D'OH! Clinton's Excecutive Order of ELINT Without Court Order, D'OH! Carter Too!

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
D'OH! There goes the "Imperialist Dictator" argument.

CLINTON ADMINISTRATION SECRET SEARCH ON AMERICANS -- WITHOUT COURT ORDER

CARTER EXECUTIVE ORDER: 'ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE' WITHOUT COURT ORDER

Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approval

Clinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."

Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Developing

More sure to come about the hypocracy of the left.....
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']More sure to come about the hypocracy of the left.....[/QUOTE]
Did they actually search anyone?

Did they delegate the authority to authorize these searches to any FBI investigator?
 
BTW, I'd just like to ad one thing.

Executive orders carry full weight and standing of Federal law unless recinded or declared unconstitutional.

For example; President Ford signed an Executive Order forbidding assination of foreign leaders or heads of state. That is the legal precedent cited by all government agencies when they categorically deny it happens as it is illegal and against American foreign policy.

So now that you're all complaining about Bush "illegally" ordering ELINT gathering on domestic to international or vice versa phone calls? You can blame Carter and Clinton who signed off on the executive orders that were never repealed or challenged legally or congressionally.

Sorry, maybe next time your wet dreams will come true.
 
For foreign intelligence purposes, in "places where you wouldn't find, or would be unlikely to find information involving a US citizen." (from your post)

The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibits wiretapping and searches of US citizens without court approval. Bush did. He is a traitor to the United States of America.

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/

EDIT for clarification: The executive order that the GOP/Conservative media/Political Hacks at the White House is/are using to obfuscate the blatant disregard for U.S. law that Bush has demonstrated here is simply an order clarifying the 1978 FISA. In no way does it conflict with the law as written.
 
Second, executive orders do not carry the weight of federal law.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-358es.html
The answer rests in part with the growth of presidential rule through executive orders and national emergencies. Unfortunately, the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order—except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers.

The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking.

Nevertheless, the courts have acted in two cases—in 1952 and 1996—laying down the principles of the matter; the nation's governors have just forced President Clinton to rewrite a federalism executive order; and now there are two proposals in Congress that seek to limit presidential lawmaking. Those developments offer hope that constitutional limits—and the separation and division of powers, in particular—may eventually be restored.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order
Executive orders do not have legal force by themselves. Most are simply orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers.
Click to expand...

If they did, why would the president submit a budget when all he would have to do is issue an "executive order"?



On a personal note, I'm still shocked as hell that you're supporting this president through this. I thought, and you claim to be, that you are/were a Libertarian. This should shock and infuriate you. It's a little sad to see you toeing the company line.
 
I'm not at all infuriated.

To the contrary I will express my same statement in regards to all terrorist suspects.

Guilty until proven innocent, no legal standing, no rights.

Scum of the Earth deserve no quarter.

The line between executive orders and proclamations is often blurred. Both executive orders and proclamations can have legal effect. Generally, executive orders are used by a president to exercise executive authority. For example, E.O. 12370 was issued to create an emergency board to investigate a railroad dispute. Proclamations are often used to announce something ceremonial in nature, such as National Medal of Honor Day (Proclamation 6263).
University of Florida Law School

If Executive Orders had no legal weight no legislation is on the books to prohibit the U.S. government to assasinate foreign heads of state.

They do have legal standing. Otherwise they have zero meaning.

The reason the budgetary process and taxation cannot be done by Executive Order is because spending of government money and raising taxes/tarrifs are clearly enumerated rights to the legislative branch in Article I, Section II of the Constitution.
 
Hey numbnuts..both of those orders were still within the context of FISA which means it the "target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power"

Developing...into a picture of PAD blowing Drudge.

You lose; try again
 
PAD, how exactly do you prove someone innocent when you pick them up off the street and conduct everything in secret (preventing others from testifying in his defense)?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I'm not at all infuriated.

To the contrary I will express my same statement in regards to all terrorist suspects.

Guilty until proven innocent, no legal standing, no rights.

Scum of the Earth deserve no quarter.

The line between executive orders and proclamations is often blurred. Both executive orders and proclamations can have legal effect. Generally, executive orders are used by a president to exercise executive authority. For example, E.O. 12370 was issued to create an emergency board to investigate a railroad dispute. Proclamations are often used to announce something ceremonial in nature, such as National Medal of Honor Day (Proclamation 6263).
University of Florida Law School

If Executive Orders had no legal weight no legislation is on the books to prohibit the U.S. government to assasinate foreign heads of state.

They do have legal standing. Otherwise they have zero meaning.

The reason the budgetary process and taxation cannot be done by Executive Order is because spending of government money and raising taxes/tarrifs are clearly enumerated rights to the legislative branch in Article I, Section II of the Constitution.[/QUOTE]

Let's hope that you're never a terrorism suspect, but that is a society that I do not want to live in. You can wish to trade your freedom for security, but don't try to give mine away.

Your assessment is correct that there is no legislation on the books that prohibits the US from assassinating foreign heads of state. Simply an executive order that presidents continue to abide by. Because there is no federal law stating otherwise, Carter's executive order stands.

Allow me to use a better example than a budget, a current one. Couldn't the president, since he wants more law enforcement power, simply issue an executive order permenantly codifying the "Patriot Act", Granting "Guest Worker Rights", prohibiting gay marriage, or rescinding the 1978 FISA for example?

He can do none of those things. The president's job is to enforce the law, not create or change it. He can't even (constitutionally) introduce bills into congress. He has to arrange a sponsor.

A federal law is on the books prohibiting the federal government from surveilling U.S. citizens without a court order, a warrant. Bush countermanded that in the interest "National Security". He tore up the Constitution to save the Constitution, so to speak. But in this case it didn't need saving.

The court has to approve or reject the application within 72 hours. The government can begin the surveillance and apply for a warrant retroactively. Of 13,000 applications, 4 were rejected. Why didn't he just ask, unless there was no evidence of terrorist ties? Unless he was sure they were going to be rejected, unless there were thousands, or hundreds of thousands of communications to sift through.

He cannot simply take more powers for himself.
 
[quote name='Quillion']Let's hope that you're never a terrorism suspect, but that is a society that I do not want to live in. You can wish to trade your freedom for security, but don't try to give mine away.[/QUOTE]

Anyone happen to catch the exchange on the floor of the Senate that happened today?

Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."
Sen. Russ Feingold: "Give me liberty or give me death."
Click to expand...

A truly great retort, one that perfectly illustrates what this entire debate is about. Our founding fathers believed that liberty, justice and freedom were worth more than life itself. The Republicans, it appears, disagree with that assessment.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Anyone happen to catch the exchange on the floor of the Senate that happened today?



A truly great retort, one that perfectly illustrates what this entire debate is about. Our founding fathers believed that liberty, justice and freedom were worth more than life itself. The Republicans, it appears, disagree with that assessment.[/QUOTE]

You forgot the retort to the retort: "Talk is cheap".
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']You forgot the retort to the retort: "Talk is cheap".[/QUOTE]

Talk IS cheap. WOULD Feingold give his life for abstract concepts such as freedom? I have no idea. What I do know, though, is that Cornyn today (well, yesterday at this point) went on the floor of the Senate and publicly spit on the ideals that our Founding Fathers built our country on. They WERE willing to give their lives for freedom, and Cornyn has all but called them fools for doing so.
 
President had legal authority to OK taps

By John Schmidt
Published December 21, 2005

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.

The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America. An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.

In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

In the most recent judicial statement on the issue, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, composed of three federal appellate court judges, said in 2002 that "All the ... courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority."

The passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978 did not alter the constitutional situation. That law created the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that can authorize surveillance directed at an "agent of a foreign power," which includes a foreign terrorist group. Thus, Congress put its weight behind the constitutionality of such surveillance in compliance with the law's procedures.

But as the 2002 Court of Review noted, if the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches, "FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

FISA contains a provision making it illegal to "engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." The term "electronic surveillance" is defined to exclude interception outside the U.S., as done by the NSA, unless there is interception of a communication "sent by or intended to be received by a particular, known United States person" (a U.S. citizen or permanent resident) and the communication is intercepted by "intentionally targeting that United States person." The cryptic descriptions of the NSA program leave unclear whether it involves targeting of identified U.S. citizens. If the surveillance is based upon other kinds of evidence, it would fall outside what a FISA court could authorize and also outside the act's prohibition on electronic surveillance.

The administration has offered the further defense that FISA's reference to surveillance "authorized by statute" is satisfied by congressional passage of the post-Sept. 11 resolution giving the president authority to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent those responsible for Sept. 11 from carrying out further attacks. The administration argues that obtaining intelligence is a necessary and expected component of any military or other use of force to prevent enemy action.

But even if the NSA activity is "electronic surveillance" and the Sept. 11 resolution is not "statutory authorization" within the meaning of FISA, the act still cannot, in the words of the 2002 Court of Review decision, "encroach upon the president's constitutional power."

FISA does not anticipate a post-Sept. 11 situation. What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.

But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

----------

John Schmidt served under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997 as the associate attorney general of the United States. He is now a partner in the Chicago-based law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw.
Link

Now, which one of you is going to stand up and argue against a former Assistant AG for Clinton on the issue.
 
[quote name='Drocket']
Sen. John Cornyn: "None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."
Sen. Russ Feingold: "Give me liberty or give me death."
[/QUOTE]

:applause:

I'm going to add that to my sig.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']And...........exit stage left: PAD. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Just like every other thread he starts. He hears something on 104.7 and runs to the keyboard, giggling as he types. "HA, wait till those bastards hear this, now they will all know the power and strength of Republicanism!"

Cut to 4 hours later when everything has been fact checked and proven wrong.

{sounds of crickets}

PAD goes to bed, wakes up the next day knowing he can't visit his old post because its been shredded and his credibility has somehow sunk even lower. Seeking solice, he turns on the radio. And the cycle begins again.
 
None of you will even admit one simple thing.

These weren't wiretaps on Americans talking to Americans. This wasn't a "spy" effort on anti-war activists, DNC leadership, Congressional opponents or special interest groups.

They were terrorist suspects.

Denial just isn't a river in Africa.

You can say PWN3D all you want. Just know, you're all wrong.

When the Democrats protest, seek out cameras, appear as talking heads and say they want hearings it's all political posturing BS. They don't want Clinton put on the stand. They don't want Carter put on the stand. They don't want former AG's and Assistant AG's put on the stand, like the one that wrote the Chicago Tribune article saying what was done clearly had legal and historical precedent. The only thing the left wants is the appearence of wrong doing.

They don't want the truth of the matter on public display because the facts would bury them neck deep.

You've all swallowed the Kool Aid and mainstream propaganda on this issue. Factcheck.org? Hell man, why not just post "experts" from democraticunderground.com.

BTW for those that suggested that my follow up article this morning came from talk radio? I posted it well before any national show was even broadcast today.

You want to say this violated 4th Ammendment rights? Bring forth one example of a harmed citizen or someone that was charged through information obtained with a non-illegal "illegal" wiretap.

Without no victim how can there be a crime. You're all talking in the theorhetical and have no examples to bring forth to show real harm done to completely innocent citizens.

The central tennant of every argument put forth today and yesterday has one common thread throughout.... you all hate George W. Bush. That's all you have. That's all you care about.

I can't wait to see how bad Democrats get skunked again in 2006. They're a shameful disgrace of a political party and you're all willing lemmings following the lead about to go over the cliff.

Hey, fine by me. The country needs more issues like this to clearly illustrate how incapable the left is of engaging and realizing the nature of the enemy. I hope to get three or four more stories like this in the next year.

You'll lose as bad as you did in 1994.
 
[quote name='evanft']I can't see PAD's post, but I'll assume it's about his ass hurting from being owned so hard.[/QUOTE]

NYAH NYAH NYAH I CAN'T HEAR YOU! NYAH NYAH NYAH YOU DON'T EXIST! NYAH NYAH NYAH I'M A CHICKENSHIT THAT CAN'T READ AN OPPSING VIEWPOINT! NYAH NYAH NYAH.

Corrected for truth.
 
Again, can't see the post, but it's a safe bet that PAD is confirming what I said about his anal pain and is discussing the treatment he will seek for his afflicition.
 
[quote name='evanft']I can't see PAD's post, but I'll assume it's about his ass hurting from being owned so hard.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much, yeah.
 
[quote name='Kirin Lemon']Pretty much, yeah.[/QUOTE]

I'm Miss fucking Cleo, aren't I?

8686.jpg


Call me now for your free readin'!
 
You're really making this too easy now. I don't even think you're trying anymore.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']These weren't wiretaps on Americans talking to Americans.[/quote]
Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 21, 2005
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']They were terrorist suspects.[/quote]
Terrorist suspects not terrorists. We do still have a presumption of innocence for citizens (although I'm sure Bush is working against that).

You even go on to say (in your eloquent, double-negative style) [quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Without no victim how can there be a crime.[/quote]
I'll presume these terrorist suspects haven't killed anyone yet unless you can show me otherwise. In the meantime, it's perfectly understandable and prudent for Bush to eavesdrop on people with ties to terrorism. That's why FISA was set up. All he had to do was get a warrant. So far, he, nor you, nor anyone else, has given a reasonable explanation why a FISA warrant would undermine the War on Terror™.

PWNED (I had to do it)
 
Not that I agree with him, but here so you can see what he wrote.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']None of you will even admit one simple thing.

These weren't wiretaps on Americans talking to Americans. This wasn't a "spy" effort on anti-war activists, DNC leadership, Congressional opponents or special interest groups.

They were terrorist suspects.

Denial just isn't a river in Africa.

You can say PWN3D all you want. Just know, you're all wrong.

When the Democrats protest, seek out cameras, appear as talking heads and say they want hearings it's all political posturing BS. They don't want Clinton put on the stand. They don't want Carter put on the stand. They don't want former AG's and Assistant AG's put on the stand, like the one that wrote the Chicago Tribune article saying what was done clearly had legal and historical precedent. The only thing the left wants is the appearence of wrong doing.

They don't want the truth of the matter on public display because the facts would bury them neck deep.

You've all swallowed the Kool Aid and mainstream propaganda on this issue. Factcheck.org? Hell man, why not just post "experts" from democraticunderground.com.

BTW for those that suggested that my follow up article this morning came from talk radio? I posted it well before any national show was even broadcast today.

You want to say this violated 4th Ammendment rights? Bring forth one example of a harmed citizen or someone that was charged through information obtained with a non-illegal "illegal" wiretap.

Without no victim how can there be a crime. You're all talking in the theorhetical and have no examples to bring forth to show real harm done to completely innocent citizens.

The central tennant of every argument put forth today and yesterday has one common thread throughout.... you all hate George W. Bush. That's all you have. That's all you care about.

I can't wait to see how bad Democrats get skunked again in 2006. They're a shameful disgrace of a political party and you're all willing lemmings following the lead about to go over the cliff.

Hey, fine by me. The country needs more issues like this to clearly illustrate how incapable the left is of engaging and realizing the nature of the enemy. I hope to get three or four more stories like this in the next year.

You'll lose as bad as you did in 1994.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']When the Democrats protest, seek out cameras, appear as talking heads and say they want hearings it's all political posturing BS. They don't want Clinton put on the stand. They don't want Carter put on the stand. They don't want former AG's and Assistant AG's put on the stand, like the one that wrote the Chicago Tribune article saying what was done clearly had legal and historical precedent. The only thing the left wants is the appearence of wrong doing.

...

You want to say this violated 4th Ammendment rights? Bring forth one example of a harmed citizen or someone that was charged through information obtained with a non-illegal "illegal" wiretap.

Without no victim how can there be a crime. You're all talking in the theorhetical and have no examples to bring forth to show real harm done to completely innocent citizens.[/QUOTE]

We're not talking about a prison 8,000 miles away, searches or wiretaps on foreign nationals in this country or abroad. We're also not talking about political parties or political gain. We're obviously not talking about people with clear ties to extremeism, since the administration didn't get the warrants.

What we are talking about is spying on American citizens by our own government. Nobody has been charged. That's the best example of how frivolous these searches have been. The only possible reason that I can think of that they didn't get the warrants is that there were to many to get approved, or that they had no evidence in the first place.

As far as violations of our 4th ammendment rights, the administration has admitted to a secret eavesdropping program at least 30 times.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1416154&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
People who have "a clear link" to al-Qaida or related terrorist organizations. No mention of these people's legal status. If the link was so clear, why not get court approval? One can only conclude that they are American citizens, and the court would have rejected the warrant for some reason. Read the 4th ammendment again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[quote name='Your US Constitution']The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[/quote]

Stop shutting off the thinking centers of your brain because the administration throws around the designation "terrorist suspects".

I would like to read this Chicago Tribune article.
 
I think the insinuation that anyone, and I mean motherfucking anyone, on this board is not (politically) biased one way or another is asinine. If some of us have “swallowed the Kool Aid” of the liberal media on the issues at hand, it could be likewise asserted that others have gladly purchased the Nikes and lined up for the ritual castration of the paranoid Right with its ersatz righteousness, misplaced animosity, and delusions of persecution.
 
Quillion, the Tribune article is on the previous page. It was an opinion piece written by a former Clinton Associate Attorney General.

There are facts that no one wishes to discuss or acknowledge with this issue.

1. Point to point communications in the United States cannot be intercepted without warrant. Though since they can be obtained after the fact that in itself is nearly an abstract.

2. Calls intercepted internationally despite having a domestic and a foreign party are 100% legal. If a satellite or listening post in Europe, Middle East or Asia captures voice or data transmissions originating from or flowing into the U.S. that information is 100% legally obtained.

If a call between terror suspect 1 in America and terror suspect 2 in Austria is intercepted via satellite, microwave or other eavesdropping methods in Europe through Echelon the call is not subject to U.S. wiretapping laws.

What has been clearly stated time and time again is that while there have been a domestic end to this the second end was foreign. This is where the law, precedent and executive orders provide not just political cover but unquestioned legal authority.

The inaccurate MSM portrayal and what the baying sheep on this board keep repeating is that this was domestic spying akin to J Edgar Hoover's keeping of private files, infiltrating civil rights groups etc. It's not even close.

It's more akin to the monitoring of suspected American spies.

Clinton's XO on the issue dealt specifically with Aldrich Ames passing along information to the Russians and the KGB successor.

We're talking about American citizens, aliens legal or illegal, having questionable contact with foreign nationals in foreign countries with either or both ends having suspected terrorist ties.

Of course all of that has to be completely ignored because it ruins the talking points of the vs. Board members and they hate George W Bush so they need the facts to be different than the reality.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What has been clearly stated time and time again is that while there have been a domestic end to this the second end was foreign. [/QUOTE]
That completely ignores this story that they also intercepted purely domestic calls WITHOUT WARRANTS.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. Point to point communications in the United States cannot be intercepted without warrant. Though since they can be obtained after the fact that in itself is nearly an abstract.

...

We're talking about American citizens, aliens legal or illegal, having questionable contact with foreign nationals in foreign countries with either or both ends having suspected terrorist ties.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for the intelligent response.

1) I don't consider that some intra-US calls were obtained an abstract at all, I consider it the central issue at hand.


But if everything else you have said is true, why not just get approval? 13,000 applications, 4 denied. Approval within 72 hours, and surveillance can begin immediately, with the warrant/court order acting retroactively.

It can't get much easier than that. Unless the ties aren't as strong as the government is suggesting.
 
Technically Verizon, SBC or any other regional phone company running line tests during a call could constitute "interception" if they're testing line quality.

First two paragraphs of MBE's posted "example" of malfeasence....

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - A surveillance program approved by President Bush to conduct eavesdropping without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases, despite a requirement by the White House that one end of the intercepted conversations take place on foreign soil, officials say.

The officials say the National Security Agency's interception of a small number of communications between people within the United States was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact "international."

Hardly meets the threshold of an out of control, dictatorial President don't you think? Especially given the fact that the article in question is from the New York Times?

Now, for example, how are you ever rightfully ever to determine the point to point origin and receipt of VOIP calls.

By the threshold members of this board and the baying sheep of the left here's the easy example for terrorists to ensure secure communication. Buy two Vonage kits, give them both domestic phone numbers. Wallah, the left has now given them completely untappable secure communications.

Apparently no one sees the folly in this.

I can take a Vonage kit, Voice Wing kit (Verizon's VOIP service.) to any country with a broadband connection and my domestic U.S. number will look like, to any caller, like a domestic or even local call.
 
How many times do I need to state, restate, clarify and draw the example that calls intercepted internationally do not require a warrant?

You can't possibly be this dense.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How many times do I need to state, restate, clarify and draw the example that calls intercepted internationally do not require a warrant?[/QUOTE]
Considering that you're still wrong, a whole lotta times. Internationally intercepted calls do not require a warrent - UNLESS ONE OF THE PARTIES IS A US CITIZEN. You can cherry-pick lines from executive orders from Clinton until the cows come home, it doesn't change the fact that he never, ever authorized spying against US citizens without a warrant. Why? Because its illegal.
 
You can repeat it until you're blue in the face: doesn't make it true.

Its nice to see that you agree the Flat Earth Society is wrong, though. At least you have SOME connections to reality.
 
Shall we start with the actual law under which Carter and Clinton gave their executive orders?

(a)
(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
Click to expand...

Which is to say that its only legal to wiretap without a warrant if BOTH ends are on foreign soil, AND no US citizen is involved. The only exception is 'technical intelligence', specifically excluding spoken communications.
 
Wow, you just proved my point for me. Thanks.

The President, through the AG, may authorize ELINT without a court order, aimed at non-citizens, relating to foreign powers for the acquisition of technical intelligence.

My point exactly.

Thanks for playing.
 
Yes, he (Carter and Clinton) did, as specifically authorized by Congress. How exactly does this relate to Bush's breaking of the law, though? In case you've forgotten, Bush authorized wiretapping of voice lines within the United States, which is specifically made illegal by the section of law I previous quoted.
 
Bring us proof.

There is none. Go find us examples of people that have had their phone lines tapped, pressed charges against the government for such invasions. Bring us examples of citizens that have been indicted, charged, tried or found guilty from illegal wiretaps. Find us someone that has been let off on charges due to illegal wiretaps.

Go find us these phantom instances you insist have taken place. Bring us proof.

Hearsay and conjecture are not proof.

BTW, the law you used as a flawed example only relates to common carriers. VOIP has not been determined to fall under that same category. Neither has email or any kind of IM technology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top