This is from the White House website to try and set the record straight,as they put it, regarding so called Domestic spying. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060124-4.html I'm sorry, but this is bull****. If the government conducts a wiretap on an individual INSIDE the United States, even if he is on a conference call with 50 other people in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia that qualifies as at least PARTLY DOMESTIC. If even one party is a domestic party, they must follow the guidelines of FISA. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1802 § 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court (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. TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1801 “United States person” means a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States, but does not include a corporation or an association which is a foreign power, as defined in subsection (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section. It's good to see that the reporters at the White House press briefing are starting to hammer Scott McClellan on this because their 3rd grade definition of domestic is garbage.
The white house really honestly has decided to function as all 3 branches of government with regard to domestic spying. I think there should be even more outcry than there is, on separation of powers grounds. So-called judicial conservatives and "strict constructionists" should be OUTRAGED. I mean, f-cking seriously bothered. This is a humongous slap in the face.
Conservatives and strict constructionists hardly exist anymore, our federal government is overrun by partisans.
During my phone conversations, I sometimes hear strange clicking noise or key pad touching sound. The strange thing is neither I nor the persons I was talking to did anything with the phones, like playing with the cords or keys. Should I suspect the wiretapping? EDIT: it happens mostly, if not exclusively, in international phone calls.
As we have seen from polling data, the public supports wiretaps on phone calls suspected from coming from al Qaeda. This appears to be what the Bush Administration has focused on, in their counter-terrorism intelligence operations. The liberals, eagerly seeking an issue to complain about and score political points, have concocted the case that the Administration is spying on domestic, non-terror related phone calls. Are the liberals lying and distorting the facts to attempt to gain traction in the polls? Are the liberals so upset that they aren't even listening to the White House's defense of the program? I think that much is certain. My question for the liberals is this: What evidence do you have that supports your outrage regarding the Administration spying on domestic-to-domestic phone calls? Or are you so desperate for political attention that you oppose spying on al Qaeda?
That's a funny question. Why do we need to spy on al Qaeda? By virtue of being al Qaeda members, shouldn't they be taken out?
Ok, in the few minutes after posting my very salient points, two libs have responded. Azadre -- Posted a nonsense post that shows that he doesn't understand the argument. (typical) wnes -- Doesn't understand why we need to spy on al Qaeda. Any liberals with even a rudimentary understanding of the issue care to respond?
Rimrocker, you are now mixing issues. We are talking about the wiretapping itself here, not the issue of whether we need to go through FISA. wnes' post about suspecting his own calls as being monitored proves my point. This issue isn't about FISA, it's about balancing privacy and counter-terrorism operations. Here is the poll that says that America supports wiretapping al Qaeda to US phone calls. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/NSA.htm
T_J, if you are so sure that you have identifed al Qaeda members in USA, why don't you scoop 'em up? Waiting for another 9/11 to happen?
AGAIN you prove you are clueless on the issue. International (al Qaeda) to domestic phone calls are what we are talking about here. We are spying to attempt to figure out who in America is helping them. This knowledge would lead to arrests. I can't believe I have to explain this. Please, for the purpose of a healthy debate, recuse yourself from the discussion.
Be prepared to have this report shot down by TJ as a liberal fantasy by a disgruntled employee. Read the whole article as the author investigates all of the clues. Here's an excerpt about charges by a former NSA employee: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/19/14619/9977 NSA spied on its own employees, other U.S. intelligence personnel, and their journalist and congressional contacts. WMR has learned that the National Security Agency (NSA), on the orders of the Bush administration, eavesdropped on the private conversations and e-mail of its own employees, employees of other U.S. intelligence agencies -- including the CIA and DIA -- and their contacts in the media, Congress, and oversight agencies and offices. The journalist surveillance program, code named "Firstfruits," was part of a Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) program that was maintained at least until October 2004 and was authorized by then-DCI Porter Goss. Firstfruits was authorized as part of a DCI "Countering Denial and Deception" program responsible to an entity known as the Foreign Denial and Deception Committee (FDDC). Since the intelligence community's reorganization, the DCI has been replaced by the Director of National Intelligence headed by John Negroponte and his deputy, former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden. ... In addition, beginning in 2001 but before the 9-11 attacks, NSA began to target anyone in the U.S. intelligence community who was deemed a "disgruntled employee." According to NSA sources, this surveillance was a violation of United States Signals Intelligence Directive (USSID) 18 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The surveillance of U.S. intelligence personnel by other intelligence personnel in the United States and abroad was conducted without any warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The targeted U.S. intelligence agency personnel included those who made contact with members of the media, including the journalists targeted by Firstfruits, as well as members of Congress, Inspectors General, and other oversight agencies. Those discovered to have spoken to journalists and oversight personnel were subjected to sudden clearance revocation and termination as "security risks.
You are the one confusing the issue. The issue is not whether we should listen in on conversations that might have a bearing on National Security. Of course we should. The issue is should we do it legally according to the principles set forth in our Constitution (that pesky 4th Amendment) and according to the process codified by the legislation that created the FISA Court. It is no surprise that a majority of Americans (as reflected in your Rasmussen poll) believe "the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States." Notice that the poll you cite doesn't mention "warrantless" searches.
Are you insinuating one of the concepts this was very nation was built upon is nonsense? You, sir, are out of touch with reality as always. If it was your way, George W Bush would be king, liberals would be enslaved working on fiefs, and you would be all-the-merrier. Democracy and Freedom will reign over your tyrannous ideals.
rimrocker -- Nice try, but as you are well aware, this thread is not dealing with the FISA process, but rather the issue of spying itself. 99% of the liberals outrage on this topic is related to eavesdropping, not the warrant issue. That is a convenient accessory to the argument which gives them some technical detail to hide their partisan rage behind. It's not the core of the issue. And it's not what the above posts from fellow libs are moaning and groaning about. White lightening: You posted a story that even DAILYKOS thought was rubbish. They couldn't verify it until they found a disgruntled ex-employee. You've got arguably the most partisan left wing lunatic fringe website in the history of man who didn't even believe the story. Nice try, but we're going to need something objective here. Here is DailyKos' take on the source: At first I didn't want to believe it, and tried to do a little more research. Every version of this report I could find seemed to come from one single source - Wayne Madsen of the self-titled Wayne Madsen Report. The site itself struck me as a left-wing Drudge Report, bad graphics with super-partisan slant, so I remained skeptical. I couldn't find any major newspaper or blogs which might have done any additional background or detail on this story, although I did find a mention on conspiracyplanet.com. (?!!?!) After that, I pretty much wrote the entire thing off as being paranoid tin-foil-hattery. That's just sad that you would post there here, white lightening. Step up your game. Can any liberal answer my bolded question from above? I'm eagerly waiting an answer.
Jorge, they are BREAKING THE LAW!!!! And no, they are not allow to spy on ANYONE if they crush civil liberties in the process. As I stated previously, if ANYONE in the conversation is a "United States person" as defined in the Code, they can't surveil without a wiretap. I did not mention domestic to domestic although that CLEARLY fall outside of FISA.
Tell ya what jorge, during next week's hearings why doesn't Specter subpoena Ashcroft and Commy and have them testify under oath why they wouldn't sign off on Jr's little spying program? But we know the answer to that one don't we?
