<p>Garland, the above section was abbreviated for the issues CM and I were discussing. Here’s the whole thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How does anyone know if this has been the limit of the evesdropping if the evesdropper doesn’t have to tell anyone about it? What is unreasonable about having a third party judge or panel of judges look at who is being evesdropped on? If this becomes standard operating procedure, how long before members of congress, leaders of churches and scholars become targets of these double secret investigations?</p>
<p>As a citizen, I want my government to have checks and balances. Don’t you?</p>
<p>Merry Christmas! and Happy Holidays to all.</p>
<p>
This isn’t just “someone” and he didn’t just “opine”. This is a person who has considerably more legal standing on this issue than you or any of the rest of us and he was quoting directly from court findings. And, being a member of the Clinton administration, you can’t dismiss him as being a hack for the Bush team. </p>
<p>It is clear that you don’t care what the facts are and that you will read the law to mean anything that you want. Yet you somehow seem justified in claiming that Bush is the “scary” one. How ironic.</p>
<p>Surely everyone wants checks and balances, but not all of them are equally fair.</p>
<p>
In principle, there’s nothing wrong with it at all, which was the general thrust of the Geo. Will piece cited earlier. However, not doing it that way isn’t automatically a crime. That’s the point. I support transparency wherever possible.</p>
<p>In my newspaper today it says the White House has admitted the NSA “inadvertently” eavesdropped on strictly domestic communications without court oversight, as well. It just gets stickier and stickier. And that is precisely WHY oversight is necessary.</p>
<p>driver said: “I support transparency wherever possible.”</p>
<p>Me, too. And accountability.</p>
<p>John Hinderaker’s analysis, several days in the making. It’s worth a read if you want to get a handle on this issue. Don’t blow him off because he blogs…he’s a very smart lawyer, and widely-published in tree media as well, where I suspect this piece will appear in the next day or so.</p>
<p><a href=“http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php[/url]”>http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012631.php</a></p>
<p>Driver, do you work for a conservative organization? I was listening to KCBS or KGO radio in the SF bay area yesterday. Somebody from the Hoover Institute was quoted as saying that what George Bush did was illegal.</p>
<p>Maybe, you can find that information since you love to quote conservatives.</p>
<p>Ah, the old “unnamed source.” It’s entirely possible that conservatives disagree with each other. We’re free thinkers. But do your own googling, dstark. I have Christmas cookies to make.</p>
<p>Well Driver, I didn’t write it down. But since you love to quote so many conservative sources, I figured you had that story too. :)</p>
<p>I know I seem to be omniscient, but…alas.</p>
<p>
Sounds like that covers all the bases to me.</p>
<p>
That happens with or without a warrant. It’s the nature of the technology.</p>
<p>Driver and Bandit – do you guys deliberately try to delete the word that undermine your argument, simply hoping everyone else is too stupid to read – or are you guys just too dense to read what is written plainly:
<a href=“i”>quote</a> 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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How could the law be more clearly written? An “agent of a foreign power” by definition is NOT a United States person … and a US person is a citizen or permanent resident. </p>
<p>The only possible way Bush could possibly engage in domestic surveillance would be if he also claimed that the people whose calls were monitored were all aliens with something other than permanent residence status. Thus far, that has not been the claim of the Bush administration – if it is, then I think they would be well advised to come out and say so – and of course that would need to be specified in the executive order that Bush signed.</p>
<p>
Yes it is – violating a criminal law is a crime. FISA does allow agents to commence eavesdropping in exigent circumstances without a warrant, but only if they initiate a warrant request within 48 hours. So basically, the law not only requires the warrant, it also provides a way of fixing the problem if there isn’t one. The law is very, very clear on this.</p>
<p>Now you might argue that the law is unconstitutional – its an extremely weak argument, given the fourth amendment issues involved, but it could be raised – but procedurally, the only way that argument would be raised is as AFTER the crime is charged, as a defense. Unless and until a court declares the law unconstitutional, it remains subject to prosecution, whether or not it is used.</p>
<p>calmom - this brings up a good point. If a candidate goes on trial with evidence gathered from this surveillance, I can see an attempt to throw out the evidence based on the attorney’s argument that it was obtained illegally. And a judge may very well agree with that. By not following FISA, GWB may be giving terrorists an “out” that would severely hurt the prosecution’s case.</p>
<p>Oh wait - I forgot. GWB doesn’t need a trial for “terrorists.” He can just hold them indefinitely and eventually try them in a military tribunal
in a foreign country. </p>
<p>Never mind…</p>
<p>
Calmom,
I truly hope you’re not a real lawyer…and that you just play one on CC. In fact, you seem to pick and choose among the sections of the statute in order to “prove” your preconceived notion that Chimpy Bush-Hitlerburton is GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY<img src=“b” alt=“quote”> Agent of a foreign power means
(1) any person other than a United States person, who
(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;
(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such persons presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or
(2) any person who
(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;
(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;
(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or
(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).
[/quote]
This is not hard to understand, even if you’re only play-lawyering. And as for your post #155, it’s simply not true that the law is clear on this. There’s plenty of scholarly info already posted on this thread for you to refute, if you so choose. Why not tackle John Hinderaker’s piece? I’m sure you’ll decimate him as thoroughly as you have me.</p>
<p>Many great Presidents have stretched their legal authority in times of crisis.</p>
<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002698250_spypowers22.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002698250_spypowers22.html</a></p>
<p>Driver, I am a real lawyer but it is obvious that you are not, and so I really am not going to debate law with you any more. The law is clear. The statute is clear. You simply have a political agenda. The fact that some other political hack can make a specious argument doesn’t mean it holds water.</p>
<p>“Now you might argue that the law is unconstitutional – its an extremely weak argument, given the fourth amendment issues involved, but it could be raised – but procedurally, the only way that argument would be raised is as AFTER the crime is charged, as a defense. Unless and until a court declares the law unconstitutional, it remains subject to prosecution, whether or not it is used.”</p>
<p>I think a citizen’s arrest is in order. ;)</p>