Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 11 Jan 2007 15:13 On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:35:06 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, >> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >[....] >>> The >>>point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot >>>someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says >>>nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that >>>the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the >>>person on a pogostick was legal. >> >>But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might >>be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. > >Commuting by pogostick isn't covered by the law. It is still not ok to >shoot one. > >[.....] >>If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain >>phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. > >There is no need for the government to commit the crime of warrantless >wire tapping. You seem to think that it must and therefor you look for a >way to make it legal. It doesn't have to and it is not legal. Agreed. The only argument I seem to be hearing here is that some folks seem to trust the current President enough to allow him to declare himself above the law and an uncontrained dictator in all issues where he decides he wants to be above the law. This is so sickening to me to hear. Our government is NOT a government of some kind of dictatorship, but one of laws and checks and balances against abuse of power. And where anyone appears to be placing themselves above the law I'd instead think we should all be terribly concerned about this clear and immediate threat to our own system. Under our Constitution and its system of checks and balances, there is no serious constitutional question at all about Congress� power to regulate electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, in those cases where it intercepts the communications of persons within the United States. Not even in cases where the President may choose to believe he needs to raise himself outside the law and Congressional checks when he believes that presuming such unchecked power is needed to assure that our Nation has the necessary means to combat terrorism. Despite the administration's assurances about their own rights and powers here, they are quite simply wrong about it and without a legal oar to paddle with. Invasions of privacy that not only violate the Fourth Amendment but chill the freedom of speech and association protected by the First Amendment. Especially, freedom of political speech and association. In 1967, the Supreme Court held for the first time that as a general matter wiretapping was subject to the Fourth Amendment�s protections against unreasonable searches and its requirement of a warrant in most circumstances. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). The Court left open, however, the question of whether the Fourth Amendment applied to wiretapping conducted to protect national security (I already commented in an earlier post about White's concurrence that discussed the possible exception in the case of the President himself and in cases exclusively for national security reasons.) In 1972, the Court held that wiretapping conducted for domestic security purposes was subject to the Fourth Amendment and required a warrant. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U.S. 297, 313-14, 317, 319-20 (1972). This one left open the question, however, whether electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes was subject to the Fourth Amendment�s requirement of a warrant issued by a court authorizing the surveillance. Following that, there was a short period in which lower courts differed on this particular question. However, during this same period and following the Watergate scandal and revelations of abuses of wiretapping during the Nixon administration, and with the support of both Presidents Ford and Carter, a Senate Select Committee, headed by Senator Frank Church (the �Church Committee�), undertook a comprehensive investigation of government wiretapping and other surveillance procedures conducted by the Executive branch without a warrant. The Church Committee exposed substantial abuses of this purported authority. See S. Rep. No. 94-755 (Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) 94th Cong., 2nd Sess., Book II at 5-20 (1976). The committee then recommended congressional legislation to provide the government with needed authority to conduct surveillance to protect national security, but to protect against the abuses of that authority and the serious infringements of civil liberties disclosed by the investigation. FISA was enacted to carry out these recommendations. Pub. L. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1783 (1978). Carter's statement is at http://www.cnss.org/Carter.pdf The Administration has never questioned and has instead conceded that the NSA surveillance program meets FISA�s definition of "electronic surveillance." See the press briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence (Dec. 19, 2005), at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051219-1.html FISA requires that in order to conduct "electronic surveillance" the government must obtain a court order from a special, secret court created by FISA known as the FISA court. To obtain such an order, a federal officer must certify that "a significant purpose" of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information and provide a statement describing, among other things, the basis for the belief that the information sought is foreign intelligence information. Two exceptions of significance exist within FISA. First, it permits electronic surveillance without first obtaining a court order, in situations certified by the Attorney General as an emergency, provided that an order is sought within 72 hours of the authorization of the surveillance by the Attorney General. Second, recognizing the exigencies created by war, the President through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order for a period of 15 days __after a declaration of war by Congress.__ Not the mere claim that something is a war; not the engagement of hostilities by the President; but after a declaration of war by __Congress__! This provision was intended to provide time to enable Congress to amend FISA, if it was determined necessary to do so to meet special war-time needs. Notably, at that time Congress rejected a request to make this exception extend for one year after a declaration of war, indicating that 15 days should be and is entirely sufficient to make any necessary amendments. Congress was explicit about its intention that FISA is the __only__ means by which electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes may be conducted. 18 U.S.C. �2511 provides in part: "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 [50 U.S.C. �1801 et seq.] shall be the __exclusive__ means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in Section 101 of such Act [50 U.S.C. �1801] .. . . may be conducted." FISA also makes it a criminal offense "to engage in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." (50 U.S.C. �1809 (a).11) Following 9/11, the Bush Administration asked Congress to enact legislation to enhance its ability to protect the nation against such attacks by Al Qaeda and other terrorists. Congress responded to that request, enacting the USA PATRIOT Act in October and the Intelligence Authorization Act in December. Those laws amended FISA to expand the period for emergency electronic surveillance from 24 hours to 72 hours and reduced the requirement that the government certify that the foreign intelligence gathering was a "primary purpose" of the electronic surveillance to a lesser showing only that it was "a significant purpose." But in no way did these two acts do away with FISA and, in fact, served to only yet again recognize FISA as the law of the land. The argument that Congress somehow implicitly authorized the NSA program when it enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al Qaeda, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 (September 18, 2001), is without any merit at all. There is nothing in the text or in the congressional record or history of the AUMF to suggest that Congress in any way intended to permit the Executive to engage in any and all warrantless electronic surveillance in the United States without judicial approval or a showing of probable cause as required by FISA. More, the AUMF was decidely NOT a declaration of war. And even it it were, the explicit words only permit 15 days at most for the Administration. Jon
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 19:07 > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: > >MassiveProng wrote: > > > >> We are at war. > > > >With which country ? > > Again you show us just how oblivious you are to current events and > life on Earth. Again you have no answer. What country is the USA at war with ? Either name one or more or say none. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 19:08 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > You need to turn on your modem's sound. You'll hear all kinds of > mating sounds. You can also tell if the ISP you're calling has > a headache and will cause comm eruptions. I used to do that. With broadband it's not necessary. Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 19:09 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >MassiveProng wrote: > > > >> We are at war. > > > >With which country ? > > It's a new kind of war. No it isn't. That's just a new excuse. What country is the USA at war with ? Graham
From: Eeyore on 11 Jan 2007 19:12
Ken Smith wrote: > Right now the US has a pack of chicken littles running around saying "the > sky is falling" and then questioning the loyalty of anyone who expresses > doubt over it. The fear is being exploited as a tool of gaining political > power. The aim of those using fear is to turn the US into a tyranny, and > this being a political aim makes them the true terrorists. http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=%22the+power+of+nightmares%22 Graham |