Casinos give money to politicians. They give money to politicians on both sides.
Nobody disagrees on that.
What Abramoff has done is EXPLICITLY trade favors for contributions. For that, he has dealt EXCLUSIVELY with Republicans (and not a SINGLE Democrat has EVER received any money from Abramoff). Not only did he give money directly, he DIRECTED casinos to give money to specific REPUBLICAN congressmen.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Abramoff directed ANY money to Democrats. The casinos were giving money to Democrats (and Republicans) LONG before Abramoff came along and they continued to give. In fact, after Abramoff cam along, casinos REDUCED their givings to Democrats.
How could anyone accuse Democrats of receiving money from Abramoff is beyond me.
Hey, here is a GREAT idea. Why don't you go ahead and do #1.
Based on Gitmo, various renditions, detention without appeal, random "enemy combatant", and designated "free speach zones" I've got a feeling we won't hear from you for awhile if you did #1 today...
- Nobody's paying for Microsoft's WMA, now that there is iTunes and real audio CDs left (and not WMA-only CDs, as was the plan).
Ummm.... Hate to break it to ya, but between Napster, Yahoo, AOL, etc., WMA based subscription music retailers have over 1 million user base who pay $~10+ every month.
And these services are growing at better than 10% every year.
Where are you getting this "not subtantially compused of United States persons"?
The actual wording is...
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
If you are tapping communication to/from US, if any party is unknown, that any reasonable person would agree that there is SUBSTANTIAL likelyhood that it involves a citizen.
And if you do inadvertantly tap US citizen's communications, you HAVE to get the warrant (even if it is after the fact). That is what section 1805 is all about.
And did you read the definitions? Section 1801? It CLEARLY states that FISA DOES NOT cover US citizens (and legal aliens)
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1801
(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means--
(1) any person other than a United States person, who--
How could that be any clearer? Have you really read the entire code?
(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
The court is NOT saying that the President has the Constituional authority to spy on citizens. The court is saying that the President has the Constitutional authority to spy on FOREIGN POWERS. Which is EXACTLY what FISA is about.
You are arguing that since the President can spy on citizens because he can also spy on foreign powers. But the what the courts and the law are saying is that since the Constitution only applies to citizens, they are not under the same protection that is afforded to the citizens.
I am fixated on this law because it is the ONLY law specifically written to address this type of issues.
Before FISA, there was this great uncertainty on whether or not US laws applied when it came to spying on foreign governments (USSR and allies, specifically). The Congress wanted to clear that up and wanted to make sure that the Executive branch had more than enough powers to do the job properly. But they did not want this law to be abused (Nixon was still fresh in the minds), so they put some basic safeguards like specifying that warrant was required for spying on US citizens. But they made it VERY easy to get those warrants (i.e. you can get warrants 72 hours after the tap starts).
If there are other laws that contradicts this law, don't you think the Bush administration would already have trumpeted it? They have a building full of lawyers!
Only thing they have come up with is that the war resolution gives Bush unlimited power. Basically arguing that Bush is a dictator. How could that not scare everyone?
I cannot see how you can argue that what he was doing was technically legal. The best Bush can do is argue that though his order was technically illegal, it was something that had to be done.
The both case you refer to clearly states that while search without warrant is valid when non-citizens are involved, it is not valid if citizens are.
How could that be twisted to say that Bush's executive order is technically legal?
And your argument about the person on the other end of the phone is exactly why FISA made it SO easy to obtain warrants (you can obtain one 72 hours after the tap started, secretive court, VERY HIGH grant rate - 99%). The fact that FISA's liberal application of warrant was not enough for the Bush administration, STRONGLY suggests that they were on pure fishing expedition where they were probably casting the wire tap nets VERY VERY wide.
Who said it is not a bad thing if Clinton and Carter did?
Certainly not I.
There is NO valid excuse for spying on US Citizens without a warrant. Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. This is one of our fundamental rights. It is not to be easily overlooked or circumvented.
If you are implying that Clinton and Carter authorized the same thing with their Executive Orders, then you are wrong. They never did. They were only applying the power given to them by FISA which ALLOWS the executive branch to wire tap Foreign Power communications that does not involve US Citizens without warrant.
Bush has ADMITTED that he ordered NSA to wire tap US citizens without warrant.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1802
(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
BUSH has BROKEN this law. He has admitted it. He is not arguing that he went AGAINST this code. He is arguing that his war-powers supercede this law.
Except that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis, offered this, "Nobody, nobody thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror... that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."
They know this issue is not good for their side (they have no real justification the warrantless search), so they are trying to muddle the issue by bringing up distorted facts that have NOTHING to do with the original argument (what does Carter and Clinton' executive order stating that "I am delegating FISA authority to my Attorney General" have ANYTHING to do with Bush breaking FISA statues?).
Why? Because by introducing lies to this argument, they can confuse majority of US citizens who doesn't know anything about FISA. Once they are confused, it is MUCH easier to get them to buy your story, no matter how untrue they are.
This has been the MO for this administration from the day one. At some point, you are going to have to call the liars what they are...
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.
Did you even read my post? FISA (the "Act" this order is referring to) explicitly grants permission to the President to authorize warrantless search for Foreign Governments and its Agents.
However, it EXPLICITLY FORBIDS the government from doing the same search on US Citizens without warrants.
Did you even READ this executive order? It does EXACTLY what I said it does. It says that since FISA gives me this power to search foreign powers, I am going to delegate this power to my Attorney General and other top cabinet officals.
WHERE does it say that even though FISA prohibits it, you are authorized to search US citizens without a warrant? Do you see ANY sentence here that says you should ignore FISA (in fact, EVERY paragraph starts with "Pursuant to FISA...")?
Why is this so hard to understand. I get that Rush and Fox News is distorting it, but gosh darn it, it is right here in black and white. ANY cursory reading of this order and FISA would lead any sane mind to fact that Clinton is going WITH the FISA while Bush is going AGAINST it.
I believe I have been rebutting your lies item by item (which you have not responded to). Name calling is just for added pleasure.
Oh, and did you know that the investigation of Aldrich was done by FBI and not NSA? CIA, after YEARS and YEARS of ignoring evidence, finally wised up after some public drunk episode by Aldrich, finally decided that he is a security liability?
Sorry, but it just pisses me off when people just willingly give away their rights which took millions of lives to secure.
And lying is exactly what they are doing. This has been the pattern for this administration time and time again. Whenever they are faced with a difficult issue which they have no real valid response, they just poison the debate by introducing falsehood which overcomes the original debate and obscures it (like accusing McCain and Kerry's war records).
Unless you are willing to stand up and call lies for what they are, they will keep using this tactic to blind us all.
So, now you are using more lies to bolster your first lie? Nice, Bush has nothing on you!
Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.
Wow, such monumental ignorance is hard to rebutt, but I will try. First, FISA specifically states that the govt has freedom to wire tap ANY electronic transmissions that happens inside or outside our borders. However, it also states CLEARLY that if a US citizen is involved in that communication, you MUST GET A WARRANT.
Bush has ALREADY ADMITTED that he ordered NSA to break this rule and wire tap calls made by US citizens. But he tried to weasel out of some of that saying it was "only for international calls". Less than a day later now we have officials coming out and saying "well, it was MOSTLY for international calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa. html?pagewanted=print).
Until we get a FULL list of calls intercepted, we have NO IDEA how widely this order was used. And frankly, the current administration has no credibility whatsoever right now.
"Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me.
Oh really? I didn't realize that giving authority to Bush to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq means all other laws go out the door. So you are basically arguing that Bush is, in fact, a DICTATOR. You are arguing that as long as he can justify (in his mind) that his action has ANYTHING to do with terrorism (which I think you would agree comes in almost limitless flavor), he can pretty much choose to do whatever he wants. No matter what Constitution or the law says.
You sir, should leave your citizenship at the door and move to Cuba.
Clinton was arguing that since FISA allowed warrant-less wire tapping for FOREIGN AGENTS, the president should be able to do the same for physical searches - for FOREIGN AGENTS! (FISA was later amended to include this)
FISA specifically outlaws wireless taps on US citizens without warrants. What part of US Citizen do you not understand?
Nobody is criticizing Bush for wire tapping Bin Laden without warrants. Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!
Vast majority of Patriot Act is permanent. Only few fringe statues are in play here. Even with those, majority of them have bi-partisan support (sad, but true).
We are only talking about 2 or 3 provisions being RENEWED with added safeguards.
NO ONE is talking about getting rid of the Act all together.
Clinton and Carter created Executive Orders PURSUANT to FISA - which FOBIDS spying on US citizens. The executive orders that Clinton and Carter create were nothing more than a list of delegates (in his cabinet) who can use FISA powers.
NO WHERE in ANY ONE of those Executive Orders or FISA about search US citizens without warrants (in fact, it is specifically prohibited).
Why don't you research something on your own instead of repeating what Rush and Fox News says?...Idiot
Do you actually read stuff you link to or do you just believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you?
Did you actually read the whole FISA? I have!
The whole section describes who constitutes a spy (foreign agent). And basically you are just pointing to that description. And you STOPPED reading before it got to the section where it states what you have to DO if you the suspect foreign agent is a US citizen!!!
"(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."
What part of this statue do you NOT understand?
The worst part all this is that there are ALL KINDS of deference to the executive branch in FISA (like the one above about exception for a threat, warrant AFTER the wire tap, etc.). And since FISA was enacted, the secret court has granted 10,000 wire taps while denying only 4. They HAVE bent over BACKWARDS to accomodate the executive branch.
But BUSH decided that is not enough. Why? One can only guess, but if they had ANY real reason for the wire tap they would have been granted the right so one would assume they wanted more.
This is probably what happened. They got some phone numbers off the cell phone of a captured terrorist. Some happens to be in US. They probably asked (and got) the warrant to tap those people and know associates of those people. But being the totalitarian dick-heads they are, Ashcroft probably wanted more. So, if the "person of interest" lived in an apartment. They probably tapped the entire building. If he went to a coffee shop regularly, he probably tapped the store AND everybody who works there. They probably even tapped everyone who talked to that "person of interest".
This CERTAINLY would have been rejected even by the secret courts. And knowing that, they just decided to violate the law.
If you are a TRUE conservative. How could that NOT SCARE YOU?
Do you actually read stuff you link to or do you just believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you?
As the other poster has indicated....
"(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."
What part of this statue do you NOT understand?
If you are so sure other presidents broke this law? Where's is the evidence? The executive order posted by Carter and Clinton just says that since I have this power granted by FISA, I am delegating my senior cabinet members to authorize international tapping. PRODUCE ONE SINGLE document that says Carter or Clinton authorized tapping without a warrant on a US citizen - JUST ONE!
Let's take a look at that Executive Order, shall we?
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Oh, so this Executive Order is not going AGAINST FISA, it is actually stating that since FISA gave President this right, we are going to excersize it.
And what power did FISA grant?
From FISA codes...
a) "Foreign power" means-- (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;...
(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means-- (1) any person other than a United States person,...
Oh just look at that... it SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES US CITIZENS!!!
It does not stop there
"Electronic surveillance" means-- (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
Oh, how about that! It REQUIRES warrant to search citizens.
So Carter was saying to his administration that they should execute FISA codes and FISA code specifically forbids spying on US citizens. HMMMM... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT???
Stop just repeating what Bush operatives and Fox News is spouting. Think for yourself every now and then.
"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
WOW, talking about taking it out of context!
The court was talking about executive branch's ability to gather intelligence on FOREIGN SOIL!!! They deemed that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to foreign governments and their agents. Which is the correct reading and MOST of us here would agree to.
What the courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled against is using that power on US CITIZENS! In fact FISA specifically guards against and makes that illegal. To balance that it makes it easier for authorities to get secret warrants and allows warrantless searches within the first 15 days of a war and allow agents obtain warrant AFTER the tap.
They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
LIAR!!! Do you have security clearance? Have you seen the list of warrantless searches? No? Then how do you know? Oh because Bush said so? Oh, and they also said they didn't use Patriot Act on non-terrorist groups and guess what? They used it on Peace groups and PETA!
But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
LIAR!!! Were you there when they were briefed? No? Then how the FUCK do you know? EVERY senator (Republican & Democrat) said they did not get complete information on this. But you KNOW they are lying??
And NO, this is not a reason to hide things! It is a DAMN GOOD REASON TO NOT HIDE things!!! Because if they didn't then Bush would have some RECORD to bolster his statements.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
Man you are just a walking LYINGPALOOZA!!! You mean to tell me that Al Queda DID NOT suspect that this government was TAPPING EVERY PHONE call? Hello? Govt has been tapping Al Queda since the mid-80's. Are you REALLY that dumb to think that Al Queda was SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YA to find this out from NY Times?
The FISA clearly lays out that Spying on FOREIGN government (and their agents) is OK without warrants (especially on foreign soils). But the US government has NEVER used that authority to spy on US citizens. In fact, FISA CLEARLY OUTLAWS IT!
So typical of Bush operatives, taint the truth by spreading falsehood.
Slashdot Mirror
Nobody disagrees on that.
What Abramoff has done is EXPLICITLY trade favors for contributions. For that, he has dealt EXCLUSIVELY with Republicans (and not a SINGLE Democrat has EVER received any money from Abramoff). Not only did he give money directly, he DIRECTED casinos to give money to specific REPUBLICAN congressmen.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Abramoff directed ANY money to Democrats. The casinos were giving money to Democrats (and Republicans) LONG before Abramoff came along and they continued to give. In fact, after Abramoff cam along, casinos REDUCED their givings to Democrats.
How could anyone accuse Democrats of receiving money from Abramoff is beyond me.
Based on Gitmo, various renditions, detention without appeal, random "enemy combatant", and designated "free speach zones" I've got a feeling we won't hear from you for awhile if you did #1 today...
What? You have a cachet of posts ready to go as soon as suitable topic appears?
Ummm.... Hate to break it to ya, but between Napster, Yahoo, AOL, etc., WMA based subscription music retailers have over 1 million user base who pay $~10+ every month.
And these services are growing at better than 10% every year.
I wouldn't exactly call that failure.
The Foreign Power is not a person, it refers to organizations. The "Agent of Foreign Power" is an individual.
By FISA definition, US Citizen cannot be an "Agent of Foreign Power".
FISA even goes further by saying that any organization comprised mainly of US Citizen CANNOT be labeled "Foreign Power".
You just have to read the whole thing, not just the first paragraph...
The actual wording is...
there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party;
If you are tapping communication to/from US, if any party is unknown, that any reasonable person would agree that there is SUBSTANTIAL likelyhood that it involves a citizen.
And if you do inadvertantly tap US citizen's communications, you HAVE to get the warrant (even if it is after the fact). That is what section 1805 is all about.
And did you read the definitions? Section 1801? It CLEARLY states that FISA DOES NOT cover US citizens (and legal aliens)
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1801
(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means--
(1) any person other than a United States person, who--
How could that be any clearer? Have you really read the entire code?
(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
The court is NOT saying that the President has the Constituional authority to spy on citizens. The court is saying that the President has the Constitutional authority to spy on FOREIGN POWERS. Which is EXACTLY what FISA is about.
You are arguing that since the President can spy on citizens because he can also spy on foreign powers. But the what the courts and the law are saying is that since the Constitution only applies to citizens, they are not under the same protection that is afforded to the citizens.
That is a BIG difference.
Before FISA, there was this great uncertainty on whether or not US laws applied when it came to spying on foreign governments (USSR and allies, specifically). The Congress wanted to clear that up and wanted to make sure that the Executive branch had more than enough powers to do the job properly. But they did not want this law to be abused (Nixon was still fresh in the minds), so they put some basic safeguards like specifying that warrant was required for spying on US citizens. But they made it VERY easy to get those warrants (i.e. you can get warrants 72 hours after the tap starts).
If there are other laws that contradicts this law, don't you think the Bush administration would already have trumpeted it? They have a building full of lawyers!
Only thing they have come up with is that the war resolution gives Bush unlimited power. Basically arguing that Bush is a dictator. How could that not scare everyone?
The both case you refer to clearly states that while search without warrant is valid when non-citizens are involved, it is not valid if citizens are.
How could that be twisted to say that Bush's executive order is technically legal?
And your argument about the person on the other end of the phone is exactly why FISA made it SO easy to obtain warrants (you can obtain one 72 hours after the tap started, secretive court, VERY HIGH grant rate - 99%). The fact that FISA's liberal application of warrant was not enough for the Bush administration, STRONGLY suggests that they were on pure fishing expedition where they were probably casting the wire tap nets VERY VERY wide.
It really is a scary position.
Certainly not I. There is NO valid excuse for spying on US Citizens without a warrant. Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. This is one of our fundamental rights. It is not to be easily overlooked or circumvented.
If you are implying that Clinton and Carter authorized the same thing with their Executive Orders, then you are wrong. They never did. They were only applying the power given to them by FISA which ALLOWS the executive branch to wire tap Foreign Power communications that does not involve US Citizens without warrant.
TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36 > SUBCHAPTER I > 1802
(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 BUSH has BROKEN this law. He has admitted it. He is not arguing that he went AGAINST this code. He is arguing that his war-powers supercede this law.
Except that Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis, offered this, "Nobody, nobody thought when we passed a resolution to invade Afghanistan and to fight the war on terror ... that this was an authorization to allow a wiretapping against the law of the United States."
They know this issue is not good for their side (they have no real justification the warrantless search), so they are trying to muddle the issue by bringing up distorted facts that have NOTHING to do with the original argument (what does Carter and Clinton' executive order stating that "I am delegating FISA authority to my Attorney General" have ANYTHING to do with Bush breaking FISA statues?).
Why? Because by introducing lies to this argument, they can confuse majority of US citizens who doesn't know anything about FISA. Once they are confused, it is MUCH easier to get them to buy your story, no matter how untrue they are.
This has been the MO for this administration from the day one. At some point, you are going to have to call the liars what they are...
Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.
Did you even read my post? FISA (the "Act" this order is referring to) explicitly grants permission to the President to authorize warrantless search for Foreign Governments and its Agents.
However, it EXPLICITLY FORBIDS the government from doing the same search on US Citizens without warrants.
Here, you can read it yourself.
Did you even READ this executive order? It does EXACTLY what I said it does. It says that since FISA gives me this power to search foreign powers, I am going to delegate this power to my Attorney General and other top cabinet officals.
WHERE does it say that even though FISA prohibits it, you are authorized to search US citizens without a warrant? Do you see ANY sentence here that says you should ignore FISA (in fact, EVERY paragraph starts with "Pursuant to FISA...")?
Why is this so hard to understand. I get that Rush and Fox News is distorting it, but gosh darn it, it is right here in black and white. ANY cursory reading of this order and FISA would lead any sane mind to fact that Clinton is going WITH the FISA while Bush is going AGAINST it.
Oh, and did you know that the investigation of Aldrich was done by FBI and not NSA? CIA, after YEARS and YEARS of ignoring evidence, finally wised up after some public drunk episode by Aldrich, finally decided that he is a security liability?
Oh, and did you know that Aldrich's house was NOT SEARCHED until his arrest warrant was issued? Oh, I guess you wouldn't know unless you really RESEARCHED this case (http://www.hanford.gov/oci/maindocs/ci_r_docs/ame scase.pdf).
The Washington Times article you reference is filled with inaccuracies. No doubt Bush administration paid handsomely for this "reporting".
Why don't you try some REAL reading for once.
And lying is exactly what they are doing. This has been the pattern for this administration time and time again. Whenever they are faced with a difficult issue which they have no real valid response, they just poison the debate by introducing falsehood which overcomes the original debate and obscures it (like accusing McCain and Kerry's war records).
Unless you are willing to stand up and call lies for what they are, they will keep using this tactic to blind us all.
Bush authorized taps on international calls. There is no wholesale wiretapping of citizens.
Wow, such monumental ignorance is hard to rebutt, but I will try. First, FISA specifically states that the govt has freedom to wire tap ANY electronic transmissions that happens inside or outside our borders. However, it also states CLEARLY that if a US citizen is involved in that communication, you MUST GET A WARRANT.
Bush has ALREADY ADMITTED that he ordered NSA to break this rule and wire tap calls made by US citizens. But he tried to weasel out of some of that saying it was "only for international calls". Less than a day later now we have officials coming out and saying "well, it was MOSTLY for international calls" (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/politics/21nsa. html?pagewanted=print).
Until we get a FULL list of calls intercepted, we have NO IDEA how widely this order was used. And frankly, the current administration has no credibility whatsoever right now.
"Congress authorized Bush to use "all" means. Sounds pretty authoritative to me.
Oh really? I didn't realize that giving authority to Bush to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq means all other laws go out the door. So you are basically arguing that Bush is, in fact, a DICTATOR. You are arguing that as long as he can justify (in his mind) that his action has ANYTHING to do with terrorism (which I think you would agree comes in almost limitless flavor), he can pretty much choose to do whatever he wants. No matter what Constitution or the law says.
You sir, should leave your citizenship at the door and move to Cuba.
IDIOT!!!
Clinton was arguing that since FISA allowed warrant-less wire tapping for FOREIGN AGENTS, the president should be able to do the same for physical searches - for FOREIGN AGENTS! (FISA was later amended to include this)
FISA specifically outlaws wireless taps on US citizens without warrants. What part of US Citizen do you not understand?
Nobody is criticizing Bush for wire tapping Bin Laden without warrants. Everybody is PISSED because he did that on US Citizens and BROKE THE LAW he is supposed to protect!
Vast majority of Patriot Act is permanent. Only few fringe statues are in play here. Even with those, majority of them have bi-partisan support (sad, but true).
We are only talking about 2 or 3 provisions being RENEWED with added safeguards.
NO ONE is talking about getting rid of the Act all together.
Clinton and Carter created Executive Orders PURSUANT to FISA - which FOBIDS spying on US citizens. The executive orders that Clinton and Carter create were nothing more than a list of delegates (in his cabinet) who can use FISA powers.
NO WHERE in ANY ONE of those Executive Orders or FISA about search US citizens without warrants (in fact, it is specifically prohibited).
Why don't you research something on your own instead of repeating what Rush and Fox News says? ...Idiot
Funniest thing I have read in a long long time...
Do you actually read stuff you link to or do you just believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you?
Did you actually read the whole FISA? I have!
The whole section describes who constitutes a spy (foreign agent). And basically you are just pointing to that description. And you STOPPED reading before it got to the section where it states what you have to DO if you the suspect foreign agent is a US citizen!!!
"(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."
What part of this statue do you NOT understand?
The worst part all this is that there are ALL KINDS of deference to the executive branch in FISA (like the one above about exception for a threat, warrant AFTER the wire tap, etc.). And since FISA was enacted, the secret court has granted 10,000 wire taps while denying only 4. They HAVE bent over BACKWARDS to accomodate the executive branch. But BUSH decided that is not enough. Why? One can only guess, but if they had ANY real reason for the wire tap they would have been granted the right so one would assume they wanted more.
This is probably what happened. They got some phone numbers off the cell phone of a captured terrorist. Some happens to be in US. They probably asked (and got) the warrant to tap those people and know associates of those people. But being the totalitarian dick-heads they are, Ashcroft probably wanted more. So, if the "person of interest" lived in an apartment. They probably tapped the entire building. If he went to a coffee shop regularly, he probably tapped the store AND everybody who works there. They probably even tapped everyone who talked to that "person of interest".
This CERTAINLY would have been rejected even by the secret courts. And knowing that, they just decided to violate the law.
If you are a TRUE conservative. How could that NOT SCARE YOU?
Do you actually read stuff you link to or do you just believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells you?
As the other poster has indicated....
"(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."
What part of this statue do you NOT understand?
If you are so sure other presidents broke this law? Where's is the evidence? The executive order posted by Carter and Clinton just says that since I have this power granted by FISA, I am delegating my senior cabinet members to authorize international tapping. PRODUCE ONE SINGLE document that says Carter or Clinton authorized tapping without a warrant on a US citizen - JUST ONE!
Because Bush has (and he ADMITTED IT).
Let's take a look at that Executive Order, shall we?
1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.
Oh, so this Executive Order is not going AGAINST FISA, it is actually stating that since FISA gave President this right, we are going to excersize it.
And what power did FISA grant?
From FISA codes...
a) "Foreign power" means-- (1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;...
(b) "Agent of a foreign power" means-- (1) any person other than a United States person,...Oh just look at that... it SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES US CITIZENS!!!
It does not stop there
"Electronic surveillance" means-- (1) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device of the contents of any wire or radio communication sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person who is in the United States, if the contents are acquired by intentionally targeting that United States person, under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be required for law enforcement purposes;
Oh, how about that! It REQUIRES warrant to search citizens.
So Carter was saying to his administration that they should execute FISA codes and FISA code specifically forbids spying on US citizens. HMMMM... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT???
Stop just repeating what Bush operatives and Fox News is spouting. Think for yourself every now and then.
Pathetic.
"court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
WOW, talking about taking it out of context!
The court was talking about executive branch's ability to gather intelligence on FOREIGN SOIL!!! They deemed that the Fourth Amendment did not extend to foreign governments and their agents. Which is the correct reading and MOST of us here would agree to.
What the courts have CONSISTENTLY ruled against is using that power on US CITIZENS! In fact FISA specifically guards against and makes that illegal. To balance that it makes it easier for authorities to get secret warrants and allows warrantless searches within the first 15 days of a war and allow agents obtain warrant AFTER the tap.
They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties.
LIAR!!! Do you have security clearance? Have you seen the list of warrantless searches? No? Then how do you know? Oh because Bush said so? Oh, and they also said they didn't use Patriot Act on non-terrorist groups and guess what? They used it on Peace groups and PETA!
But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees.
LIAR!!! Were you there when they were briefed? No? Then how the FUCK do you know? EVERY senator (Republican & Democrat) said they did not get complete information on this. But you KNOW they are lying??
And NO, this is not a reason to hide things! It is a DAMN GOOD REASON TO NOT HIDE things!!! Because if they didn't then Bush would have some RECORD to bolster his statements.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
Man you are just a walking LYINGPALOOZA!!! You mean to tell me that Al Queda DID NOT suspect that this government was TAPPING EVERY PHONE call? Hello? Govt has been tapping Al Queda since the mid-80's. Are you REALLY that dumb to think that Al Queda was SHOCKED! SHOCKED I TELL YA to find this out from NY Times?
Not only are you a liar, you are dumb too...
The FISA clearly lays out that Spying on FOREIGN government (and their agents) is OK without warrants (especially on foreign soils). But the US government has NEVER used that authority to spy on US citizens. In fact, FISA CLEARLY OUTLAWS IT!
So typical of Bush operatives, taint the truth by spreading falsehood.
How disgusting...