constitution from the piss trail.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
02-12-2006 04:45 PM
they use to get conservatives to vote for them.
