FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up! in Security

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:45:11 EDT

spy1 : And, of course, McConnell (you know, the guy who's going to keep the Attorney General straight) lies through his teeth, too:

»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20749773/site/newsweek/

"Spy Master Admits Error
Intel czar Mike McConnell told Congress a new law helped bring down a terror plot. The facts say otherwise.

Sept. 12, 2007 - In a new embarrassment for the Bush administration's top spymaster, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell is withdrawing an assertion he made to Congress this week that a recently passed electronic-surveillance law helped U.S. authorities foil a major terror plot in Germany.

The temporary measure, signed into law by President Bush on Aug. 5, gave the U.S. intelligence community broad new powers to eavesdrop on telephone and e-mail communications overseas without seeking warrants from the surveillance court. The law expires in six months and is expected to be the subject of intense debate in the months ahead. On Monday, McConnell—questioned by Sen. Joe Lieberman—claimed the law, intended to remedy what the White House said was an intelligence gap, had helped to “facilitate” the arrest of three suspects believed to be planning massive car bombings against American targets in Germany. Other U.S. intelligence-community officials questioned the accuracy of McConnell's testimony and urged his office to correct it. Four intelligence-community officials, who asked for anonymity discussing sensitive material, said the new law, dubbed the "Protect America Act,” played little if any role in the unraveling of the German plot. The U.S. military initially provided information that helped the Germans uncover the plot. But that exchange of information took place months before the new “Protect America” law was passed.

After questions about his testimony were raised, McConnell called Lieberman to clarify his statements to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, an official said. (A spokeswoman for Lieberman confirmed that McConnell called the senator Tuesday but could not immediately confirm what they spoke about.) Late Wednesday afternoon, McConnell issued a statement acknowledging that "information contributing to the recent arrests [in Germany] was not collected under authorities provided by the 'Protect America Act'."

The developments were cited by Democratic critics on Capitol Hill as the latest example of the Bush administration's exaggerated claims—and contradictory statements—about ultrasecret surveillance activities. In the face of such complaints, the administration has consistently resisted any public disclosure about the details of the surveillance activities—even though McConnell himself has openly talked about some aspects of them.

The Justice Department, for example, just two weeks ago filed a brief opposing the public release of secret legal opinions about the program—even in redacted form—on the grounds that any disclosure beyond a one-sentence comment earlier this year by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would “cause serious damage to the national security of the United States.” (The existence of one of those rulings was first disclosed by NEWSWEEK this summer and publicly confirmed by McConnell in an interview with the El Paso Times in August. The ACLU last month filed an unprecedented motion with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking public release of its rulings about the surveillance program.)

The flap over McConnell’s latest statements is especially sensitive because many Democrats have said they felt the White House and the director of national intelligence stampeded them into passing the new surveillance law—claiming it was needed on an “emergency” basis to protect the country against a future terror attack. Speaking Wednesday at a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Rep. Jane Harman, who was ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee until she was bumped from the committee earlier this year, charged that McConnell had politicized negotiations over the bill. He "appeared to be taking orders from the White House, negotiating for the White House," said Harman. The role he played, "whether he intended it or not, appeared to be political," she said. "Hey—Jane to Mike," she said, "don't become a political actor."

McConnell's testimony that the new law helped in the German case was especially striking—since it seemed to contradict public statements by American and German officials about how the plot was exposed. About 10 months ago—long before the new law was put into effect—guards at a U.S. military base near Frankfurt noted a suspicious individual conducting surveillance outside the facility. U.S. military officials tipped off German authorities, who quickly identified the individual and several accomplices as militants affiliated with the Islamic Jihad Union, a violent Al Qaeda-linked group. The Germans kept the group under surveillance for months and discovered evidence that the militants—some of whom had been to an Islamic Jihad Union training camp in Pakistan—were assembling chemicals for bombing attacks on American military installations in Germany. (The U.S. Embassy in Berlin issued a public warning last April that it had received intelligence reporting about threats against U.S. personnel in that country.) One U.S. intelligence official described the law-enforcement operation as a case of "good old-fashioned police work."

Yet when McConnell testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, he cited the German case as an example of how the new Protect America Act was working. The law, he started to say, "allowed us to see and understand all the connections with ..." At that point, Lieberman, the committee chair, interrupted McConnell. Lieberman expressed surprise that the law might have contributed to the German counterterror operation. "The newly adopted law facilitated that during August?" he asked.

"Yes, sir, it did," McConnell responded. “The connections to Al Qaeda, the connections specifically to what's referred to as IJU, the Islamic Jihad Union, an affiliate of Al Qaeda. Because we could understand it, we could help our partners through a long process of monitoring and observation. And so at the right time, when Americans and German facilities were being targeted, the German authorities decided to move."

Counterterrorism officials familiar with the background of McConnell's testimony said they did not believe the intel czar made inaccurate statements intentionally as part of any strategy by the administration to goad Congress into making the new eavesdropping law permanent. Officials said they believed McConnell gave the wrong answer because he was overwhelmed with information and merely mixed up his facts. Nonetheless, some officials said, as news of McConnell's misstatements spread, it would be in the intelligence director's best interests to correct his testimony—advice he is now heeding."

===================================================

You'd really think we would wise up (not to mention our legislators', who approved this latest abortion). Pete

Deconstruction #4

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:47:28 EDT

jvmorris : And, again, from »www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6685679 ,

Q: So you end up with people tied up doing paperwork?

A: It takes about 200 man hours to do one telephone number. Think about it from the judges standpoint. Well, is this foreign intelligence? Well how do you know it's foreign intelligence? Well what does Abdul calling Mohammed mean, and how do I interpret that? So, it's a very complex process, so now, I've got people speaking Urdu and Farsi and, you know, whatever, Arabic, pull them off the line have them go through this process to justify what it is they know and why and so on. And now you've got to write it all up and it goes through the signature process, take it through (the Justice Department), and take it down to the FISA court. So all that process is about 200 man hours for one number. We're going backwards, we couldn't keep up. So the issue was ...

Wait a minute; just wait a minute. . . What the hell is this? It's reminiscent of John Aschcroft's statement back when he was Attorney General that applying for a FISA Court Order took too much time. And that got challenged by his predecessors who (somehow) had never had this problem. As the situation evolved, it turned out that Ashcroft (as AG) had instituted procedures internal to the DoJ that precipitated the requirement for an unnecessarily long time to prepare a request for a FISA warrant. And, apparently, this was done expressly to create a situation in which applying for a FISA Court order took too long. So, Ashcroft wanted to work in a manner in which he didn't need to apply for a FISA order. Nice try, but it didn't work.

But, is that what McConnell is referring to? Maybe yes, maybe no ... but 200 person-hours? That's five person weeks! What in hell has now happened?

If this is not a complete misrepresentation of the effort required to apply for a FISA Court Order, something very drastic must have happened. Could it, just possibly, be that -- once again -- the Court got upset with shabby or misrepresented justifications for it to issue Orders and tightened up its requirements? If so, the problem lies with the Administration, not the Court.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Deconstruction #3

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:22:53 EDT

jvmorris : Going back to »www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6685679,

Q: (Roberts) Can't you get the warrant after the fact?

A: (McConnell) The issue is volume and time. Think about foreign intelligence. What it presented me with an opportunity is to make the case for something current, but what I was really also trying to put a strong emphasis on is the need to do foreign intelligence in any context. My argument was that the intelligence community should not be restricted when we are conducting foreign surveillance against a foreigner in a foreign country, just by dint of the fact that it happened to touch a wire. We haven't done that in wireless for years.

As noted above, this is total nonsense; there never was, nor is there now a statutory requirement for a warrant for this sort of surveillance under 50 USC Chapter 36 Subchapter 1. The only thing that McConnell could conceivably be referring to is 50 USC 1842 (unless he is deliberately lying), something that he is, rather obviously, reluctant to admit.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: Deconstruction #2 -- add 1) FISC Court Decision

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:46:00 EDT

jvmorris :

said by Just Bob :

said by jvmorris :

To put it bluntly, no one is taking the Administration's characterization of the FISC rulings as being, in any sense, correct.

And yet Congress passed the bill so they could go on vacation.

It troubles me that the process has become so corrupted, but it troubles me more that Congress is corrupted so cheaply.

In all honesty, Bob, I suspect that is is very difficult, even today and after Iraq, for most Representatives and Senators to even consider the possibility that the Bush Administration is deliberately misrepresenting a situation in order to get legislation. But that's what's happening.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: Deconstruction #2 add2) warrants for wire comms?

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:43:37 EDT

jvmorris : McConnell's insistence that, for some reason, the Administration suddenly had to get warrants for monitoring communications 'on a wire' of persons outside the US really bothered me, especially his insistence that the rules were different for wire and wireless communications. From Deconstruction #2,

said by jvmorris :

...

(McConnell) And it came down to, if it's on a wire and it's foreign in a foreign country, you have to have a warrant and so we found ourselves in a position of actually losing ground because it was the first review was less capability, we got a stay and that took us to the 31st of May.

In fact, the only reference to wire communications in Title 50, Chapter 36, Subchapter 1, "Electronic Surveillance" can be found in 50 USC 1801 (f):

(f) "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;
(2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other
surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication
to or from a person in the United States, without the consent
of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United
States, but does not include the acquisition of those
communications of computer trespassers that would be
permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18;
(3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical,
or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio
communication, under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender
and all intended recipients are located within the United
States; or
(4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or
other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring
to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio
communication, under circumstances in which a person has a
reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be
required for law enforcement purposes.

which makes it quite clear that for purposes of electronic surveillance there is no distinction with regards to electronic surveillance between wire and wireless (radio) communications and in 1801 (l)

(l) "Wire communication" means any communication while it is
being carried by a wire, cable, or other like connection
furnished or operated by any person engaged as a common carrier
in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of
interstate or foreign communications.

which simply defines the term 'wire communication'.

There is no distinction whatsoever between wire and wireless communication in 50 USC Chapter 36 Subchapter 1.

Was McConnell simply and blatantly lying when he made this statement? Or was he trying to be a bit devious and referring to another section of 50 USC Chapter 36, without being explicit about it?

You see, there is another reference to wire communications in 50 USC Chapter 36, Subchapter III "PEN REGISTERS AND TRAP AND TRACE DEVICES FOR FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES" and this does require a warrant. It's in 50 USC 1842 "Pen Registers And Trap And Trace Devices For Foreign Intelligence And International Terrorism Investigations":

(a) Application for authorization or approval
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Attorney
General or a designated attorney for the Government may make an
application for an order or an extension of an order authorizing or
approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and
trace device for any investigation to obtain foreign intelligence
information not concerning a United States person or to protect
against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence
activities, provided that such investigation of a United States
person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities
protected by the first amendment to the Constitution which is being
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under such
guidelines as the Attorney General approves pursuant to Executive
Order No. 12333, or a successor order.
(2) The authority under paragraph (1) is in addition to the
authority under subchapter I of this chapter to conduct the
electronic surveillance referred to in that paragraph.
(b) Form of application; recipient
Each application under this section shall be in writing under
oath or affirmation to -
(1) a judge of the court established by section 1803(a) of this
title; or
(2) a United States Magistrate Judge under chapter 43 of title
28 who is publicly designated by the Chief Justice of the United
States to have the power to hear applications for and grant
orders approving the installation and use of a pen register or
trap and trace device on behalf of a judge of that court.
(c) Executive approval; contents of application
Each application under this section shall require the approval of
the Attorney General, or a designated attorney for the Government,
and shall include -
(1) the identity of the Federal officer seeking to use the pen
register or trap and trace device covered by the application; and
(2) a certification by the applicant that the information
likely to be obtained is foreign intelligence information not
concerning a United States person or is relevant to an ongoing
investigation to protect against international terrorism or
clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such
investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to
the Constitution.
(d) Ex parte judicial order of approval
(1) Upon an application made pursuant to this section, the judge
shall enter an ex parte order as requested, or as modified,
approving the installation and use of a pen register or trap and
trace device if the judge finds that the application satisfies the
requirements of this section.
(2) An order issued under this section -
(A) shall specify -
(i) the identity, if known, of the person who is the subject
of the investigation;
(ii) the identity, if known, of the person to whom is leased
or in whose name is listed the telephone line or other facility
to which the pen register or trap and trace device is to be
attached or applied;
(iii) the attributes of the communications to which the order
applies, such as the number or other identifier, and, if known,
the location of the telephone line or other facility to which
the pen register or trap and trace device is to be attached or
applied and, in the case of a trap and trace device, the
geographic limits of the trap and trace order.(!1)

(B) shall direct that -
(i) upon request of the applicant, the provider of a wire or
electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or other
person shall furnish any information, facilities, or technical
assistance necessary to accomplish the installation and
operation of the pen register or trap and trace device in such
a manner as will protect its secrecy and produce a minimum
amount of interference with the services that such provider,
landlord, custodian, or other person is providing the person
concerned;
(ii) such provider, landlord, custodian, or other person -
(I) shall not disclose the existence of the investigation
or of the pen register or trap and trace device to any person
unless or until ordered by the court; and
(II) shall maintain, under security procedures approved by
the Attorney General and the Director of Central Intelligence
pursuant to section 1805(b)(2)(C) (!2) of this title, any
records concerning the pen register or trap and trace device
or the aid furnished; and

(iii) the applicant shall compensate such provider, landlord,
custodian, or other person for reasonable expenses incurred by
such provider, landlord, custodian, or other person in
providing such information, facilities, or technical
assistance.
(e) Time limitation
An order issued under this section shall authorize the
installation and use of a pen register or trap and trace device for
a period not to exceed 90 days. Extensions of such an order may be
granted, but only upon an application for an order under this
section and upon the judicial finding required by subsection (d) of
this section. The period of extension shall be for a period not to
exceed 90 days.
(f) Cause of action barred
No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of
a wire or electronic communication service, landlord, custodian, or
other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other
specified person thereof) that furnishes any information,
facilities, or technical assistance under subsection (d) of this
section in accordance with the terms of an order issued under this
section.
(g) Furnishing of results
Unless otherwise ordered by the judge, the results of a pen
register or trap and trace device shall be furnished at reasonable
intervals during regular business hours for the duration of the
order to the authorized Government official or officials.

Such actions do require a Court order. I submit that this is the likely basis for the FISC Decision(s) And it is precisely the lack of such Court Order that could have led a FISC Judge to rule the practices involved in this unnamed program to be prohibited. And it's precisely this issue that is being contested in Federal Court in San Francisco at the moment.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: Deconstruction #2 -- add 1) FISC Court Decision

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 21:31:44 EDT

Just Bob :

said by jvmorris :

To put it bluntly, no one is taking the Administration's characterization of the FISC rulings as being, in any sense, correct.

And yet Congress passed the bill so they could go on vacation.

It troubles me that the process has become so corrupted, but it troubles me more that Congress is corrupted so cheaply.

Re: Deconstruction #2 -- add 1) FISC Court Decision

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:57:44 EDT

jvmorris : One advantage in going through McConnell's transcript slowly is that you consequently note little subtleties in his statements. I'd call these 'dissembling', but that's just me.

Critics of my position can point out, quite rightly, that I'm not privy to the FISC Decisions relevant to the subsequent passage of S.1927. Of course, as I pointed out in my earlier post, »Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up! , neither are the members of Congress who were imposed upon to pass S.1927:

Now, why do I maintain the Court's actual decision is being misrepresented? Well, if it really was as portrayed, it's nonsensical -- there's no such restriction (grounds) even remotely justifiable under the terms of the FISA Act and the FISA Court has never taken it upon itself to make 'new' law. As such, the Administration only needed to appeal to the Court of Review which would have promptly overturned such a hare-brained ruling. To date, I've seen no indication that the Administration even bothered to appeal the decision to the Court of Review. Consequently, I deduce that the grounds for the decision were very well founded and the Administration recognized that the Court of Review would likely uphold the decision of the FISA Court; i.e., the original ruling was apparently far from hare-brained, regardless of how it's since been portrayed.

Apparently, persons on the relevant Congressional Committees had similar questions; they asked for a description of the program and for a copy of the Court's ruling in order to better address the problem while revising the FISA Act. (And the FISA Act has already been at least twice amended since 9/11.)

"You give us the documents we want, and we'll give you the legislation," the senators said, according to an administration official present, who said the response was "no."

So, it seems to be crucial to the Administration to only let the Congress know its own interpretation of the FISC Decisions, not read them for theirselves.

And this, in turn, is why Senator Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is now threatening a Contempt of Congress citation against the Administration, see »jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2···-for.php .

And, in a completely independent action, the ACLU has now petitioned the FISC to provide records of its own deliberations relevant to S.1927 (as portrayed by the Administration) so that both the Congress and members of the public can evaluate their integrity and validity for themselves: »jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2···ings.php .

To put it bluntly, no one is taking the Administration's characterization of the FISC rulings as being, in any sense, correct.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Deconstruction #2

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:15:11 EDT

jvmorris : Moving on to McConnell's discussion of just what the FISA courts did in the first half of 2007, as he describes it in the interview at »www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6685679

(McConnell) So, it was submitted to the FISA court and the first ruling in the FISA court was what we needed to do we could do with an approval process that was at a summary level and that was OK, we stayed in business and we're doing our mission.

We don't know what 'it' was, of course. We have to be careful about referring to 'it' as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program", since AG Gonzales is now maintaining that that was simply 'part' of the intelligence collection activities authorized by President Bush in late 2001, so pardon me if I don't give 'it' a name that it apparently doesn't have.

This 'approval' was apparently granted by the FISC on or about 7 Jan 2007. Based on the Administration's prior briefings to the appropriate members of Congress, I think we can assume it was just about as glib as what MCs received. But, by the time this came up for review and approval in early May, the FISC judge(s) had apparently some doubts about what they'd initially been told to get the program approved.

(McConnell) The FISA court ruled presented the program to them and they said the program is what you say it is and it's appropriate and it's legitimate, it's not an issue and was had approval. But the FISA process has a renewal. It comes up every so many days and there are 11 FISA judges. So the second judge looked at the same data and said well wait a minute I interpret the law, which is the FISA law, differently.

You're kidding yourself if you don't believe this second judge didn't ask some penetrating questions about the initial presentation and got some answers he didn't like. Sort of like Ashcroft and Comey, I suspect. You all remember Ashcroft and Comey, don't you? Those 'lefty liberals' appointed to DoJ by none other than George W. Bush.

The first part of this statement is total bullshit; McConnell must know it and be hoping that no one will research the statutory law. You don't need a warrant in these circumstances (presuming McConnell's representation of the judge's decision is anywhere near accurate).

But, the really telling part is what he doesn't say next. Note the 'stay' until 31 May. What, exactly, was that? McConnell is extremely vague on this point, but, by 31 May, the Administration either should have appealed the most recent decision by a single FISC judge to either the entire FISC or to the FISC Court of Review. Either they did it (and lost) or they didn't do it, because they knew the second judge's opinion was unassailable and highly unlikely to be overturned.

So, what did the Administration decide to do? They decided to remove this 'program' (whatever you care to call it) from any real supervision under the FISA -- and that's exactly what Sections 105A, 105B, and 105C of S.1927 (the Protect America Act of 2007) do.

Again, I would encourage anyone who wants to respond to what I say above to use the 'reply' button on this post, rather than the 'reply to OP' button at the bottom of the thread. This helps others keep track of exactly what any subsequent respondents are discussing.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Deconstruction #1

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:30:39 EDT

jvmorris : Let's start from the transcript published by the El Paso Times at »www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6685679 . In response to the first question posed by Chris Roberts, the reporter for the El Paso Times, DNI Mike McConnell says:

... I was pretty surprised at what I learned. First off, the issue was the technology had changed . . .

First, I'm perplexed as to what 'technology' had changed since McConnell left the NSA as its Director in 1996. I was on the public internet in 1996 and was, indeed, doing international communications (websites, IRC chat, file transfers, e-mail) at that time. (And I was a relative late-comer.) And, by March 1998, I was routinely doing videoconferencing on public internet facilities -- that includes both voice and video. As a matter of fact, I didn't quit doing a lot of this stuff until late 1999 or early 2000, when I became more concerned with my personal security on the 'net. What revolutionary change in technology supporting the 'net or VoIP or voice communications occurred since that time? I don't know; perhaps some of our telecomms experts would care to chime in here. And, if anyone can, who can tell me how many of these occurred after the last time the FISA Act was modified in 2005(?), prior to the Protect America Act of 2007? I don't think there were any of merit here, since the Administration's program apparently dates back to the end of 2001 and FISA had been modified two or three times already by 2007 when McConnell became DNI.

Could he, perchance, be referring to surveillance technology rather than communications technology? Well, both Echelon and Carnivore far predate 2005, never mind 2007. So, what would be new about surveillance technology? I think this is where the problem lies, as I will discuss later.

... and we had worked ourselves into a position that we were focusing on foreign terrorist communications, and this was a terrorist foreigner in a foreign country.

So, ... what's the problem? As of 19 Jan 2004, 50 USC 1801 explicitly says:

As used in this subchapter:
(a) "Foreign power" means -
(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or
not recognized by the United States;
(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not
substantially composed of United States persons;
(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign
government or governments to be directed and controlled by such
foreign government or governments;
(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities
in preparation therefor;
(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially
composed of United States persons; or
(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign
government or governments.

(b) "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 person's 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).

(c) "International terrorism" means activities that -
(1) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that
are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of
any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed
within the jurisdiction of the United States or any State;
(2) appear to be intended -
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation
or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination
or kidnapping; and

(3) occur totally outside the United States, or transcend
national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are
accomplished, the persons they appear intended to coerce or
intimidate, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate
or seek asylum.

(emphasis above added) I don't know about you, but to me, 1801 (a)(4) pretty well defines (and incorporates) groups involved in international terrorism in the scope of the FISA law. Furthermore 1801 (b) (2) pretty much includes everyone (including "US Persons") who may act as the agent of a terrorist organization. (Note the use of or at the end of 1801 (b) (1), not and. And, finally, 1801 (c) does a damn good job of defining what they intended in terms of international terrorism.

(McConnell) ... The issue was international communications are on a wire so all of a sudden we were in a position because of the wording in the law that we had to have a warrant to do that. So the most important thing to capture is that it's a foreigner in a foreign country, required to get a warrant. Now if it were wireless, we would not be required to get a warrant.

Again, I don't know about you, but I can't find anything in 50 USC 1801 et seq. that substantiates this assertion by McConnell. I see no distinction between wire and wireless communications, certainly not in the context of USC 50 1802, the current subsection defining the purview of warrantless wiretapping.

In all honesty, McConnell seems to either
a) not have known what was in the existing statute or
b) he was simply misrepresenting it in the course of this interview.

What we will eventually learn is that it was the method that was being used to monitor these communications that the FISA Court ultimately held required a warrant to implement. It's only peripherally connected to the issue of 'wire' versus 'wireless' and McConnell is deliberately obfuscating this in his statements.

Now, I'm deliberately breaking up my analysis of McConnell's statement to the El Paso Times so that we can discuss each part of it separately. I would encourage anyone who wants to respond to what I say above to use the 'reply' button on this post, rather than the 'reply to OP' button at the bottom of the thread. This helps others keep track of exactly what any subsequent respondents are discussing.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 00:54:48 EDT

Just Bob : I'm looking forward to it.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 12:39:07 EDT

jvmorris :

said by Just Bob :

. . . There are some who say the Director went too far in his statements, so this may not be available for long. Get it while it's hot.

Well, yes, he did, . . . but probably not quite in the way they intended.

When I finished reading that transcript, the first thing that flashed through my mind was a thought attributed to the Continental Op in Dashiel Hammett's The Golden Horseshoe.

I was reading a sign high on the wall behind the bar:

Only Genuine Pre-War American
and British Whiskeys Served Here

I was trying to count how many lies could be found in those nine words, and had reached four, with promise of more when ....

I see they're still on the misdirection kick. Guess I'll have to deconstruct it later today and point out the inconsistencies.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 11:29:44 EDT

jabarnut :

said by spy1 :

But don't trouble yourself - I''m totally sick and tired to death of the whole thing and have decided to devote the rest of my life to watching paint dry. Pete

That's good to hear Pete....I think you'll be a lot better off in the long run, and much less apt to develop a nagging ulcer. (Just be aware that some paint takes a lot longer to dry than others, and even that can be a bit frustrating at times).

Try not to worry, be happy. :)
--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:54:19 EDT

spy1 : Saw it, Bob - it's on FoxNews, among others:

»www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294212,00.html

Along with this:

"Feds: Charity Groups to Be Probed for Terror Ties"

»www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294215,00.html

But don't trouble yourself - I''m totally sick and tired to death of the whole thing and have decided to devote the rest of my life to watching paint dry. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:23:45 EDT

Just Bob : The following is the transcript of a question and answer session with National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell.

Among the disclosures:

McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. “Now if you play out the suits at the value they’re claimed, it would bankrupt these companies,” McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help.
He provided new details on court rulings handed down by the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves classified eavesdropping operations and whose proceedings are almost always entirely secret. McConnell said a ruling that went into effect May 31 required the government to get court warrants to monitor communications between two foreigners if the conversation travels on a wire in the U.S. network. Millions of calls each day do, because of the robust nature of the U.S. systems.
McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. “We’re going backwards,” he said. “We couldn’t keep up.”
Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored.

»www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_6685679

There are some who say the Director went too far in his statements, so this may not be available for long. Get it while it's hot.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:15:17 EDT

Name Game : »www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/313···817.html

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 19 Aug 2007 19:27:10 EDT

spy1 : »www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/washi···ed=print

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:04:25 EDT

spy1 : And that's been my main problem with this and all like legislation - the legitimate, legal American public is being "datamined" to death.

Our information is being collected, held (indefinitely), passed around to multiple government organizations for the mere asking - IOW, files are being built and maintained on anyone and everyone regardless of whether it relates to "terrorism" or not.

There is no way of finding out what information is contained in government databases on you, nor is there any way whatsoever to remove OR correct such information. It is simply not possible when you can't FORCE the government to reveal if you ARE in the database to begin with!

This is precisely why the ACLU's suit got shot down ( »www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/···706.html ) - because the government would not verify or deny that any of the plaintiff's had or had not been spied upon.

The cloak of secrecy involved here has got to be able to be breached by some review body whose members are not totally under the thumb of the current - or any future - Administrations.

The A.G. does not qualify - neither does the D.N.I.

Expecting them to "self-police" themselves is insanity after having seen the way Gonzales covered up the abuses of the N.S.L's/Section 215's and the "exigent letters" that we still haven't even heard the totality of.

We have well and truly "stepped through the looking glass" here when people can attempt to raise any kind of defense for this new law knowing what has gone on before. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 13:14:05 EDT

spy1 : John - Those were both simply "opinion" pieces - one was marked as an "editorial" and the other one should have been (thanks alot for making me waste my time reading them).

There was absolutely nothing of substance there, just a lot of spin.

Want to go through the actual bill that's on Thomas and talk about the actual wording of the - Protect America Act of 2007 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) - otherwise known as S.1927?

It's a hoot.

Can businesses' (read:telco's) appeal an order to surveil? Of course they can - at their own time/expense. Have the major players in the telco industry shown any inclination to do so? Absolutely not (Must I mention AT&T again? ). Note that the new law does cheerfully pay the telco's for such spying (which is quite an incentive to just do it for them, wouldn't you say - since profit is the absolute GOD there?).

Something else I noticed:

"`SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURES
`Sec. 105C. (a) No later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act , the Attorney General shall submit to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures by which the Government determines that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The procedures submitted pursuant to this section shall be updated and submitted to the Court on an annual basis.

`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act , the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance."

*Note that the government gets to wait 120 days before filing their "reasons" why all this stuff is hunky-dory. Think they won't take the full 120 days? Which leaves the court only 60 more days after THAT to review everything they've been presented with and yay or nay it.

"The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous."

*WTF does that mean, John? Sounds like an easy out for not fighting any of the requests, more like "Hey, no need to engage your conscience or any actual points of law, just break out the rubber stamp, would ya'?"

"`(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an order directing the Government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B that are implicated by the court's order.

*That's the only good thing I found in this whole bill, John. Wonder how it survived?

BUT

`(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b). If such court determines that the order was properly entered, the court shall immediately provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under subsection (c) of this section may continue during the pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the Supreme Court of the United States.'."

*Ain't that grand, John? If the government appeals a decision against it, it automatically gets kicked to the Supreme Court - which may or may NOT decide to consider it! AND - if they decide not to consider it at all - the "acquisition(s)" get to continue indefinitely!

Is dealing with the actual wording of the law helping you to see our points, John? Pete

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 12:31:56 EDT

Blackbird :

said by manfmmd :

You missed this part: "or at a reasonable time prior to an effort to disclose". That means disclose to anyone.

And this part: "so use that information". That means that they cannot use it.

Unfortunately, you seem to have missed something significant. These limitations of "use" refer only to use of the data in court actions, administrative hearings, non-public court actions, and so forth. There is no limitation or restriction in the wording on the use or preservation of that very same retrieved data for any other purposes... data parsing, correlation, traffic analysis, or archiving. My concern is over-arching: I do not want any government (and particularly my own) maintaining warrantless, complex, and detailed intelligence databases related to its own ordinary citizens - folks who ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty via full and due legal process. Such database contents ("lists") can later be used to construct innunendo, circumstantial implication, and ultimately second-tier legal action against those citizens without prior, specific court oversight and legal notification to the citizen.

Properly implemented data collection, correlation, and statistical analysis are marvelous technical tools for the gathering and piecing together of both intelligence overview and the boring-in upon specific situations. But there are two realities:
1) data is "forever" unless completely killed off immediately
2) in data mining, two plus two are not required to equal four... they can equal three (for small values of "two") or five (for large values of "two") - or equal anything else the mining programs want them to equal

The reality is that intel-derived databases can point in whatever direction the program authors or users want them to for any given set of records. Sometimes they can point in unexpected directions that entangle innocent targets whose long-accumulated records somehow coincidentally fit the filter-du-jour. Sometimes that entanglement can be intentional, based on the shifting sands of political correctness, popular prejudice, or the machinations of tyrants. I am deeply concerned about simple errors, and I am profoundly disturbed about deliberate misuse... people can (and have) literally died over such things for years.

The only protection for the citizenry is rigid, unrelenting adherence by those in power to principles whose first and primary objective is the protection of the rights of innocent citizens. Whatever the crisis demands of the day, whatever the urgency of the intel needs, that first objective must be adhered to without exception or it's game over. Whenever those in power lose sight of that objective, it is the right and duty of the citizenry to remind them of it: loudly, strongly, consistently, and forcefully if necessary.

Intel technology is complex. The associated constraints are also necessarily complex. That does not relieve those involved from making iron-clad sure the rights of the citizenry are preserved, however difficult that makes the drafting of law/regulation or its administration. To date, most of the attempts to draft electronic surveillance law have exhibited bad-law aspects. This attempt is no exception. Congress needs to have their feet held to the fire to get it right. Eventually they will, if the citizenry insists.
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:22:08 EDT

jvmorris : I think there's something that a lot of people are unaware of and that others are trying to obfuscate.

Since the FISA Act was first signed into law in 1978, it has always incorporated a basis for warrantless wiretapping (or, more properly, 'Electronic surveillance authorization without court order'. The circumstances necessary for intelligence collection activities to fall into this area are and have always been well defined in 50 USC 1802, as have the procedures to then be followed.

S. 1927, on the other hand, attempts to legitimize an entirely new set of intelligence collection programs in 105A,105B, and 105C that are radically different from those specified in 1802. One only has to compare the definitions of the criteria in the two sections and the procedures to be followed to understand the distinction. And, yes, these are the programs that Bush initiated post 9/11.

The people who wrote the bill certainly understand the distinction and they have, in effect, attempted to establish and legitimize these programs such that they are not subject to any meaningful review and oversight, either from the FISA Court or the Congress.

Quite frankly, there really is no way that the warrantless wiretapping programs authorized by 1802 could be amended to cover what's in 105A, 105B, and 105C -- and the authors of the bill know that.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 10:07:20 EDT

GercekSeytan :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by Name Game :

The most immediate need for the amendment was to clarify that communications between individuals located entirely abroad, which happen to be routed through U.S.-based switches for technological reasons, are outside the scope of FISA’s warrant requirements.

Yes, that's right, foreign intelligence surveillance is outside the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. WHAT.

Are you implying the purpose of U.S. warrants is to protect foreigners in a foreign location from whatever by requiring warrants? If that's not what you're saying, then what is the purpose of the FISA?
--
Yes, it is I, the resident crackpot and curmudgeon.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:59:28 EDT

AmeritecTech :

Yes, that's right, foreign intelligence surveillance is outside the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. WHAT.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:56:11 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by GOLFnSUN :

said by AmeritecTech :

Let's say the government is using this collection process and they collect information that implicates an American citizen in a (non-terrorism) crime. Are you suggesting they're just going to drop it?

The NSA, which is doing the listening in, would not be interested in non-terrorist related crimes.

Regardless, this administration does not have credibility on claims that it will follow the law and exercise restraint. For example:

The revelations infuriated U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly -- who, like her predecessor, Royce C. Lamberth, had expressed serious doubts about whether the warrantless monitoring of phone calls and e-mails ordered by Bush was legal. Both judges had insisted that no information obtained this way be used to gain warrants from their court, according to government sources, and both had been assured by administration officials it would never happen.

Twice in the past four years, a top Justice Department lawyer warned the presiding judge of a secret surveillance court that information overheard in President Bush's eavesdropping program may have been improperly used to obtain wiretap warrants in the court, according to two sources with knowledge of those events.

[...]

James A. Baker, the counsel for intelligence policy in the Justice Department's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, discovered in 2004 that the government's failure to share information about its spying program had rendered useless a federal screening system that the judges had insisted upon to shield the court from tainted information. He alerted Kollar-Kotelly, who complained to Justice, prompting a temporary suspension of the NSA spying program, the sources said.

Yet another problem in a 2005 warrant application prompted Kollar-Kotelly to issue a stern order to government lawyers to create a better firewall or face more difficulty obtaining warrants.

The two judges' discomfort with the NSA spying program was previously known. But this new account reveals the depth of their doubts about its legality and their behind-the-scenes efforts to protect the court from what they considered potentially tainted evidence. The new accounts also show the degree to which Baker, a top intelligence expert at Justice, shared their reservations and aided the judges.

»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···l?sub=AR

They were using fruit of a poisoned tree (illegal surveillance) to get warrants from the FISC, something which had been expressly prohibited. To believe that they're now going to make sure that they're not keeping and using tainted data (surveillance on Americans) requires a pretty herculean exercise of deluding yourself, because they were already doing so in the past. Less oversight into the actual incidents of surveillance will just provide them with greater temptation and less accountability. They're now on their honor, and in the honor department, they're found lacking.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:52:34 EDT

jvmorris :

said by GOLFnSUN :

The NSA, which is doing the listening in, would not be interested in non-terrorist related crimes.

That's not quite true.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:51:20 EDT

Name Game : The FISA Amendment – Much Ado About Nothing
By Joseph Klein
FrontPageMagazine.com | 8/14/2007

The most immediate need for the amendment was to clarify that communications between individuals located entirely abroad, which happen to be routed through U.S.-based switches for technological reasons, are outside the scope of FISA’s warrant requirements. This change was relatively non-controversial. However, at the same time, the drafters of the amendment sought to clarify other portions of FISA that were hampering the gathering of foreign intelligence. The most significant of these clarifications – and the one that has caused such consternation among the ACLU, the New York Times and other anti-Bush partisans - is a more explicit authorization for the government to monitor certain international communications without a warrant for an extended period of time, even if one of the participants is an American citizen located in the United States, as long as the monitoring is undertaken for foreign intelligence purposes and is "directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States."

The amendment provides that the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General may authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information in such situations for up to a year without a warrant as long as they have determined, among other things, that “there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located ouside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the [FISA] Court”. They must certify their determination in writing, under oath, supported by an affidavit of appropriate officials in the national security field.

The FISA amendment contains various procedural safeguards, including transmittal of the certification to the special FISA court “as soon as practicable” and judicial oversight by the FISA court of the government’s determination that its procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that its acquisitions of information are directed at persons reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States. Detailed reports of the program to the Senate and House intelligence committees are also required.

Since the government will be dependent on telephone carriers and internet service providers for much of the information it will be sifting, there is an additional safeguard that provides an opportunity for immediate judicial review. Any carrier that is directed by the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to provide the government with information, facilities or other assistance to accomplish any warrantless search may immediately challenge the legality of the directive by filing a petition with the FISA court. This will have the effect of accelerating the judicial review of specific searches.

The ACLU and their fellow Left-wingers seek to paralyze our government’s ability to head off another terrorist attack on our homeland. In their state of paranoia, they see our own government as the greatest threat to Americans’ freedom. The threat that the Leftists obsess about is largely a figment of their own imaginations. On the other hand, the terrorist threat that the President is concerned about is real and ever-present. Three thousand lives were actually lost on 9/11. A plot to blow up several trans-Atlantic flights from London to the United States that would have killed many more people was actually foiled as a result of good intelligence. The terrorist leaders have announced their intentions to attack America again – with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if possible.

»frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R···5B335B73

FISA and the kook fringe
In the wake of congressional passage of a bill clarifying the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to ensure that U.S. intelligence agencies can monitor the operations of foreign terrorists operating overseas for the next six months, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid denounced the legislation and said they want to revisit the issue when Congress returns.
»washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dl···08130003
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kids »www.missingkids.com/

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:39:14 EDT

GOLFnSUN :

The NSA, which is doing the listening in, would not be interested in non-terrorist related crimes.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:30:20 EDT

jvmorris : Are you blind? It says, specifically, from an electronic surveillance. And Section 105A of S.1927 says that the things we are talking about shall no longer be construed as electronic surveillance for purposes of 50 USC 1801 et seq. Consequently, this section does not apply.

I don't see how it could be much clearer.

And, whoever wrote the bill certainly feels this way, otherwise there would be no need for 105B and 105C, which talk exclusively about 'acquisitions that do not constitute electronic surveillance'.

There are no minimization procedures specified for anything but electronic surveillance.

50 USC 1801 (h) starts out very explicitly: '"Minimization procedures", with respect to electronic surveillance, means - ' (emphasis added)

And, if you look at your two quotes above, you will see some very significant differences in the wording.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:22:51 EDT

AmeritecTech : Let's say the government is using this collection process and they collect information that implicates an American citizen in a (non-terrorism) crime. Are you suggesting they're just going to drop it?
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:18:11 EDT

manfmmd :

said by jvmorris :

said by manfmmd :

said by jvmorris :

They can keep it, they can destroy it, they can act on it (for whatever non-national security purpose that they see fit), they can pass it to any other organization within or without the Government with no penalties -- there's no law that applies. There's no redress; there are no penalties for such abuse.

No they can't. You conveniently glossed over this:

"Whenever the Government intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, against a person who was the target of, or whose communications or activities were subject to, an acquisition authorized pursuant to section 102A, any information obtained or derived from such acquisition, the Government shall, prior to the trial, hearing, or other proceeding or at a reasonable time prior to an effort to disclose or so use that information or submit it in evidence, notify such person and the court or other authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used that the Government intends to so disclose or so use such information."

Yes, I did. Do you know why? Because it's not part of the bill signed into law by President Bush and it's not part of the pre-existing statute at 50 USC 1806. It appears your quotation comes from the bill as originally submitted by the DoJ -- at least I can find that exact language in that bill.

50 USC 1806(c), as it stands, is quite explicit that it applies only to "information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance". Well, I was talking about (if you go back up and look) the fruits of "surveillance directed at a a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States" which (now) is not be construed as electronic surveillance. So, again, there are now no rules for such information and we are effectively back to the old days, in which the abuses that led to the FISA Act occurred.

What do you mean it's not part of 1806? Really?: »www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/···00-.html

1806(c) states:

(c) Notification by United States
Whenever the Government intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, against an aggrieved person, any information obtained or derived from an electronic surveillance of that aggrieved person pursuant to the authority of this subchapter, the Government shall, prior to the trial, hearing, or other proceeding or at a reasonable time prior to an effort to so disclose or so use that information or submit it in evidence, notify the aggrieved person and the court or other authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used that the Government intends to so disclose or so use such information.

Again, minimization procedures are in place for instances whereby a US citizen, unknowingly, is party to an act of surveillance. I could could care less about information that the government can use on non-US Citizens and when they can use it.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 09:09:02 EDT

manfmmd : You missed this part: "or at a reasonable time prior to an effort to disclose"

That means disclose to anyone.

And this part: "so use that information"

That means that they cannot use it.

Without meeting the other requirements of the section referenced above, which states: "notify such person and the court or other authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used that the Government intends to so disclose or so use such information."

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:08:24 EDT

jvmorris :

said by manfmmd :

No they can't. You conveniently glossed over this:

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 03:11:03 EDT

Blackbird :

said by manfmmd :

No they can't. You conveniently glossed over this:

"Whenever the Government intends to enter into evidence or otherwise use or disclose in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in or before any court, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, or other authority of the United States, against a person who was the target of, or whose communications or activities were subject to, an acquisition authorized pursuant to section 102A, any information obtained or derived from such acquisition, the Government shall, prior to the trial, hearing, or other proceeding or at a reasonable time prior to an effort to disclose or so use that information or submit it in evidence , notify such person and the court or other authority in which the information is to be disclosed or used that the Government intends to so disclose or so use such information." (my boldings - BB SR)

So... let me see if I understand you correctly regarding the "gloss". If the government uses any citizen's data it gets via electronic surveillance in any other manner whatsoever besides simply going to trial or involving it in hearings before some official "authority of the United States", that's cool with you? It's OK by you for any US citizen (who talked overseas for whatever actual reason) to have his name and all kinds of sensitive personal information parsed and sliced and diced and scattered onto countless government database records for analysis, cross-referencing, and dissemination to various personnel and agencies - and secretly kept preserved virtually forever "just in case"?

I think a key difference between your stance and those who disagree with you is the great amount of optimistic faith you inherently are extending toward the 'good intentions' of all those in political power whenever creating and preserving citizen "lists", now and in the future. Many careful students of history (including the founders of this nation) have been exceedingly suspicious of political power that is not clearly and precisely and strongly constrained - preferrably by independent oversight by a 'competing' branch of government. Frankly, I'm personally more concerned about the future implications of this law than the present ones, largely because I believe history shows statutes and regulations invariably become "creatively" interpreted to expand power in the hands of those exercising it... and because the harsh glare of publicity and partisanship presently are acting as a counter (even if only a slight one) to the more ominous aspects of this law. And whether or not this particular law becomes "sunsetted" at some near point or not, many parts of it are fairly likely to be imported into whatever replaces it. It is when the current smoke and furor die away that the real damage will be done in the ensuing quietness, somewhere down the road...

edit: removed redundancy
--
If God wanted us to work with electrons, He'd make them big enough to see...

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:03:13 EDT

EGeezer :

said by manfmmd :

EVERYONE knows that judges are political appointees. And since there are people that wish to hang their trust on "judges", I was just reminding them.

Ah, you're starting to get it :) Putting one's head in the sand and ignoring the fact that those comprising the leadership of any branch of government are politicians who want more power and fewer eyes on them only opens the door for those of which you speak.

Politicians inhabit all three branches of the government, and having any one of the branches subject to scrutiny by the other two greatly reduces the opportunity for mischief.

Maybe some would blindly trust Pelosi, Obama. Romney, Giulani, Edwards, "conservative" or "liberal" judges or any other possible future leader - right, center or left - to not abuse power or privilege, but I don't, and your above statement indicates you're starting to realize what we're talking about.
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:32:13 EDT

manfmmd :

said by fatness :

said by manfmmd :

I would agree with you, except for, for the past 20 years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining about the actions of "judges" because of their 'political' ties back to an administration. I don't have a solution for this, but as long as judges are political appointees, we will have a problem (as we do with the abortion debate).

said by manfmmd :

It doesn't matter who elevated them or who appointed them. It is clear, since the beginning of record keeping, that judicial decisions are based on interpretation, which is based on political leanings.

Why don't you stop injecting these god damn red herrings into this thread.

OK?

I would if it wasn't pertinent to the discussion. EVERYONE knows that judges are political appointees. And since there are people that wish to hang their trust on "judges", I was just reminding them.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:27:01 EDT

manfmmd :

No they can't. You conveniently glossed over this:

I see nothing wrong at all with sections 1801(e) and 1801(a). I believe that 1801(a) 1-6 were all included because of lawyers (they love to pick stuff like that apart). I also agree with 1801(f). Why limit the types of electronic surveillance by making the sections dependent on each other (using AND).

--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:11:08 EDT

manfmmd :

said by EGeezer :

said by manfmmd :

Again, with the minimization procedures in place, this shouldn't be a problem.

shouldn't be a problem is the operative phrase here. That's much more applicable than won't be a problem.

Of course, a sitting president would never think of claiming executive privilege for his attorney general when trying to avoid disclosure of abuses, political mischief or wrong doing. Hmmm, well, maybe ... ;)

Until I see an indictment of Alberto Gonzales, it's all hearsay. How much time and money have they spent on this fishing expedition? Wasn't this predicted by the Republicans? I thought Speaker Pelosi said that they weren't going to go on any witch hunts? IMO, sh*t or get off the pot.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:59:19 EDT

GOLFnSUN :

said by AmeritecTech :

We turn to a question of motive: were they concerned that they couldn't monitor foreign communications effectively? NO. As always, FISC rubber-stamps requests such as this, and besides, surveillance can take place for up to 21 days before FISC needs to even be notified of surveillance in progress. There is no good reason why FISC is insufficient for approving foreign surveillance.

Yes, they were worried they couldn't monitor foreign communications effectively. The problem became that the court was so backlogged with requests(remember that NSA has to monitor thousands and thousands of foreign communications) that the judges couldn't keep up with the workload. And a FISC judge said that according to the law the NSA had to get approval. Even if it was after the fact. The intelligence community convinced the House & Senate intelligence committees that the situation was untenable and that they needed to be able to listen in on foreigner communications without FISC approval(which was way to slow and didn't have enough judges to handle the workload). So the Congress agreed.

The only sticking point remaining between Dems & Repubs is the part about Americans being on one end of the conversation and not needing court approval. And that is why it only got a 6 month approval. Both sides have to renegotiate the details of what to do when a US citizen is on one end of the conversation.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 20:45:03 EDT

AmeritecTech : Here's the bottom line:

The Executive Branch had complained in the 60s that the warrant requirements were too high for foreign intelligence. A rubber stamp court (FISC) was created to clear this stuff in a more expeditious manner when the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed. FISC approved practically everything thrown at them, because they understood their purpose: approve everything that doesn't involve surveillance on an American.

The Bush administration started submitting surveillance of Americans to FISC, cases with insufficient evidence, and something that should have gone through a regular federal court. FISC started modifying or denying these applications, because that's not what FISC is for. Rather than adhere to the law, the administration started a secret surveillance program which monitored communications of Americans with no oversight. It pledged that it would continue to do so.

Now, as a "compromise", it proposes to take away the power of the courts to rubber-stamp foreign intelligence surveillance, the very thing that FISA put in place. There is now no independent oversight, and the courts and the Congress only receive reports from the AG that all systems are go, and that everything is fine, that all laws are being followed (regardless of the truth of that). That's the law that was passed.

We turn to a question of motive: were they concerned that they couldn't monitor foreign communications effectively? NO. As always, FISC rubber-stamps requests such as this, and besides, surveillance can take place for up to 21 days before FISC needs to even be notified of surveillance in progress. There is no good reason why FISC is insufficient for approving foreign surveillance. They need to take it out from under the eyes of FISC because they have a wide net that is certainly catching American conversations.

Phone-line privacy was smothered with the passage of this law.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:53:13 EDT

EGeezer :

said by manfmmd :

Again, with the minimization procedures in place, this shouldn't be a problem.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:37:42 EDT

jvmorris : Oh, okay here you are -- took me a bit of time to find your post to respond.

First, there's a definitional issue in the promulgated Act that people need to understand. Actually, there are several definitions that come into play. There's no 'common usage' issue here; these terms are defined by statute for purposes of 50 USC 1801 et seq.

Prior to passage of the "Protect America Act of 2007, these were as follows:
From 1801(e)
'foreign power' is defined in 1801(a) as
Note that 1801(a)(4) and 1801(a)(5) already cover the organizations that we seem primarily concerned with in this discussion.

And, from 1801 (f),

(f) "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;          (2) the acquisition by an electronic, mechanical, or other        surveillance device of the contents of any wire communication        to or from a person in the United States, without the consent        of any party thereto, if such acquisition occurs in the United        States, but does not include the acquisition of those        communications of computer trespassers that would be        permissible under section 2511(2)(i) of title 18;          (3) the intentional acquisition by an electronic, mechanical,        or other surveillance device of the contents of any radio        communication, under circumstances in which a person has a        reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be        required for law enforcement purposes, and if both the sender        and all intended recipients are located within the United        States; or          (4) the installation or use of an electronic, mechanical, or        other surveillance device in the United States for monitoring        to acquire information, other than from a wire or radio        communication, under circumstances in which a person has a        reasonable expectation of privacy and a warrant would be        required for law enforcement purposes.

And please note that the subitems of 1801(f) are ors not ands, so the previously existing definition was quite comprehensive.

Now, we come to S.1927 and its modification to the definitions of 'electronic surveillance':
Note that there is nothing in S.1927 that defines 'reasonably believed' nor who is to make such a determination -- absolutely nothing, nor anything about who is permitted to challenge such a designation.

Now, exactly what impact does this insertion have on the language previously provided in 50 USC 1801(f)? As I read it (and I think I'm being quite reasonable in this interpretation) it would seem that, if surveillance is 'reasonably believed' to be implemented with the expectation of monitoring communications of an individual outside the United States, it's not electronic surveillance in the context of FISA, i.e, FISA no longer applies. There's no requirement that this presumption actually be true to conduct the surveillance, none whatsoever. It's simply that FISA no longer applies. Well, what does that mean with regards to what statutes do apply? The answer: None, such surveillance regresses to the completely undefined surveillance activities that were conducted prior to FISA's passage in 1978. There isn't any applicable law.

All the AG or DNI have to do is say (with a straight face) that they were attempting to surveill an individual outside the USA at the time the interception was made. Well, what happens if they (accidentally, of course) just happen to intercept communications between two individuals in the US or possibly someone in the US and someone outside the US who isn't an 'agent of a foreign power'? Absolutely nothing. They can do whatever they want with such information. They can keep it, they can destroy it, they can act on it (for whatever non-national security purpose that they see fit), they can pass it to any other organization within or without the Government with no penalties -- there's no law that applies. There's no redress; there are no penalties for such abuse.

Similarly, the revised statute makes no reference to 'foreign intelligence information'. Anyone outside the US can have their communications monitored as the Government sees fit. Now, why is this essential to the purposes of FISA?

Starting to catch on? And, also, why is this provision in a new section 105A, rather than incorporated expressly into 50 USC 1801, where it rightfully belongs?

(I'm not through yet; just thought it best to break this into manageable chunks.)

--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 19:25:39 EDT

fatness :

Why don't you stop injecting these god damn red herrings into this thread.

OK?
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:49:30 EDT

jvmorris : Ummm, just for reference purposes, I have the passed version of the bill as S.1927, which can be found at »thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c···927.ENR: . (There's a PL number somewhere, but I don't have it handy.)

However, this is a markup of 50 USC 1801 et seq. so you also need to take a look at that to understand what this markup does. For this, I referenced the Findlaw version at »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/···801.html , which is dated 19 Jan 2004. Is this the latest revision? I thought other changes were made after that date?

There's an unfortunate disconnect between S. 1927 and 50 USC 1801 et seq. (as referenced above) which makes it a bit difficult to understand exactly what changes were made. (I think this is because S.1927 actually references the previous PL sections, not the relevant USC sections.) So, I believe that references to, e.g., Sect 105 in S.1927 would be applicable to 50 USC 1805, and so forth.

Just thought I'd throw that in for anyone intersted in doing their own research.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:33:30 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

"The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate under the provisions of section 108(a)."

"(2) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 106(f)."

The Attorney General shall determine if the agencies are complying with the law. He shall then tell the Congress if they're complying with the law. The Congress will then use that to determine...if they're complying with the law. Don't you see the flaw here? No true oversight. If the AG says, "Yes, everything's fine" there's nobody double-checking that. Everything, and I mean everything is contingent on him telling the truth and reporting accurately, something we know that he seems to have a problem with.

Again, with the minimization procedures in place, this shouldn't be a problem.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:20:17 EDT

AmeritecTech : "The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate under the provisions of section 108(a)."

"(2) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 106(f)."

The Attorney General shall determine if the agencies are complying with the law. He shall then tell the Congress if they're complying with the law. The Congress will then use that to determine...if they're complying with the law. Don't you see the flaw here? No true oversight. If the AG says, "Yes, everything's fine" there's nobody double-checking that. Everything, and I mean everything is contingent on him telling the truth and reporting accurately, something we know that he seems to have a problem with.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:09:03 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

Not at all, as most were appointed by other Presidents:

Fisa Court Members:
Kollar-Kotelly: Clinton
Bates: Bush 43
Benson: Bush 41
Broomfield: Reagan
Carr: Clinton
Gorton: Bush 41
Walton: Bush 43
Howard: Reagan
Kazen: Carter
Scullin: Bush 41
Vinson: (can't find who appointed Judge Vinson)

Court of Review:
Leavy: Reagan
Winter: Reagan
Selya: Reagan

Perhaps, but it was Rehnquist and Roberts that elevated them to FISC.

Yes, because of the expiry dates of the other judges.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 14:07:30 EDT

manfmmd : (2) reports such minimization procedures and any changes thereto to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate at least 30 days prior to the effective date of such minimization procedures, unless the Attorney General determines immediate action is required and promptly notifies the committees of such minimization procedures and the reason for their becoming effective immediately.

(b) MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES.—An electronic surveillance authorized under this section may be conducted only in accordance with the Attorney General’s certification and the minimization procedures. The Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate under the provisions of section 108(a).

(c) SUBMISSION OF CERTIFICATION.—The Attorney General shall promptly transmit under seal to the court established under section 103(a) a copy of the certification under subsection (a)(1). Such certification shall be maintained under security measures established by the Chief Justice with the concurrence of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed unless—

(1) an application for a court order with respect to the surveillance is made under section 104; or

(2) the certification is necessary to determine the legality of the surveillance under section 106(f).

From the very .pdf file that spy1 posted.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:48:21 EDT

jvmorris :

said by manfmmd :

. . . There's a lot of talk about "no checks and balances", but there is plenty there, in place. I just think that some people are hyper-sensitive to issues like this.

Please identify (citations would be nice) the checks and balances that you see as still being in place under this revision of the FISA Act. Then we can talk about them.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:43:50 EDT

jvmorris : Well, I'm glad that's clear to you. Please call up the ghost of Richard M. Nixon and inform him of your deductions.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:39:17 EDT

manfmmd :

said by jvmorris :

You are confusing the issue of which President recommended these Judges for elevation to the Federal bench and who subsequently appointed them to the FISA Court, I believe. AmeritecTech is correct with regards to the latter, which is all that he said.

I'm not saying that at all. It doesn't matter who elevated them or who appointed them. It is clear, since the beginning of record keeping, that judicial decisions are based on interpretation, which is based on political leanings.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:28:52 EDT

AmeritecTech :

Perhaps, but it was Rehnquist and Roberts that elevated them to FISC.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:27:04 EDT

jvmorris : My review of the FISA Statute, in some detail, is around here somewhere from either January or February 2006 (maybe December 2005). Look it up.

I haven't changed my opinion since that time.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:24:03 EDT

jvmorris : You are confusing the issue of which President recommended these Judges for elevation to the Federal bench and who subsequently appointed them to the FISA Court, I believe. AmeritecTech is correct with regards to the latter, which is all that he said.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:21:49 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

said by jvmorris :

said by manfmmd :

. . .I would agree with you, except for, for the past 20 years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining about the actions of "judges" because of their 'political' ties back to an administration. I don't have a solution for this, but as long as judges are political appointees, we will have a problem (as we do with the abortion debate).

That's very nice, except for a few minor details.

First, I personally don't recall ever having criticized a judicial decision on the basis of who appointed the Judge. If I care to criticize a judicial opinion, I do so on the merits of the argument (and I do that damn rarely). So this is a false canard.

Are you of the opinion that there needs to be a warrant "no matter who the subjects of the investigation are"?

Same question to you, jvmorris .

Are you having a great deal of fun asking us to defend arguments that we've never made? Show me where I've ever made such a statement.

I'm just trying to get down to the nitty-gritty. Who, or under what circumstances, do you think that warrants should be sought?

1. American:American (Yes, IMO)
2. Non-American:American (Yes, IMO)
3. Non-American:Non-American (No, IMO)

What is your opinion?

On the matter of court decisions, (I don't want to delve too deeply into this) all decisions are made on preponderance of the facts and interpretation of current law. There is much room for political slant to one side or the other.

How do we know that they're monitoring only 3? What sort of oversight prevents them from claiming they're doing 3 while they're actually doing 1 and 2?
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:21:17 EDT

manfmmd : I agree, but the Judicial Branch is not superior to the other 2 branches of government...just as Legislative Branch is not superior to the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch...and so on...(Some people would like that, I would not)

There's a lot of talk about "no checks and balances", but there is plenty there, in place. I just think that some people are hyper-sensitive to issues like this.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:17:41 EDT

manfmmd :

said by jvmorris :

Are you of the opinion that there needs to be a warrant "no matter who the subjects of the investigation are"?

Same question to you, jvmorris .

Are you having a great deal of fun asking us to defend arguments that we've never made? Show me where I've ever made such a statement.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:15:40 EDT

Wildcatboy :

said by manfmmd :

Are you of the opinion that there needs to be a warrant "no matter who the subjects of the investigation are"?

I'm of the opinion that the laws of the land have to be adhered to and there should be checks and balances that prevent people / officials / presidents / congress from trying to bypass them. It's called safeguarding democracy. And you do have those safeguards in your country unless you willingly give them up.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:12:32 EDT

manfmmd : See my post: »Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:11:10 EDT

spy1 : "That's what we fixed."

Of course, they also "fixed" the ability of any other court in the land from being able to deal with this issue (from the bill itself on Thomas):

" `(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section."

They also "fixed" people or organizations that don't want to comply:

"`(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall issue an order requiring the person to comply with the directive if it finds that the directive was issued in accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the court as contempt of court. Any process under this section may be served in any judicial district in which the person may be found."

They also managed to "fix" the six month sunset:

"(c) Sunset- Except as provided in subsection (d), sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Act , and the amendments made by this Act , shall cease to have effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act .

(d) Authorizations in Effect- Authorizations for the acquisition of foreign intelligence information pursuant to the amendments made by this Act , and directives issued pursuant to such authorizations, shall remain in effect until their expiration. Such acquisitions shall be governed by the applicable provisions of such amendments and shall not be deemed to constitute electronic surveillance as that term is defined in section 101(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(f))."

(Expect a landslide of "requests" right before it sunsets).

How long could that be, you ask?

"Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--

`(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act ;

`(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;

`(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;

`(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

`(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h)."

I bolded no. 2 there because it sticks in my craw, being the absurdity that it is and the pivotal point of the absurdity of the whole damned bill - If this isn't "electronic surveillance" - then what the hell IS it? Are they reading smoke signals? Snatching up messages at dead drops? Of course not. It's simply the latest way the administration bends reality and truth to get what they want.

It's electronic surveillance (unless they don't want it to be) - or conversely, it's not electronic surveillance (unless they do want it to be). Nothing like having your cake and eating it too, is there?

I won't even get into the jokes residing in the "appeal" process - try reading the actual bill itself for those chuckles.

The bill is a POS from a privacy/rights viewpoint - to claim otherwise is a reflection of not being able to read the plain English of the bill itself.

Just carefully read the damned thing and think about what you're reading and how it can be mis-used and the mis-use thereof covered up.

I'm quite sure I'll be back before and during the re-authorization proceedings beginning.

But as for this thread - I'm not seeing any way I could explain this any better than I and others already have.

Y'all have fun. Pete

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 13:10:51 EDT

manfmmd : Not at all, as most were appointed by other Presidents:

Fisa Court Members:
Kollar-Kotelly: Clinton
Bates: Bush 43
Benson: Bush 41
Broomfield: Reagan
Carr: Clinton
Gorton: Bush 41
Walton: Bush 43
Howard: Reagan
Kazen: Carter
Scullin: Bush 41
Vinson: (can't find who appointed Judge Vinson)

Court of Review:
Leavy: Reagan
Winter: Reagan
Selya: Reagan

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:59:23 EDT

jvmorris :

Are you of the opinion that there needs to be a warrant "no matter who the subjects of the investigation are"?

Same question to you, jvmorris .

Are you having a great deal of fun asking us to defend arguments that we've never made? Show me where I've ever made such a statement.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

msg deleted

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:53:58 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:53:39 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

said by Wildcatboy :

said by manfmmd :

But, how? While meeting your privacy requirements along with the needs of the government and law enforcement. People love to complain about how things are being done. If you have a better idea of HOW to do it, then please let us know.

The ideas are already here and mentioned in this thread if you choose to see them. The Government should be able to do what's necessary, so long as there's an impartial oversight committee (Judges) in place to make sure they're not breaking the laws.

All the Government has to do is to agree to obtain a warrant and not before they do the job, up to 120 days after it. This doesn't slow down the process but it assures that they can't do anything wrong without running the risk of being exposed. It's just that simple.

To me, the clear sign that says someone is doing something wrong is when you see them try to get rid of or object to checks and balances that are in place and this administration has been doing just that every step of the way.

I would agree with you, except for, for the past 20 years, people on both sides of the aisle have been complaining about the actions of "judges" because of their 'political' ties back to an administration. I don't have a solution for this, but as long as judges are political appointees, we will have a problem (as we do with the abortion debate).

Are you of the opinion that there needs to be a warrant "no matter who the subjects of the investigation are"?

Same question to you, jvmorris .

So you're injecting judicial activism into the argument. I guess you're alleging that the FISA judges are loyal to Clinton, and thus not approving Bush's requests like they should?

Edit: Judge Judicial district Date appointed Term expiry
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (presiding) District of Columbia May 19, 2002 May 18, 2009
John D. Bates District of Columbia February 22, 2006 May 18, 2013
Dee Benson District of Utah April 8, 2004 May 18, 2011
Robert C. Broomfield District of Arizona October 1, 2002 May 18, 2009
James G. Carr Northern District of Ohio May 19, 2002 May 18, 2008
Nathaniel M. Gorton District of Massachusetts May 18, 2001 May 18, 2008
Reggie B. Walton District of Columbia May 19, 2007 May 18, 2014
Malcolm Howard Eastern District of North Carolina May 19, 2005 May 18, 2012
George P. Kazen Southern District of Texas July 15, 2003 May 18, 2010
Frederick J. Scullin, Jr. Northern District of New York May 19, 2004 May 18, 2011
Roger Vinson Northern District of Florida May 4, 2006 May 18, 2013

All were appointed to the Court during Bush's administration by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, which was a Republican for that whole time.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:51:14 EDT

manfmmd :

said by Wildcatboy :

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:39:29 EDT

jvmorris :

said by manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :
Continue to prosecute enemies, protect civil liberties of Americans. Its really quite simple.

But, how? While meeting your privacy requirements along with the needs of the government and law enforcement. People love to complain about how things are being done. If you have a better idea of HOW to do it, then please let us know.

Well, people (like in Congress) have and they thought they had an agreement with the DNI. Unfortunately, he went back to the White House and the agreement was nixed (no explanation as to just what had been wrong with what he proposed and got accepted by the Congressional leadership); and then the FUD began.

But, the important point here is that it's got to be a level playing field. At the very least, the Administration needs to describe (accurately) its program to the appropriately cleared members of the two Intelligence Committees (and possibly to appropriate people in the two Judiciary Committees), allow these MCs to see the Court decision (rather than characterizing it as they see fit) and then spell out their proposed solution (in precisely the level of detail you are requesting here from members on this forum). The 'gotcha' approach has to stop.

The process revision has to incorporate sufficient substantive information for oversight and review by an organizations independent of the organization formulating the procedures. Of course, that's what the FISA Court is supposed to do and the current legislation strips them of this capability -- they simply get to be informed but they no longer have authority to do anything about the information provided to them (and it's going to have precious little detail, as matters currently stand).

There has to be accountability and penalties for abuse of the authority; the current Administration wants neither. In essence, the current Administration plan is to 'legalize' the illegal surveillance that they were conducting until it was revealed in 2005. Actually, the Administration currently wants a bit more -- it wants legalization of its illegal activities in the past (an ex post facto law illegal under our Constitution) and it want a blanket pardon for anyone who participated in violating the FISA law prior to this most recent bill (another ex post facto law). (I hope it's not necessary to point out that the people involved are not all Government employees.) Proscribed activities were quite clearly specified in the existing FISA law, as were the penalties for violating them and there was no great difficulty for anyone in finding out what these were.

There have to be enforcable standards for ensuring data security, data privacy, and data retention -- especially for any information inadvertently collected in the program. The Administration strenuously objects to any such legal 'impediments'. Why? Exploitation of this information, in particular, for any purposes other than those relating to intelligence on terrorists, criminals, and national security should be subject to serious criminal penalties.

Now, you go ahead and explain to me why all these waivers of accountability and responsibility and penalties for abuse must be waived in order to have an effective surveillance program that satisfies the criteria you specified earlier. I'd love to hear it.

NSA personnel understood these prohibitions quite well (and General Haydon once assured the relevant Congressional committees that this was true). There was no uncertainty or ambiguity. It is my understanding that quite a few NSA personnel refused to be party to the program instituted after 9/11, some requested reassignment and some took early retirement. I have very little sympathy for any liabilities confronted by those who chose to continue. You get caught; you do the time. (The FBI sure as hell knew that, since one of their people was banned from making submissions to the FISA Court after repeatedly misrepresenting justifications for warrant requests -- and note: warrant requests.)

I can only conclude that something very wrong is going on here that really is not necessary in order to accomplish the objectives of this program. This Administration does not want to 'fix' these problems, so what's very wrong most likely represents something else that really isn't even involved in the intent of the act.

Under no circumstances am I going to discuss ways to accomplish the objectives of this set of laws in a public forum. When the Administration sees fit to discuss its proposed solution in the same level of detail in a public forum, I may reconsider and suggest alternative solutions, but I am certainly not going to do so otherwise. (What if I were to inadvertently reveal something that the Government is, in fact, already doing?)
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:25:01 EDT

Wildcatboy :

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:06:19 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :
Continue to prosecute enemies, protect civil liberties of Americans. Its really quite simple.

350,000 troops in Iraq, 12,000 in Afghanistan. That imbalance is a piece of the puzzle. Another piece is improving communications within the FBI itself (which can't be blamed on the wall). Internal FBI communications were abuzz with reports that pilots were training to fly but not to land, but the information (which was repeatedly sent) was never acted on.

Overall, I think the government has done a pretty good job since 9/11, but I don't think the extended wiretapping powers are needed. The PATRIOT Act itself has done damned little for the War on Terror, but much for the War on Drugs and other sorts of prosecutions. Indeed, the PATRIOT Act was written well before 9/11. Terrorism was just the convenient scapegoat that allowed them to finally get it passed.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:00:16 EDT

Name Game :

said by jvmorris :

More information will start to leak out on this program shortly, so it's basically just a matter of waiting for it.

I just wanted to leak out I am not a target so others do not have to increase the natural email enhancement to their congressmen on my behalf. ;)
****************************

"A White House official said the push was driven by genuine concerns by Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, for the government's ability to conduct terrorist surveillance.

“There was no real argument on the need for a fix” between Democrats and Republicans, the White House official said. “He’s a straight shooter.”

The prelude to approval of the plan occurred in January, when the administration agreed to put the wiretapping program under the oversight of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The court is charged with guarding against governmental spying abuses. Officials say one judge issued a ruling in January that allowed the administration to continue the program under the court’s supervision.

A ruling a month or two later — the judge who made it and its exact timing are not clear — restricted the government’s ability to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications passing through telecommunication “switches” on American soil.

The security agency was newly required to seek warrants to monitor at least some of those phone calls and e-mail messages. As a result, the ability to intercept foreign-based communications “kept getting ratcheted down,” said a senior intelligence official who insisted on anonymity because the account involved classified material. “ We were to a point where we were not effectively operating.”

Mr. McConnell, lead negotiator for the administration in lobbying for the bill, said in an interview that the court’s restrictions had made his job much more difficult.

“It was crazy, because I’m sitting here signing out warrants on known Al Qaeda operatives that are killing Americans, doing foreign communications,” he said. “And the only reason I’m signing that warrant is because it touches the U.S. communications infrastructure. That’s what we fixed.”

In April, Mr. McConnell began talking with lawmakers in classified meetings about that “intelligence gap” and alluded to it publicly, too. At the time, the administration proposed sweeping measures to “modernize” the foreign surveillance law, a much broader proposal in some respects than what Congress approved.
»www.nytimes.com/2007/08/11/washi···.html?hp
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kids »www.missingkids.com/

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:44:46 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :
Continue to prosecute enemies, protect civil liberties of Americans. Its really quite simple.

Re: re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:21:31 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

I know that people have a beef with the government, and rightfully so, about past transgressions and violations against people's privacy, but going forward, if the present model doesn't meet "your" expectations/requirements, what is your solution?

Continue to prosecute enemies, protect civil liberties of Americans. Its really quite simple.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

msg deleted

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:19:19 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 11:15:35 EDT

manfmmd : Here's a question for everyone:

What can the government do to effectively monitor legally while maintaining the public trust?

They, the government and law enforcement, has to:

1. Have the ability to effectively monitor any type of communication that they can get a warrant for if the subject is a US citizen.

2. Have the ability to effectively monitor any type of communication without a warrant if if both parties are non-US citizens.

3. Be able to legally turn this monitoring equipment on or off as needed by meeting the requirements of 1 & 2.

4. Be able demonstrate to a group of people, eg. The Senate and House Select Committees on Intelligence or some other group, that can monitor and manage the program without divulging national security secrets to out enemies.

I know that people have a beef with the government, and rightfully so, about past transgressions and violations against people's privacy, but going forward, if the present model doesn't meet "your" expectations/requirements, what is your solution?
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: Mugabe Gov't Cites Bush's Wiretapping Program

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:33:30 EDT

hpguru :

said by SUMware :

Thanks to Digg:

said by Digg :
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe "signed into law the controversial Interception of Communications Bill, which gives his government the authority to eavesdrop. In order to defend the law, which has been called "the dictator's tool kit," Mugabe's spokesperson pointed to President Bush's wiretapping program.

Gotta love how Dubya spreads the ideals of Liberty and Democracy. :huh:
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Zeitgeist

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:11:39 EDT

jvmorris :

said by Name Game :

I am not currently nor have I ever been a foreign terrorist target. Nor would I "trade" with any politician details on Surveillance of those targets.

Can you prove that or do we just have to accept your word for it? ;) Would you be willing to testify under oath to that effect? :D

Persistence paid off in fight to update spy law
Democrats will try again to win battle with new bill in September

»www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea···285.html

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to point out that this story was initially written by two Washington Post reporters and is actually to be found on the front page of Sunday's edition of the Post. See »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···349.html .

"Detrimental rulings
But in a secret ruling in March, a judge on a special court empowered to review the electronic snooping challenged for the first time the government's ability to collect data from such wires even when they came from foreign terrorist targets. In May, a judge on the same court went further, telling the administration the law's wording required the government to get a warrant whenever a fixed wire was involved.

The decisions had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber on U.S. soil, a task so time-consuming that a backlog developed." . . .

In time, I suspect we will be told that's not exactly what the Court ruled. But rather that the Court ruled that the methods being used by the Government to do such collection were illegal without a warrant. And, rather than change their methods, the Government decided to misrepresent the nature of the Court's decision and, in effect, 'go over the head' of the Court -- to the Congress.

Now, why do I maintain the Court's actual decision is being misrepresented? Well, if it really was as portrayed, it's nonsensical -- there's no such restriction (grounds) even remotely justifiable under the terms of the FISA Act and the FISA Court has never taken it upon itself to make 'new' law. As such, the Administration only needed to appeal to the Court of Review which would have promptly overturned such a hare-brained ruling. To date, I've seen no indication that the Administration even bothered to appeal the decision to the Court of Review. Consequently, I deduce that the grounds for the decision were very well founded and the Administration recognized that the Court of Review would likely uphold the decision of the FISA Court; i.e., the original ruling was apparently far from hare-brained, regardless of how it's since been portrayed.

Apparently, persons on the relevant Congressional Committees had similar questions; they asked for a description of the program and for a copy of the Court's ruling in order to better address the problem while revising the FISA Act. (And the FISA Act has already been at least twice amended since 9/11.)

"You give us the documents we want, and we'll give you the legislation," the senators said, according to an administration official present, who said the response was "no."

With me so far? (Believe it or not, the point of the above exposition is to lay some background as to why the discussion of this program is appropriate in this forum. ;) )

The focus of our discussion therefore needs to address the methods being used to implement this program. The legality of the program (especially under the FISA Act as was in effect at that time) is no longer at issue and the Court's decision has not been challenged.

I suspect the details we would like to address have both privacy and security aspects. It's very difficult (with no authoritative information) however to address these issues, but I believe it's reasonable to be very concerned about both aspects, just as was true with the earlier Echelon and Carnivore programs.

More information will start to leak out on this program shortly, so it's basically just a matter of waiting for it.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Mugabe Gov't Cites Bush's Wiretapping Program

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:58:27 EDT

SUMware : Thanks to Digg:

said by Digg :
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe "signed into law the controversial Interception of Communications Bill, which gives his government the authority to eavesdrop. In order to defend the law, which has been called "the dictator's tool kit," Mugabe's spokesperson pointed to President Bush's wiretapping program.

-

From The Voice of America
Zimbabwe President Mugabe Signs State Eavesdropping Law
03 August 2007:

said by VOA :
Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe on Friday signed into law the controversial Interception of Communications Bill, which gives his government the authority to eavesdrop on phone and Internet communications and read physical mail.

The legislation has drawn outspoken opposition from the political opposition and civil society organizations as trampling on the civil rights of Zimbabweans.

Spokesman Nelson Chamisa of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change faction of Morgan Tsvangirai called it an addition to "the dictator's tool kit."

Human rights lawyer Otto Saki told VOA that the law interferes and undermines the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the constitution and is a sign Mr. Mugabe wants to consolidate his power by "any means necessary or unnecessary."

But Communications Minister Christopher Mushowe said Zimbabwe is not unique in the world in passing such legislation, citing electronic eavesdropping programs in the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa, among other countries.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:19:00 EDT

CajunTek : Actually my point was about both sides left and right.. and if not a lock, then at least a depoliticalization of the thread would be appropriate so we could at least focus on the security issues of this bill..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:40:08 EDT

Name Game : I am not currently nor have I ever been a foreign terrorist target. Nor would I "trade" with any politician details on Surveillance of those targets.

Persistence paid off in fight to update spy law
Democrats will try again to win battle with new bill in September

»www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hea···285.html

"Detrimental rulings
But in a secret ruling in March, a judge on a special court empowered to review the electronic snooping challenged for the first time the government's ability to collect data from such wires even when they came from foreign terrorist targets. In May, a judge on the same court went further, telling the administration the law's wording required the government to get a warrant whenever a fixed wire was involved.

The decisions had the immediate practical effect of forcing the NSA to laboriously ask judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court each time it wanted to capture such foreign communications from a wire or fiber on U.S. soil, a task so time-consuming that a backlog developed."

A critical moment
"You give us the documents we want, and we'll give you the legislation," the senators said, according to an administration official present, who said the response was "no."

A critical moment for the Democrats came on July 24, when McConnell met in a closed session with senators from both parties to ask for urgent approval of a slimmed-down version of his bill. Armed with new details about terrorist activity and an alarming decline in U.S. eavesdropping capabilities, he argued that Congress had days, not weeks, to act.

"Everybody who heard him speak recognized the absolute, compelling necessity to move," Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., vice chairman of the intelligence panel, said later of the closed session.

Democrats agreed. "At that time, the discussion changed to 'What can we do to close the gap during the August recess,' " said a senior Democratic aide.
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kids »www.missingkids.com/

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:36:53 EDT

Wildcatboy :
It seems the time has come for me to post. First to those who ask for the lock, feel free to read other threads and other forums if you wish. This thread will stay.

Of course since most of the mods have the same views as spy1 that's unlikely to have happened.

Most people already know and if they don't, they should. I'm the only one moderating this forum. Other mods have posted in this thread but they are not moderating it. They are expressing their opinions and they have the right to do so. No one else will decide what thread stays and what thread goes, except me. As for me, I'm not even American.

I see no reason to lock this thread. It's relatively a civilized discussion, except for those who intentionally try to make it uncivilized and get it locked. I have and will deal with those posts and posters individually and it has nothing to do with which side of the discussion I gravitate toward.

As for my personal opinions, well, I find it interesting that the usual people who tend to show up on front page political threads and spread fear and derail threads from their main purpose, found their way to this thread too.

It's also interesting that as usual, they have nothing to say about the subject itself, just a bunch of BS about how we will all die if we don't kill everyone else first. They never talk about alternative ways the Government can accomplish the same goals because as far as they're concerned, whatever the Government does is great and no one else can do it better and anyone who has even a remote alternative must be a liberal or a terrorist or a traitor or a pussy or whatever BS they can come up with. They accuse others of distorting the truth when they are the ones doing so at any opportunity while avoiding questions.

And of course the best course of action in their view is as simplistic as their thought process allows them to be: "Nuke 'em", "round 'em up", "Shoot 'em". They spread hatred and intolerance, justifying it by the false fear they create, and since hatred knows no boundaries, your American citizenship, your skin colour, your sexual preference, your beliefs, etc... won't save you from their hatred and scrutiny.

It doesn't matter who holds those powers, this administration, the next one, the next one after that, Democrats or Republicans. Those kinds of powers will guarantee that one day, your turn and your Children's turn will come.
--
You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him long.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:28:00 EDT

jvmorris : Oh, thanks for bringing that up!

I know some people like to maintain that I "just hate G. W. Bush" and that's why I take the positions I do. Well, if they'd care to check, they'd find equally critical comments on my part in the past about both Echelon and Carnivore.

And I have this vague recollection of broaching (on several occasions) the specter of just what's likely to happen if a Democratic Administration is allowed the same authority -- not something I'm fond of, either.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:26:18 EDT

SnowyOne : The US Government has a history of over reacting to threats. It wasn't all that long ago that this was considered a very American, patriotic thing to do.
The few who spoke out against it were ridiculed too.
»www.sfmuseum.org/war/evactxt.html

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:21:36 EDT

fatness :

said by EGeezer :

Again, it isn't a "red" or "Blue" issue. It's an American Citizen security from abuse issue - abuse from future as well as present political leaders in all branches of government.

You're right. And it's not a "current day only" issue, either. Due to either youth or short memories, some people may not be aware of the severe abuses of trust and of law committed by Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Technology and world politics may change, but the need to be highly skeptical about our executive branch is supported by history.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:10:23 EDT

jvmorris : No problemo, pete. (Cue the sound track "See you in September". :D )

Now we can return to the Blue Room where I shall soundly thrash you on the subject of gun control. ;)
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:02:27 EDT

anon : "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The word "preserve" may be misunderstood to mean "change", and the word "defend" may mean something else.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:00:41 EDT

jvmorris : Quite right. This is not a red/blue issue, or a Democrat/Republican issue or a liberal/conservative issue. After all, the first people (that we know of) who objected to how all this was being done were John Ashcroft and James Comey, both true-blue Republican conservatives appointed by none other than George W. Bush. And then there's the little matter of one Royce C. Lamberth, appointed to the federal judiciary by none other than one Ronald Reagan, who became the Presiding Judge of the FISC from 1995 to 2002. None of these people can be characterized as lefty-liberals. And all of these people have first-hand knowledge of how the Terrorist Surveillance Program implemented by the Bush Administration was operating. Apparently, some people would prefer to ignore this.

I will not maintain that I know what they knew, but it's indisputable that all of these individuals have serious reservations about the legality of this program.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:48:04 EDT

spy1 : jvmorris and whizkid3 - Thanks for your comments on my behalf.

Special thanks to jv - he speaks from a place I can't get to - within the system - and nothing I can link to can compare with that (which is why everyone else ought to be listening closely when he posts, and heeding what he says).

I can't begin to tell you how broken up I am about being put on - anyone's - "Ignore" list. It still rather escapes me why (with everyone knowing what this - or any other thread of mine - thread's about just by reading the title) people who aren't interested simply do not bother to read the thread if it upsets them so much.

It's all computer "Security" related (you don't have any when the government can rape all your communications at will, with impunity and in total secrecy) - it's equally (and for the same reasons) computer "privacy" related (again, you don't have any - read above).

So, by all means, if that's what floats your boat - be my guest. The characterizations of me (by people who seriously don't have a clue) don't even register as a blip on my radar-screen (my apologies for not dropping dead of mortification).

Let's see - how long did it take before we really had any idea exactly how bad the abuses of the NSL's, Section 215's and "exigent letters" was? And how many times did the current administration lie about those facts prior to its' being at least partially exposed? Can you even fabricate some sort of logical reason why you think that the same exact thing won't happen with the FISA "modernization"? (And remember - we only have six months this time to find out the truth).

And yet many of you continue to place un-qualified trust in and surrender your freedom(s) to the same group of people!

If I were the type to despair - or quit - I would have already.

I'm not. Pete

*Mods - Lock this one if you wish, I don't have a problem with it. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:46:33 EDT

EGeezer :

quote:
"We had a forcing function," a senior administration official said, referring to the intelligence community's public report last month that said al-Qaeda poses a growing threat to the United States and to lawmakers' desire to leave town in August.

History shows that this seems to be how a great deal of legislation and power that can't stand up to the scrutiny it deserves has been gamed in the US and many other countries.

First raise a spectre of impending doom, then press for a hurried approval and implementation. Once it's there, come back later and say that the measures are now insufficient and ask for more.

This works even better if oversight to existing measures is eliminated, allowing for easy falsification of information needed to evaluate their effectiveness.

Again, it isn't a "red" or "Blue" issue. It's an American Citizen security from abuse issue - abuse from future as well as present political leaders in all branches of government.

Those who advocate diminishing the ability for two branches of government to oversee, scrutinize, or hold the third in check are, in my opinion, un-American in their thinking.

I can't help but think that Jefferson and Lincoln are spinning in their graves, and John Adams is smiling at the prospect of returning to 1798.
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:11:02 EDT

jvmorris : Well, that's a Schneier commentary and I don't know exactly who we'd say is a more authoritative voice regarding security and privacy. (And it was also written well before the current issue came to the fore.) If it's an issue to him, I would maintain it's rightfully an issue for everyone who frequents this forum, whether they post here or simply read.

I'll take your quoted excerpt to heart. My wife lives in England and I now assume that every telephone conversation and every e-mail that we exchange is being monitored. And it's very chilling. And that's exactly what I suspect they were doing before the FISA Court said it was illegal. It's a giant ShopVac, people -- they scoop up everything, listen to it, assess it, and then target. You've no assurances (especially if you're in a perfectly legitimate business that relies on international communications) to presume that they won't abuse the information they collect, certainly not with this Administration. And I can assure you that foreign corporations whose communications 'may' now be (surprise, surprise) "routed" through US relays are even more concerned about this issue. They have very little faith in the dispassionate analysis of their communications that may occur on behalf of the US Government, especially when billions of dollars in contracts (possibly in competition with US firms) are at issue. Furthermore, the law (at least as initially proposed by the current Administration) specifically legalizes any such abuse by giving blanket immunity to any party who may come into contact with the substance of their communications. You think we're politically isolated in the world now? Wait until we become technologically isolated. That's all this ham-fisted approach to intelligence gathering to combat terrorism is going to accomplish.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:51:25 EDT

whizkid3 :

said by jvmorris :

IF we can get the thread back on-topic, that would be nice, but I doubt it's going to happen.

I am trying; all the while tieing it into the current direction of the thread. See »Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

What do you think?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:47:03 EDT

jvmorris :

said by jbob :

said by jvmorris :

. . . . I think you must be the first person I've yet heard criticize an ardent advocate of the right to bear arms, securing our borders, enforcing our (existing) immigration laws, while also insisting that the Government comply with the due process clause of the Fourth Amendment as being anti-American. . . .

While you might be correct if you look at where spy1 typically posts and what he posts about I'm sure there are others who hold the opposite views of his "conservative status".

(emphasis added) That's interesting; we should characterize him on the basis of where he takes (purely) political positions rather than the substance of what he says. Interesting concept. I presume you're currently IMing all the conservatives who post in the Blue Room to inform them of the error of their ways?

This is nothing more than a political thread and should have been locked ages ago. Of course since most of the mods have the same views as spy1 that's unlikely to have happened.

I disagree with your assessment. spy1's original posts were all about the privacy considerations associated with this law and it has long been accepted that such issues are addressed in this forum. Concerted efforts have been made to digress from his original subject, to smear him with guilt by association (primarily because of the sources he came across to quote various newspaper articles), and now we come to designating him "anti-American" (maybe she meant "un-American"?). He didn't do this; others did.

IF we can get the thread back on-topic, that would be nice, but I doubt it's going to happen. But the subject will re-emerge when Congress goes back in session, anyway. Subsequent attempts to 'smother' it will be met with a lot of "Hey mods", since that's what it's apparently going to take.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:27:24 EDT

whizkid3 : Its just amazing to me, how those who have had nothing to add, debate or discuss in this thread, come clamoring out of the woodwork with their first post being to "lock the thread", simply because they don't like the message.

Forget which forum we're in. You have the choice to voice your opinions, or just lurk in silence. That's what makes the freedom of speech great. But please do one or the other; don't use this ability to do nothing more than try to play unnofficial mod.

In fact, the FISA bill, did not only decimate our right to privacy, but it also just helped diminish our freedom of speech:
The Eternal Value of Privacy.

quote:
How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

Should we change our demeanor here, too? Alter our words, because a tiny minority of posters, who have contributed absolutely nothing at all to this thread, say so? What are their agendas? We don't know; we haven't heard. Just like we don't know or hear the secret agendas of this Administration and their NSA and the myriad of other secret spy organizations, as the are free to go about the anti-American, anti-patriotic and unconstitutional business of monitoring our words and writing, wholesale.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:19:11 EDT

jvmorris : CajunTek is not as much in love with his own words as some of us are (and I include myself in that category). ;)

I understood his sentiments in his original post, but moving the thread to either the Blue Room or the Red Room wouldn't accomplish anything; it would have had to be moved to one of the 'other' political type forums once it drifted away from purely privacy issues. (And it would have died a quiet death shortly thereafter.)

I understand his point; I just don't have an adequate solution for it as these forums are currently constituted. Next thing you know, people would be demanding that such threads be moved to one of the more obscure forums, simply when they couldn't adequately debate the issue, thereby essentially killing it.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:17:56 EDT

jbob :

said by jvmorris :

This is getting a bit silly, La Luna. It's perfectly acceptable to contest what Pete considers facts or rebut his arguments, but dragging out the "Anti-American" shibboleth is going a bit far.

Pete's probably more conservative than you are. (He's certainly more conservative than I am!) I think you must be the first person I've yet heard criticize an ardent advocate of the right to bear arms, securing our borders, enforcing our (existing) immigration laws, while also insisting that the Government comply with the due process clause of the Fourth Amendment as being anti-American.

Sure, put him on ignore if it makes you feel better.

While you might be correct if you look at where spy1 typically posts and what he posts about I'm sure there are others who hold the opposite views of his "conservative status". This is nothing more than a political thread and should have been locked ages ago. Of course since most of the mods have the same views as spy1 that's unlikely to have happened.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:11:19 EDT

whizkid3 :

said by CajunTek :

said by whizkid3 :Spy1, IMHO, is one of the most patriotic, Pro-America members at broadbandreports.com!

Its the crooked government he is against.

Yep.. it just get's more and more about politics and less and less about security... I surely wish this thread would get the lock it truely deserves...

CajunTek, interesting that you've quoted my post. Tell me where there is absolutely anything in there about politics?

We've been having a nice debate and discussion on the FISA bill; and although we disagree, LaLuna, FiOS Dan, Spy1, myself, manffmd, fatness, jvmorris and the rest enjoy this sort of thing. Interesting, that the only things you've contributed are your first post:

»Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

quote:
My opinion on this... Is that it has wandered (almost immediately) from a discussion on security to a political discussion.. and should be in either the RED ROOM or the BLUE ROOM...My actual opinion on the bill will be reserved for the postings in that venue...

and your second:
»Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

quote:
Yep.. it just get's more and more about politics and less and less about security... I surely wish this thread would get the lock it truely deserves...

So, all you've done is attempt to direct which way we should discuss things - and since you apparently don't like what's being discussed - that the thread should be locked.

If you don't like what you're reading, you're perfectly free to find another thread, rather than attempt to censor the group.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:44:11 EDT

jvmorris : Yep, might as well lock it now.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:43:31 EDT

jvmorris : This is getting a bit silly, La Luna. It's perfectly acceptable to contest what Pete considers facts or rebut his arguments, but dragging out the "Anti-American" shibboleth is going a bit far.

Pete's probably more conservative than you are. (He's certainly more conservative than I am!) I think you must be the first person I've yet heard criticize an ardent advocate of the right to bear arms, securing our borders, enforcing our (existing) immigration laws, while also insisting that the Government comply with the due process clause of the Fourth Amendment as being anti-American.

Sure, put him on ignore if it makes you feel better.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:37:58 EDT

CajunTek :

said by whizkid3 :

said by La Luna :

(Obviously) using this site as his personal vehicle to push his anti-AmeriCa agenda.

Spy1, IMHO, is one of the most patriotic, Pro-America members at broadbandreports.com!

Its the crooked government he is against.

Yep.. it just get's more and more about politics and less and less about security... I surely wish this thread would get the lock it truely deserves...
--
da Cajun Darn I hate Malware

msg deleted

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:41:48 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:35:18 EDT

whizkid3 :

said by La Luna :

(Obviously) using this site as his personal vehicle to push his anti-AmeriCa agenda.

Spy1, IMHO, is one of the most patriotic, Pro-America members at broadbandreports.com!

Its the crooked government he is against.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:27:26 EDT

La Luna :

said by FiOS Dan :

said by spy1 :

A recent story in the Los Angeles Times reports that at least 10 percent of the 625 war prisoners captured in Afghanistan and now held at the notorious US naval base prison in Guantanamo Bay...

"Notorious" eh? Now that really sounds like impartial reporting to me. Oh and, by the way, thanks for the link. I'll be sure to bookmark the World Socialist Web Site. :(

Why are you banging your head against the wall? Haven't you noticed this is the only kind of ~~crap~~ threads he ever posts? Look at his »/postlist/6491···t=within .

That's all he does here, contributing nothing else. (Obviously) using this site as his personal vehicle to push his anti-AmeriCa agenda. Waste of good forum real estate space. Hence, the reason why he is now on ignore.
--
~~"As long as America is an infidel enemy, terrorizing it is a duty." Sayed Imam Abdul-Aziz el-Sheriff~~

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:49:54 EDT

manfmmd :

said by hpguru :

said by spy1 :

Yer killin' me here! lol! Exactly how much good for "INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES" do you think the detainees will be? Especially the ones that have been locked up in Guantanamo since it "opened"? They've only been out-of-the-loop for what? Four or five years?

Excellent point. Imo they should chip them and let them go. See where they run to.

[Last OT post]
They haven't "chipped them", but they have let some go and they ended up, right back out on the battelfield, fighting against us or our allies again.
[/OT]
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:09:04 EDT

fatness : That's an interesting article, thanks for posting that. The Post often has good information about behind-the-scenes government activities.

Interesting stuff.

quote:
"We had a forcing function," a senior administration official said, referring to the intelligence community's public report last month that said al-Qaeda poses a growing threat to the United States and to lawmakers' desire to leave town in August.

quote:
They led top intelligence officials to conclude, a senior official said, that "you can't tell what this court is going to do" and helped provoke the White House to insist that Congress essentially strip the court of any jurisdiction over U.S. surveillance of communications between foreigners.

--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:05:06 EDT

whizkid3 :

said by FiOS Dan :

said by spy1 :

I'm sure you have some sort of problem with that source, too.

Indeed I do. They mirror their cousin (NYT) on the East Coast in terms of bias and often outright obfuscation.

Apparently, FiOS Dan is one of those Amerikans that will only read/listen to news sources, that practice brands of propaganda that tells him he wants to hear... there are none so blind as those that refuse to hear.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:55:31 EDT

Name Game : Might want to have another NEWS source closer to the facts as they unfolded and the reason why without the political spin. ;)

How the Fight for Vast New Spying Powers Was Won
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···349.html
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kids »www.missingkids.com/

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:20:21 EDT

hpguru :

said by FiOS Dan :

Indeed I do. They mirror their cousin (NYT) on the East Coast in terms of bias and often outright obfuscation.

Yeah they should try to be more like Faux Newz.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 11:06:26 EDT

FiOS Dan :

said by spy1 :

I'm sure you have some sort of problem with that source, too.

Indeed I do. They mirror their cousin (NYT) on the East Coast in terms of bias and often outright obfuscation.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:57:18 EDT

spy1 : Dan - The WSW website was merely quoting the article in the Los Angeles Times:

»www.latimes.com/la-na-gitmo22dec···65.story

(I'm sure you have some sort of problem with that source, too).

jabarnut - Thank you so much. The Wikipedia entry you linked to expresses my feelings about the current condition of the United States perfectly.

However, should we ever return to a form of government that's actually ruled by the Constitution - and thus actually becomes "America" again - I'll be more-than-happy to change it. Pete

msg deleted

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:55:12 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 10:34:17 EDT

whizkid3 :

said by FiOS Dan :

"Notorious" eh? Now that really sounds like impartial reporting to me. Oh and, by the way, thanks for the link. I'll be sure to bookmark the World Socialist Web Site. :(

I'm not agreeing nor disagreeing with the poster, but I will say, Fios Dan, that perhaps you are over-defining the word notorious?

quote:
generally known and talked of; especially : widely and unfavorably known. Synonyms see famous.

It is certainly famous, generally known, widely known and talked of. Whether or not is it unfavorable, I guess we would have to take a poll. Worldwide, it is certainly unfavorable. I'd have to say that you took the wrong sentence to pick on.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:22:38 EDT

FiOS Dan :

"Notorious" eh? Now that really sounds like impartial reporting to me. Oh and, by the way, thanks for the link. I'll be sure to bookmark the World Socialist Web Site. :(
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 07:16:32 EDT

jabarnut : Before you carry on any further spy1 , thought I'd add a friendly little note for your information.

America is spelled with a "c" and not a "k".

quote:
In the 1960s and early 1970s in the United States, leftists sometimes used Amerika rather than "America" in referring to the United States. It is still used as a political statement today. It is likely that this was originally an allusion to the German spelling of America, and intended to be suggestive of Nazism,

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternativ···_.22C.22

Try not to worry about it too much though...we all make mistakes. :hmm:

--
I had a life once.....now I have a Computer and a Modem.

msg deleted

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:42:20 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 01:49:50 EDT

hpguru :

Excellent point. Imo they should chip them and let them go. See where they run to.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 12 Aug 2007 00:26:16 EDT

spy1 :

said by manfmmd :

If they can use the detainees for intelligence purposes, then I'm all for it. When they are used up, then try and punish them.

Yer killin' me here! lol! Exactly how much good for "INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES" do you think the detainees will be? Especially the ones that have been locked up in Guantanamo since it "opened"? They've only been out-of-the-loop for what? Four or five years?

Face it - the "detainees" hopes for anything resembling a fair "trial" or "military tribunal" - especially the innocent detainees - has sucked majorly ever since before the Military Commissions Act was passed. At which point their chances grew even worse and which is further exacerbated by the FISA "modernization" - or should I say the "Protect America Act of 2007" ( a good rule-of-thumb here is to look how noble and patriotic-sounding the name of the new "law" is - its' inherent rottenness will be inversely proportional to that).

Bah! Back on subject!
»www.cdt.org/headlines/1035

»www.cnss.org/CNSS%20Views%20on%20S1927.htm

»www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html

»https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JSe···n&id=270

»www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_14.16.html

»action.aclu.org/site/R?i=RHK0BZ-···tEq2MSng

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:35:46 EDT

manfmmd : No, I'm arguing for unlimited surveillance of non-US citizens and quick military tribunals for "non-US citizen" terrorists.

If they are Americans, like John "Taliban" Walker Lind, then I say give then a trial and sentence them appropriately if found guilty.

said by fatness :

If it's all that clear, where are the trials and convictions?

If they can use the detainees for intelligence purposes, then I'm all for it. When they are used up, then try and punish them.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 21:30:28 EDT

fatness :

said by manfmmd :

Last I checked these ~~people~~ terrorists were caught on a battlefield waging war against the U.S. while fully supporting Al Queda through their actions.

If it's all that clear, where are the trials and convictions?

Honestly, you're arguing for unlimited surveillance and unlimited detention or death, on the basis only of assertions by those you choose to believe.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:43:13 EDT

jvmorris : That clip actually tells us more about you than about pete, not to mention that it's totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion here.

You are, increasingly, coming to remind me of those living in the South during the 50s and early 60s who stoutly denied that lynchings of Negroes were still going on. They would only accept statements from Governors and documents from the State governments ... none of which were forthcoming, of course, inasmuch as no records were being kept. (I'm a South Carolinian, if that makes any difference to you.)

Like them, I suspect you personally would only have accepted the possibility of lynching if you personally were hoisted into a tree and found yourself having difficulty breathing. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how we'd get your after-action report, much less get it corroborated by 'official' sources.

Again, I suggest people go back and re-read EGeezer's last post. And, no, those statements weren't made by a bunch of lefty-liberal Democrats.

I think the old statement that "there are none so blind as those who will not see" likely describes you quite well.

Yes, this response is completely off-topic, especially in this Forum, but it was your posting that precipitated it. If the mods care to remove your posting, I believe this one will follow as part of the cascade.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:46:37 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

COOL CLIP!

Which has exactly what to do with the thread subject???

Like I said, we are getting OT, but it shows, to me at least, how out of touch, it seems you are with reality and the current situation in which we live.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:31:55 EDT

spy1 : COOL CLIP!

Which has exactly what to do with the thread subject???

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:28:57 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

You're seriously out-of-touch with the fact that up to ten percent of the GB prisoners had no business being brought there to start with: »www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan20···03.shtml

Let's say 10% is a good number. There are currently 435 remaining, which means 44 (I rounded up) shouldn't be there....That leaves 391 terrorists that should be there.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:25:26 EDT

manfmmd : "As far as al-Zarqawi goes, I see one of three possible scenarios:

(a) he either died - in battle - trying to avoid capture or
(b) he was killed accidentally by small-arms or explosives before they knew who he was or
(c) he knew too much and wasn't allowed to surrender

Any of those is equally likely. Pete"

Perhaps you should watch the news more often. They knew he was the target and was killed in an airstrike on June 6, 2006. Had we captured him, there would be lawyers begging to defend him. :uhh: :huh:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWcah-Fo6k

We are getting way OT here, but how closely do you follow stuff like this? It would seem that you are behind the times.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 15:10:07 EDT

spy1 : You're seriously out-of-touch with the fact that up to ten percent of the GB prisoners had no business being brought there to start with: »www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jan20···03.shtml

"New revelations about Guantanamo Bay prisoners
By Richard Phillips
3 January 2003

A recent story in the Los Angeles Times reports that at least 10 percent of the 625 war prisoners captured in Afghanistan and now held at the notorious US naval base prison in Guantanamo Bay have “no meaningful connection” with the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Citing military sources, the December 22 article revealed that a group of US army officers in Afghanistan last year called for scores of detainees not to be sent to Guantanamo Bay. Senior US military commanders in Afghanistan, Kuwait and America, however, ignored their advice. The article also reported that Maj. Gen. Michael E. Dunleavy, operational commander at Guantanamo Bay until October, visited Afghanistan last year complaining that there were “too many ‘Mickey Mouse’ detainees” being sent to the naval base.

According to the newspaper, army officers who were frustrated that their recommendations were being ignored decided to circulate a list of 49 Afghans and 10 Pakistani prisoners they wanted released or repatriated. The list included street vendors, taxi drivers, farmers and several men suffering severe mental health problems. While no names were provided, many of the men were kidnapped by bounty-hunting Pakistani soldiers near the Afghan border. One young detainee was captured in a border town where he had lived and worked for 20 years. He had no connection with the Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

The article also said that many Afghans now in Guantanamo Bay were forcibly conscripted into the Taliban army because they could not afford the bribes demanded to avoid military service. One example cited was of a 30-year-old farmer who was picked up by Northern Alliance forces because they were “interested in stealing his car and money”.

The Times quoted from the case file of a 22-year-old Afghan who sold firewood at a bus station in Kunduz. According to interrogators: “He answers all questions quickly and fully.... His story is plausible and consistent and there is no evidence that he has worked for or had any knowledge of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.” In another instance, interrogators described a 33-year-old taxi driver from Pakistan captured by Northern Alliance forces near Mazar-i-Sharif as a “low-level fighter with no tactical intelligence. Recommend repatriation.” "

(Yeah, yeah, I know about the source of that particular article already - who did you expect to bring it to light, the neo-conservative press?).

And I'm sure you've seen the stories where the U.S. is "quietly" releasing many of the prisoners' - no doubt to avoid having to explain why they kept people who were totally innocent there so long to start with.

As far as al-Zarqawi goes, I see one of three possible scenarios:

(a) he either died - in battle - trying to avoid capture or
(b) he was killed accidentally by small-arms or explosives before they knew who he was or
(c) he knew too much and wasn't allowed to surrender

Any of those is equally likely. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:54:04 EDT

manfmmd : I'm not trying to "tar" anyone. I'm sure Pete feels that he is "right", just as I feel that I am "right".

Last I checked these ~~people~~ terrorists were caught on a battlefield waging war against the U.S. while fully supporting Al Queda through their actions. They are not U.S. Citizens. They are not Soldiers. They should not be provided protections under the Geneva Conventions for several reasons. They should have been killed where they stood.

Why do you think that the coalition is not taking as many prisoners now-a-days? Why do you think that they killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi instead of trying to capture him? I've said it before and here it is again: Political Correctness is going to kill us all. These people cannot be handled with kid gloves.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 13:31:52 EDT

jvmorris : I don't think you're going to get much mileage out of trying to tar Pete as some sort of terrorist sympathizer. Nothing could be further from the fact. The fact that the CCR may also be involved in the defense of some prisoners at Guantanamo is rather irrelevant to the basic argument here.

So why, you ask, are they objecting? Well, rather obviously any communications they may have in regards to their perfectly legal defense activities on behalf on these prisoners are also subject to surveillance under the revised act, without a warrant and indeed without notification. I suspect they are among a very small group of lawyers who no longer have a right to confidential communication with or on behalf of some of their clients.

If the Bush Administration has a good case against their clients (something still open to debate), then it doesn't need to monitor these communications, now does it?

Pete takes a lot of positions with which I don't agree (and he knows that), but IMHO, he's spot on with regards to this new law. Thank God the damn thing expires in six months.

My position is very similar to that which EGeezer posted recently. This country is not on a war footing by any stretch of the imagination. The Administration has resisted all attempts to secure our borders and ports (until about two days ago, it has refused to enforce existing laws in that regard). That's not what this law of theirs is about. If you choose to ignore the inconsistencies, that is, of course, your right, as a citizen (at least I presume you're a citizen of the US).
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:24:47 EDT

spy1 : "If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?"

Sanctimonious bullshit like that, probably. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:03:14 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

Here's the "I told you so":

»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/nsa/

Two articles:

Lawyers Decry New Spy Law as Unconstitutional, Urge Federal Judge to Toss It
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/0···y-n.html

BREAKING: Citing Four-Day Old Surveillance Law, Bush Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Spying
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/0···day.html

There now - that didn't take long, now did it? Pete

I stopped reading right after: "A group of lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay prisoners..." :uhh:
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 11 Aug 2007 11:56:15 EDT

spy1 : Here's the "I told you so":

»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/nsa/

Two articles:

Lawyers Decry New Spy Law as Unconstitutional, Urge Federal Judge to Toss It
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/0···y-n.html

BREAKING: Citing Four-Day Old Surveillance Law, Bush Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Spying
»blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/0···day.html

There now - that didn't take long, now did it? Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Fri, 10 Aug 2007 07:47:52 EDT

whizkid3 : There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 08:02:44 EDT

comfort : Ironic and tragic that a forum with more tin for hat-making than China instantly surrenders its caution, skepticism, and principles of security when the word "terrorists" floats out of a figurehead's mouth.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Thu, 09 Aug 2007 07:49:14 EDT

whizkid3 : The problem, manfmmd, IMHO, is that every month since perhaps the early 1900's, a new molehill is created. Put enough of them together, and they become a mountain - to overcome. And we are past that point.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:53:50 EDT

IceDogg : I agree, once they have the power it will not be given up easily. Did anyone here watch the last Star Wars series (1-3)? I know it's fiction, but that doesn't mean there isn't lessons to be learned from it.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 17:11:13 EDT

EGeezer : I look at it from a historical perspective. Sitting fat, dumb, trusting and content and letting politicians gather power and trusting them not to misuse it - or give it back - has only resulted in trouble.

Whether George, Hillary, Barak or Mitt is in power, none will want to give back power willingly. None can be counted on to resist the temptation to stretch their power to the limits - or beyond if there is no oversight.

said by Demosthenes: Philippic 2, sect. 24 :

There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots.

What is it? Distrust.

said by John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790 :

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt. (Speeches. Dublin, 1808.)

--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:42:13 EDT

spy1 : »action.aclu.org/site/R?i=RHK0BZ-···tEq2MSng..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:48:59 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

I don't know, I think its a minor piece. I'm more concerned about disrespect for habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, among other violations of privacy and civil rights.

That's definitely up for discussion in another thread (both the issue of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps), but what I'm seeing, in this thread, is the cliche "making a mountain out of a mole-hill".
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:36:57 EDT

AmeritecTech : I don't know, I think its a minor piece. I'm more concerned about disrespect for habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, among other violations of privacy and civil rights.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:19:35 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

Which part of "just four of the F.B.I's 56 field offices" having been audited so far to come up with the partial result that's being quoted did you not understand?

Be deliberately obtuse if you wish, I'm done with you because you insist on ignoring every single salient point brought up.

The real effect/ramifications of the "law" just passed is quite clearly written here: »www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html

You keep drilling the point of "just four offices", it's pointless. Again, give me ALL OF THE NUMBERS and then we can talk. I can only extrapolate on the data that is given to me. I could see your point if no remedial action was taken, but in every case, remediation took place and the violations were reported (when deemed necessary).

Spread FUD if you insist, but I say AGAIN...Perfection is asking too much and is unattainable. you can only expect that violations are remediated.

266 out of approximately 168000... .15%
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:18:31 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

The real effect/ramifications of the "law" just passed is quite clearly written here: »www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html

You should really vet your sources:

»www.opensecrets.org/indivs/searc···&Order=N

DEMPSEY, JAMES
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY
7/7/1997
$250
Leahy, Patrick J

DEMPSEY, JAMES
DULLES,VA 20189
ACDI/VOCA/INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
5/16/2004
$250
Kerry, John

DEMPSEY, JAMES
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY
6/15/2004
$250
Kerry, John

DEMPSEY, JAMES
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
COT
3/28/2003
$250
Leahy, Patrick

DEMPSEY, JAMES
WASHINGTON,DC 20006
CDT/ATTORNEY
11/3/2005
$250
Lofgren, Zoe

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
SAN FRANCISCO,DC 94127
CDT/ATTORNEY
9/30/2005
$250
Barrow, John

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CDT/ATTORNEY
9/20/2004
$250
Scott, Robert C

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CAT
10/8/2000
$250
Tenth Congr Dist Dem Cmte of Virginia

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CDT/ATTORNEY
9/23/2004
$200
Barrow, John

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY & TECHNOL
3/31/1998
$200
Leahy, Patrick J

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CDT
6/8/2004
$200
Leahy, Patrick

DEMPSEY, JAMES X
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CDT/ATTORNEY
8/4/2004
$200
Barrow, John

DEMPSEY, JAMES X MR
WASHINGTON,DC 20016
CDT/ATTORNEY
10/25/2004
$200
Johnson, Paul W
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:15:05 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

19 that were found and that had been appropriately documented to even be able to find. 56 / 4 = 14 19 * 14 = 266 as a projected estimate of how many would have been found had they all been investigated.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:08:27 EDT

manfmmd :

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:01:27 EDT

spy1 : Which part of "just four of the F.B.I's 56 field offices" having been audited so far to come up with the partial result that's being quoted did you not understand?

Be deliberately obtuse if you wish, I'm done with you because you insist on ignoring every single salient point brought up.

The real effect/ramifications of the "law" just passed is quite clearly written here: »www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:41:58 EDT

manfmmd :

In the 19 matters that involved unauthorized collection of information not relevant to an authorized national security investigation, field office documentation stated that the information was retrieved and segregated, reviewed no further, and sometimes forwarded to FBI-OGC for final disposition. If the information had been uploaded or disseminated, FBI records showed that it was removed from the relevant databases and the disseminated information retrieved and segregated with the original information.

In three of the matters that involved improper requests under pertinent national security letter statutes, field office documentation stated that the records received either were destroyed or sealed or that NSLs were issued for the requested records to cover the time period in question.

In the fourth matter, one of the three NSLs was returned unexecuted when the FBI office that was to deliver the letter discovered the error and sent it back to the initiating office. Information from the NSL that had been disseminated to a foreign counterintelligence Task Force Officer was returned to the FBI without being used. The information inappropriately obtained from two NSLs was sealed and sent to FBI-OGC.

In the three matters that involved improper authorization, field division documentation stated that the field division was instructed to cease further investigative activity in the investigation that was improperly extended without FBI headquarters authorization; an EC was sent to FBI Headquarters requesting approval to extend the investigation for six months; and the case agent submitted appropriate documentation to change the case designation to a counterterrorism case.

"FBI-OGC decisions: FBI records show that FBI-OGC reported 19 of the 26 possible violations to the IOB. The FBI-OGC decided that the 7 remaining matters were not reportable to the IOB for the following reasons:"

In one of the matters, the FBI obtained telephone toll billing records on an investigative subject who was a "non-U.S. person" without issuing NSLs. The FBI-OGC decision stated that "only violations of the AG Guidelines which are designed to safeguard the rights of U.S. persons are required to be reported to the l4 According to the CDC in one of the field offices we visited, case agents are advised to return telephone toll billing records it improperly acquires to the communication providers. If the providers do not want them back, the agents are advised to destroy the records and document the destruction with an Electronic Communication (EC). This field office did not usually send toll billing records to FBI-OGC for sequestration or destruction. IOB." The FBI-OGC decision memorandum noted that if the subject of the national security letter had been a "U.S. person" the matter would likely constitute a reportable IOB violation.

In four matters, the FBI obtained telephone toll billing records or subscriber information that identified the telephone numbers with the investigative subjects. When the case agents reviewed the responses to the NSLs, they discovered that the telephone numbers were not associated with the investigative subjects. The FBI-OGC decisions stated that in each instance there was an authorized investigation for which NSLs were an appropriate investigative technique, and the NSLs were appropriately authorized. FBI-OGC also concluded that the case agents acted in good faith.

In two related matters the FBI issued national security letters for telephone toll billing records during authorized national security investigations but the NSL recipient provided the results 35 days after expiration of the authority to conduct the investigation. The FBI-OGC decision stated that the FBI's receipt of the information did not constitute a violation of the Attorney General's NSI Guidelines because no investigative activity was conducted after the investigative authority had expired, and the case agent took appropriate steps to obtain approval to extend the investigation before conducting further investigative activity.

I've highlighted what I consider to be the pertinent information. Again, there were violations and from what I've read so far, they were remediated appropriately and investigations only continued after the violations were rectified or the information was sequestered, sealed, or destroyed.

IRL, and this is what we're talking about here (not some make-believe place where everything is perfect), you cannot expect perfection, you can however expect follow-up and remediation like it is detailed above. If we work on the premise that the government isn't allowed to do ANYTHING unless it is flawless/perfect, NOTHING will ever be done.

Personally I congratulate them on a high rate of performance. Who here is right 100% of the time? Raise your hands.... Waiting...Waiting... (not holding my breath).

I'm continuing to read the pdf... I'll be back.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

msg deleted

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:18:00 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 10:10:55 EDT

FLHTCU92 : Thank you!! My thoughts exactly!

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:57:55 EDT

CajunTek : My opinion on this... Is that it has wandered (almost immediately) from a discussion on security to a political discussion.. and should be in either the RED ROOM or the BLUE ROOM...

My actual opinion on the bill will be reserved for the postings in that venue...

Edited to correct a typo...
--
da Cajun

Darn I hate Malware

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:39:12 EDT

manfmmd :

said by nwrickert :

There were 26 possible violations between 2003 and 2005.

No. That's 26 identified violations. There could possibly be many violations that were not identified.

The article said possible. Even if they were verified violations, the percentage is extremely low (.015%). Again, asking for and demanding perfection is unreasonable.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:36:14 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

(Which means, of course, that the total number of NSL's required is even higher than the reported numbers - and the probable instances of abuse).

Again, without hard numbers, you'd have to ass-u-me that there is a near linear relationship (I'm a glass half full kind of guy) between the number of requests and the number of probable violations...which in turn lends itself to the percentage of violations as still being low.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:32:53 EDT

spy1 : Well, at least the Electronic Frontier Foundation hasn't given up:

"* Action Alert: Push Congress Back Into the Wiretapping
Fight to Restore your Rights

Last week, Congress passed horrible legislation that
broadly expands the National Security Agency's authority to
spy on Americans without warrants. Now Congress needs to
undo the damage as soon as possible, and to make it do
that, it needs to hear from you:
»action.eff.org/fisa

By capitulating to the President's demands for sweeping new
surveillance powers, Congress not only trampled on your
Constitutional rights but also disregarded its own
Constitutional duties. The law permits warrantless
surveillance of "persons reasonably believed to be located
outside the United States," even when they are U.S.
citizens or are communicating with U.S. citizens, with no
prior court approval and only minimal court oversight.
Rather than setting meaningful boundaries on the Executive,
Congress essentially handed him a blank check to invade
Americans' privacy.

The most important check on government surveillance still
remains though. It's you. Tell your representatives to
repeal this legislation and restore your rights now:
»action.eff.org/fisa

Congress' actions are particularly disgraceful given how
the Administration has concealed the truth about its
illegal spying. The President only revealed the so-called
"Terrorist Surveillance Program" when press reports forced
his hand in December 2005, and, after the Administration
deliberately evaded numerous Congressional inquiries, it
took the threat of possible perjury charges for the
Attorney General to concede last week that the program was
broader than first admitted. In its haste to pass
legislation, Congress was essentially flying blind, yet it
caved in to the Administration's fear-mongering anyway.

This is a knockdown -- but far from a knockout -- in the
battle to stop the government's warrantless domestic
surveillance. The fight is not over, and, if you push them
hard enough, Congress still has a chance to set things
right.

For our part, EFF's case continues forward against AT&T for
illegally collaborating with the government, with a hearing
before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals next Wednesday.
We'll keep battling in the courts to uphold the
Constitution and restore your rights.

We will also be taking the fight back to Congress, and for
that we need your help. It's up to you to hold your
representatives accountable for either allowing this
egregious change or supporting it outright. Don't let them
think for a second that this went unnoticed: send them a
letter, call them to voice your opposition, and visit their
home offices in your district during the August recess.
Spread the word to your friends and family about what
Congress has done and urge them to take action, too.

Fortunately, the law has a sunset date, and, more
importantly, Congressional leaders are already signaling
that they want to revise the law before then. Restoring
protections for your fundamental rights shouldn't wait even
a day. Neither should our efforts to make sure that happens
-- take action now:
»action.eff.org/fisa

Read the Center for National Security Studies analysis of
the bill:
»www.cnss.org/CNSS%20Views%20on%20S1927.htm

For EFF's case against AT&T:
»www.eff.org/legal/cases/att

For EFF's page on the NSA's Warrantless Domestic
Surveillance:
»www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/NSA/

See EFF's earlier article, "Administration Concedes Open
Secret: NSA Spying Broader Than Previously Admitted":
»www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005386.php

For this post:
»www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005395.php " Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:31:14 EDT

nwrickert :

There were 26 possible violations between 2003 and 2005.

No. That's 26 identified violations. There could possibly be many violations that were not identified.
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 2200 modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.5

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:27:24 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

We're talking about two different articles and reports.

Would you please pay attention? Pete

Please re-read my post. The numbers I used were in the first CNN article you posted. I said I would follow-up when I get to the pdf, it's still downloading...I'm on dial-up.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:25:43 EDT

manfmmd : Again, give me some hard numbers and I'll see what they come out to. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. You are absolutely sure there is an 'abuse of power', so you must have the data to back that up.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:24:24 EDT

spy1 : We're talking about two different articles and reports.

From the pdf: "(from page 19 footnote): "The Department was not
required to report the number of NSL requests issued pursuant to the Patriot Act
amendment to the FCRA (consumer full credit reports) or the National Security Act NSL
statute (financial records, other financial information, and consumer reports). The
requirement for public reports on certain NSL usage did not take effect until March 2006,
which is after the period covered by this review."

(Which means, of course, that the total number of NSL's required is even higher than the reported numbers - and the probable instances of abuse).

Would you please pay attention? Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:23:54 EDT

fatness :

said by manfmmd :
You tell me how many violations there were because I don't know.

quote:
An internal FBI audit has found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism.

The new audit covers just 10 percent of the bureau's national security investigations since 2002, and so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand, bureau officials said in interviews. The earlier report found 22 violations in a much smaller sampling.

»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···_pf.html
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:20:48 EDT

manfmmd :

said by spy1 :

You need to catch up, manfmmd - the Inspector General's Office released a report - which only touched the tip of that particular iceberg - showing many, many more instances of abuse: »www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/09/secur···dex.html

Want to read the report itself? Here ya' go:
»www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/natsec.pdf

Add to that the fact that this report covered the results from just four of the F.B.I's 56 field offices and you begin to get an inkling of just how badly the powers granted have been abused. ( »www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/···dex.html ).

And the new "law" makes it all easier for them to abuse. And they will. Pete

I'll peruse the pdf when it's done downloading, but from the article itself:

The inspector general's review identified "26 possible intelligence violations" between 2003 and 2005, 19 of which the FBI reported to the president's Intelligence Oversight Board, the audit said.

Of the 26, "22 were the result of FBI errors, while four were caused by mistakes made by recipients'' of the letters, it said.

There were 26 possible violations between 2003 and 2005. In the article it assumes that there are approximately 56000 actions per year. So going on that, we are looking at approximately 168000 actions. With 26 possible violations that is .015%...again, they cannot be perfect.

If we take out the 4 mistakes made by the recipients, it's .013%...again, nothing to write home about.

People expect perfection when it's not feasible.

edit: your second CNN link come back with "Page Not Found".
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:06:44 EDT

manfmmd :

said by fatness :

said by manfmmd :

"It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee"

No one is perfect and to suggest that "half a dozen" violations out of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of investigations, warrant requests, searches/seizures, surveillance activities, etc. is 'rampant abuse of power' is both naive and nitpicky at best.

You changed what it said. Why?

It says there were a half dozen reports. How many violations were listed in each report?

Sorry, let me re-phrase. To me, there should be a report of EACH violation, but we know that's not gonna happen because smaller numbers look better. You tell me how many violations there were because I don't know. If the number of violations is around .1% of the total number of actions, I'm satisfied. Again, they cannot be perfect, it's asking too much.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:04:23 EDT

spy1 : You need to catch up, manfmmd - the Inspector General's Office released a report - which only touched the tip of that particular iceberg - showing many, many more instances of abuse: »www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/09/secur···dex.html

Want to read the report itself? Here ya' go:
»www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/oig/natsec.pdf

Add to that the fact that this report covered the results from just four of the F.B.I's 56 field offices and you begin to get an inkling of just how badly the powers granted have been abused. ( »www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/20/···dex.html ).

And the new "law" makes it all easier for them to abuse. And they will. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 09:00:31 EDT

fatness :

You changed what it said. Why?

It says there were a half dozen reports. How many violations were listed in each report?
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:50:45 EDT

manfmmd : "It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee"

No one is perfect and to suggest that "half a dozen" violations out of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of investigations, warrant requests, searches/seizures, surveillance activities, etc. is 'rampant abuse of power' is both naive and nitpicky at best.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:50:45 EDT

spy1 : FiOS Dan and TechieZero - Go back to the very first page of this thread and read the summary given there in my last post on that page ( »www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html ).

I can read quite well, thank you. I also pointed out the exact language of the bill itself (again, on the first page) that totally absolves the telco's from any lawsuits in re: to spying on their customers at the governments' request - and the fact that that absolution is retroactive.

The difference between us is that I can understand what I read, whereas you can't - or won't.

Go ahead and stick your head back in the sand (or wherever) - I'm sure all's quite well in your elevated plane of "existence". Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:44:36 EDT

Crypto :

said by FiOS Dan :

------------------------------------------------------------
Former CIA Director: Terrorist Strike Within U.S. Real Threat

Kenneth R. Timmerman
Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2007

Asked what three things we need to do to make America more safe, Woolsey said that the first and most important was not to tie the president's hands when it came to intelligence collection. Efforts by Democrats to require court orders to intercept international communications amounted to "shooting ourselves in the foot," he added.
------------------------------------------------------------

Putting surveillance cameras in everyone's home would probably cut down on domestic violence too, should we say that everyone who opposes that is trying to "tie the police's hands" ?

NO, BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA AND WE DONT PUT UP WITH INTRUSIVE SHIT LIKE THAT.

What I am saying is that we are headed towards a police state at a breakneck speed. I am not prepared to sacrifice essential freedoms and liberties in order to let some idiot from the government monitor me in the interest of safety.

It is not worth sacrificing the principles this naiton was founded on just to sleep a little better.
--
You have 4 boxes available to you: Soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Utilize them in that order.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:39:32 EDT

fatness :

said by TechieZero :

You "doods" are failing to acknowledge the subtlety that if americans were involved --- due process was followed (FISA).

Show me.

quote:
As he sought to renew the USA Patriot Act two years ago, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales assured lawmakers that the FBI had not abused its potent new terrorism-fighting powers. "There has not been one verified case of civil liberties abuse," Gonzales told senators on April 27, 2005.

Six days earlier, the FBI sent Gonzales a copy of a report that said its agents had obtained personal information that they were not entitled to have. It was one of at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations that Gonzales received in the three months before he made his statement to the Senate intelligence committee, according to internal FBI documents released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The acts recounted in the FBI reports included unauthorized surveillance, an illegal property search and a case in which an Internet firm improperly turned over a compact disc with data that the FBI was not entitled to collect, the documents show. Gonzales was copied on each report that said administrative rules or laws protecting civil liberties and privacy had been violated.

The reports also alerted Gonzales in 2005 to problems with the FBI's use of an anti-terrorism tool known as a national security letter (NSL), well before the Justice Department's inspector general brought widespread abuse of the letters in 2004 and 2005 to light in a stinging report this past March.

»www.constitutioncenter.org/educa···23.shtml
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:31:28 EDT

AmeritecTech :

The NSA warrantless surveillance controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States incident to the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) as part of the war on terror. Under this program, referred to by the Bush administration as the "terrorist surveillance program",[1] the NSA is authorized by executive order to monitor phone calls and other communication originating from parties outside the U.S. with known or suspected links to al Qaeda, even if the terminus of that communication lies within the U.S. Shortly before passing a new law in August of 2007 that legalized warrantless surveillance, critics in the Democratic Party contended that such "domestic" intercepts require FISC authorization under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,[2] while the Bush administration maintains that the authorized intercepts are not domestic but rather "foreign intelligence" integral to the conduct of war and that the warrant requirements of FISA were implicitly superseded by the subsequent passage of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).[3]

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warran···troversy

His defense at the time for bypassing FISA was that at least one end of the call was outside the country.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 08:14:59 EDT

TechieZero : You "doods" are failing to acknowledge the subtlety that if Americans were involved --- due process was followed (FISA). The remainder that were *not* American citizens were the primary focus of this secret spy program that the NY Times felt they needed to expose.

We can go on in circles for a few more posts and berate this more, but the tune will be the same.

Now this bill (the subject of this thread), gives new details as to how to process these foreigners in the respect to wire-taps with the agreement of all 3 branches of government. FISA is not going away.

The constitution is not turning to toilet paper, and our country is the best damn place to be in in the entire world. I just came back from Europe (7 countries). It was a nice place to visit, but I would not want to live there.

What kills me other the misaligned negativity in this thread is that the government is actually doing what I think is their only and primary purpose --- DEFENSE.

Yet some jerk-offs who have not even read the bill or who place foreign interests above our own keep trying to make this a "Our Constitution is doomed" issue. To these guys I can only say is that the headband holding your tin-foil hat in place must be overly tight as it is preventing you to have proper reading comprehension skills. Read the bill, read it again. Then talk.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 07:49:44 EDT

FiOS Dan : Excerpt from an interview yesterday with former CIA Director R. James Woolsey:

------------------------------------------------------------
Former CIA Director: Terrorist Strike Within U.S. Real Threat

Kenneth R. Timmerman
Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2007

Asked what three things we need to do to make America more safe, Woolsey said that the first and most important was not to tie the president's hands when it came to intelligence collection. Efforts by Democrats to require court orders to intercept international communications amounted to "shooting ourselves in the foot," he added.
------------------------------------------------------------

Full interview can be read at »www.newsmax.com/archives/article···05.shtml.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 06:38:50 EDT

whizkid3 : Gag orders...surveilance without a warrant...

What we're seeing here is a wholesale dismantling of the Constitution and our basic natural freedoms.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:24:24 EDT

hpguru :

said by EGeezer :

I'm just as skeptical that the opposition politicians will treat these powers any more responsibly than the ones in control now. We need to look carefully and with reserved trust at what they ask, and guard the founding fathers' vision of a free nation carefully.

I agree. Pandora's box has been opened and as a result we are going to see the abuse of power for a long time to come.

@Paladin
The lions?? You trivialize the horrific deaths suffered by the early christians by comparing the above ribbing to being physically ripped apart by wild animals? If in your mind it is the same then god forbid you should ever suffer any real persecution.
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Zeitgeist

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:14:23 EDT

SUMware : From The N.Y. Times
August 6, 2007:

said by N.Y.T. :
Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government’s ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

"This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered "electronic surveillance," the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants ... as long as the target of the government’s surveillance is “reasonably believed” to be overseas.

For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, said Sunday in an interview that the new law went beyond fixing the foreign-to-foreign problem, potentially allowing the government to listen to Americans calling overseas.

The new law gives the attorney general and the director of national intelligence the power to approve the international surveillance, rather than the special intelligence court. The court’s only role will be to review and approve the procedures used by the government in the surveillance after it has been conducted. It will not scrutinize the cases of the individuals being monitored.

The law also gave the administration greater power to force telecommunications companies to cooperate with such spying operations. The companies can now be compelled to cooperate by orders from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence.

Democratic Congressional aides said Sunday that some telecommunications company officials had told Congressional leaders that they were unhappy with that provision in the bill and might challenge the new law in court. The aides said the telecommunications companies had told lawmakers that they would rather have a court-approved warrant ordering them to comply.

Those companies were facing major lawsuits for having secretly cooperated with the warrantless wiretapping program, and now wanted greater legal protections before cooperating further.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:11:40 EDT

EGeezer : More specifics on the gag order here.

Breaking the gag order and releasing FISA information will result in contempt proceedings and punishment.

Exceptions under sect 215;

said by above link :

Disclosure
The reauthorized PATRIOT Act reforms the original legislation by allowing disclosure of receipt of a Section 215 order to "any person to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with such order." It also explicitly allows a recipient to consult an attorney and to obtain legal advice or assistance "with respect to the production of things in response to the order;" and also allows disclosure to "other persons as permitted" by the Director of the FBI or the Director’s designee.

Further, there is now no requirement that a recipient of a Section 215 order inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was or will be made. But, upon the request of the Director of the FBI, a recipient is required to identify anyone besides an attorney to whom a disclosure is made or will be made.

Unless you're a high level administration official blowing cover of CIA undercover agents ;)
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:24:53 EDT

fatness :

said by TechieZero :

Likewise to say that one exists is equally "silly". By this time someone, somewhere, and somehow would know. Anything else is chasing after Bigfoot.

Anyone wanting to release any such information about illegal surveillance is likely subject to a gag order under the Patriot Act.
»www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···882.html
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:14:23 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by TechieZero :

Likewise to say that one exists is equally "silly". By this time someone, somewhere, and somehow would know. Anything else is chasing after Bigfoot.

Let me try this again: Bush admits that the wiretapping took place outside of FISA. Whether someone is found or not, Bush states it to be so. I don't know why you think he's lying, but he himself says that he wiretapped Americans who were speaking with people in other countries.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:10:23 EDT

TechieZero : Likewise to say that one exists is equally "silly". By this time someone, somewhere, and somehow would know. Anything else is chasing after Bigfoot.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 20:38:00 EDT

EGeezer : I'm just as skeptical that the opposition politicians will treat these powers any more responsibly than the ones in control now. We need to look carefully and with reserved trust at what they ask, and guard the founding fathers' vision of a free nation carefully.

I also look quite cynically on those who wrap themselves - or their opposition - in God or the flag. These people fail to remember the principles for which the flag stands, and both fail to realize the universal values of honesty, compassion, responsibility to self and others and stewardship of our Earth that its creator has advocated through the common writings of many religions.
--
In memoriam Tommy Makem, Nov. 4, 1932 - Aug. 1, 2007

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:54:34 EDT

Paladin : So it's all the Christians' fault. The modern version of the lions, everyone.

Real mature, hpguru.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 19:24:43 EDT

fatness :

said by TechieZero :

said by fatness :

said by TechieZero :

Can you please show me one American that was surveiled w/o FISA approval by the administration?

Where would records of that be available to the public? :)

Due process would have allowed us to view these records thus far. Also this is not something that can be swept under the rug. The news agencies would have had at least one name by now.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that's a civics class answer, and is no answer at all. There's no place to find any name, or list of names, of people under surveillance without FISA approval that you (or I or the media) know of. To say that proves there are no such names is just silly.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:39:40 EDT

TechieZero : If memory serves the President did say he authorized it and the FISA process was used for any AMERICANS involved. He also said that the taps were directed to individuals who had dealings with known enemies.

Also if memory serves our President also said that these taps typically involved individuals that were in the states but were *not* citizens. I know it's hard to believe, but some "americans" may be working for some of our enemies.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:17:53 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by TechieZero :

said by fatness :

said by TechieZero :

Can you please show me one American that was surveiled w/o FISA approval by the administration?

Where would records of that be available to the public? :)

Due process would have allowed us to view these records thus far. Also this is not something that can be swept under the rug. The news agencies would have had at least one name by now.

But hey, going along with your line of thinking, I am sure they are in the wearhouse, near the Ark of the Covenant, behind the UFO from Area-51. In fact as soon as I finish smoking this cigarette, I will talk to you personally about it... j/k

We don't have any particular names, because the administration has not released them.

"After The New York Times reported, and CNN confirmed, a claim that Bush gave the National Security Agency license to eavesdrop on Americans communicating with people overseas, the president said that his actions were permissible, but that leaking the revelation to the media was illegal."
»www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

He admits he authorized it, so naming names is hardly necessary. Due process? This bunch cares not about such things.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:53:01 EDT

jvmorris : Ah, be my guest. Submit a FOIA Request to determine if you are now or have ever been subjected to communications intercept that might fall under the FISA Act (as in effect prior to this past week).

Go ahead, do it. It's already been done; you won't learn a damn thing.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:50:28 EDT

TechieZero :

said by fatness :

said by TechieZero :

Can you please show me one American that was surveiled w/o FISA approval by the administration?

Where would records of that be available to the public? :)

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:57:00 EDT

fatness :

said by TechieZero :

Can you please show me one American that was surveiled w/o FISA approval by the administration?

Where would records of that be available to the public? :)
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:53:53 EDT

TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

Again, that is not true oversight. AG AG transmits a report which states "everything is fine, we are following procedure". That doesn't tell us whether or not that's actually the case, because we can't trust the Attorney General to provide credible oversight. All surveillance requests should be going to the FISA Court, and this bill circumvented that, even after the administration was caught surveilling Americans without FISA approval.

Can you please show me one American that was surveiled w/o FISA approval by the administration?

Also...I don't see that FISA is going away. Can please show me where that is happening? I just showed that the court is involved. I don't know what else I can do here to assuage your concerns about this.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:25:34 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

Allowing them to oversee themselves is no oversight at all! This is why judges are supposed to be involved in the process.

Judges *ARE* part of the process. You stopped short of your reading as I have stated earlier and if you had continued,

"The Attorney General shall promptly transmit under seal to the court...a copy of the certification..."

Again, that is not true oversight. AG AG transmits a report which states "everything is fine, we are following procedure". That doesn't tell us whether or not that's actually the case, because we can't trust the Attorney General to provide credible oversight. All surveillance requests should be going to the FISA Court, and this bill circumvented that, even after the administration was caught surveilling Americans without FISA approval.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:23:21 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by TechieZero :

A) No where does it says that the FBI Director says he is lying. In fact it does not detail anything other than there were some perceived contradictions.

FBI director Robert Mueller, the top law-enforcement agent within the Justice Department, testified before that House Judiciary Committee that there was in fact a heated confrontation between senior Justice Department officials and White House aides in 2004, regarding President Bush's warrantless NSA wiretapping program. Two days earlier, AG Gonzales had told the Senate there had never been any disagreements within the administration regarding the legality of the [NSA Wiretapping] program. Mueller testified that the crisis was so severe, he had to intervene to prevent a wave of resignations at Justice.

Tuesday's testimony by the attorney general had already stirrd controversy, as it differed significantly from information already learned in hearings and sworn testimony. According to the International Herald Tribune, "In a separate development, Senate Democrats, who were unaware of Mueller's comments, demanded the appointment of a special counsel to investigate whether Gonzales committed perjury in his testimony on Tuesday about the intelligence dispute."

AG Gonzales reportedly testified that the disagreement that occured in early 2004, which nearly led to a raft of top-level resignations, was to do with "other intelligence activities", and not the NSA-based "terrorist surveillance program", which wiretapped American citizens en masse and without warrants. A Justice spokesman said of Gonzales' testimony that he did not lie, that "confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum where the greatest care must be used not to compromise sensitive intelligence operations".

Gonzales states there was no rift. Mueller states there was a rift so big that he had to intervene to prevent resignations.

They are pissed that the Executive won't bend the knee to them. Well guess what? If the Executive made these SAME REQUESTS to the Legislative --- they can tell them to go fish just as well.

Yes, but the legislative branch isn't monitoring phonelines all over the country. This bunch needs oversight because they've proven to be dishonorable.

B) THE BILL. It's not the President's requests, but the Attorney General's. It's in the Bill, it is what we are talking about, go read it.

The Attorney General acts as the President's instrument.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:18:56 EDT

TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

Judges who are political appointees. *This is not directed at you personally* but, where does the circle of insanity end? How many checks and balances are enough? Who must the government satisfy?

You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time.

FISA was an extremely low bar. This law essentially gives fewer checks and balances. They no longer have to go to FISA for surveillance of foreign nationals, and while they're still expected to go to FISA on surveillance of American citizens, they're now on their honor.

And they're found lacking in the honor department.

On May 17, 2002, the court rebuffed then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, releasing an opinion that alleged that FBI and Justice Department officials had "supplied erroneous information to the court in more than 75 applications for search warrants and wiretaps, including one signed by then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh".[4] Whether this rebuke is related to the court starting to require modification of drastically more requests in 2003 is unknown.

On December 16, 2005, the New York Times reported that the Bush administration had been conducting surveillance against U.S. citizens without the knowledge of the FISC since 2002.[5] On December 20, 2005, Judge James Robertson resigned his position with the FISC, apparently in protest of the secret surveillance.[6] The government's apparent circumvention of the FISC may also be related to the increase in court-ordered modifications to warrant requests.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···ce_Court

Whatever...

Can you read the f-ing bill instead of grabbing more useless external sources not germaine to the discussion?

READ THE BILL. :uhh:

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:15:06 EDT

TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

Allowing them to oversee themselves is no oversight at all! This is why judges are supposed to be involved in the process.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:14:43 EDT

AmeritecTech :

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···ce_Court
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:08:40 EDT

TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

A) Meanwhile, the director of the FBI says he's lying.

»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19975387/

B) Your saying that each of the President's requests for surveillance will be sent to Congressional committees? Cite a source, please.

A) No where does it says that the FBI Director says he is lying. In fact it does not detail anything other than there were some perceived contradictions.

They are pissed that the Executive won't bend the knee to them. Well guess what? If the Executive made these SAME REQUESTS to the Legislative --- they can tell them to go fish just as well.

B) THE BILL. It's not the President's requests, but the Attorney General's. It's in the Bill, it is what we are talking about, go read it.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:06:58 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

You're glossing over the fact that the Executive/AG must also notify the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

That's what keeps getting glossed over here: There are committees that see all of this information and can shut this down at any time.

"`(d) An acquisition under this section may be conducted only in accordance with the certification of the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the Attorney General. The Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General shall assess compliance with such procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate under section 108(a)."

In other words, Alberto Gonzales and the Director of National Intelligence need to file a report with Congress saying "Yes, we continue to follow appropriate procedures."

Allowing them to oversee themselves is no oversight at all! This is why judges are supposed to be involved in the process.

Judges who are political appointees. *This is not directed at you personally* but, where does the circle of insanity end? How many checks and balances are enough? Who must the government satisfy?

You can't please ALL of the people ALL of the time.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:06:13 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

That's what keeps getting glossed over here: There are committees that see all of this information and can shut this down at any time.

All they see is the report from the AG and Director of National Intelligence that all systems are go and everything is A-OK. Whether or not that is actually true could only be determined with true oversight.

edit: Under the minimization procedures, if they suspect that an American is being monitored, without a warrant, they must stop and get the warrant. I don't see a problem here.

No, they're not required to stop. They just need to request a warrant within 21 days of when they notice that they're monitoring an American. Meanwhile, wholesale collection of American conversations will be ongoing while they dig through the data.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:02:56 EDT

AmeritecTech :

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:53:07 EDT

manfmmd : You're glossing over the fact that the Executive/AG must also notify the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

That's what keeps getting glossed over here: There are committees that see all of this information and can shut this down at any time.

edit: Under the minimization procedures, if they suspect that an American is being monitored, without a warrant, they must stop and get the warrant. I don't see a problem here.
--
If the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, what is the road to Heaven paved with?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:43:06 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

"6" rejections out of 5645 applications? That's .1%, you've got to be kidding.

Prior to Bush, 0 applications had been denied.

So are you saying that the FISA court, whose members have an expiration date on their membership, are being more prudent? Is that a bad thing? Were they rejected because the Executive refused to amend them? We have no idea WHY they were rejected.

Again, we would need to look at the entire process, through all administrations, since the inception if the FISA court, to see what is going on.

Again, with .1% rejection I think we are roaming into tin-foil hat territory. What is the rejection level in say Houston? How many warrants does HPD have turned down every year? I'm going to wager that it's higher than .1%

This is precisely the concern: with such a compliant court, why would the administration need to subvert the process and hand this oversight power from judges to the Attorney General? The answer is likely that they want to implement a program with a much wider scope, collecting data wholesale, and then requesting warrants when they feel they had collected American conversations. That is to say, surveillance of Americans begins with this law, and if we can trust the Attorney General, he'll request warrants if a particular American conversation interests them.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:39:55 EDT

manfmmd :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

"6" rejections out of 5645 applications? That's .1%, you've got to be kidding.

Prior to Bush, 0 applications had been denied.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:39:14 EDT

jvmorris : Annnhhh, there was also a (larger) number of requests that were returned to the submitting authority for revision (to satisfy requirements of the law). Some of these were resubmitted and subsequently approved, . . . and some simply weren't.

And then we found that the Administration started conducting the surveillance without submitting requests to FISA. These, rather obviously, were never rejected by the Court.
--
Regards,
Joseph V. Morris

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:28:09 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by manfmmd :

"6" rejections out of 5645 applications? That's .1%, you've got to be kidding.

If an application is denied by one judge of the FISC, the federal government is not allowed to make the same application to a different judge of the FISC. Instead, denials must be appealed to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Such appeals are rare: the first appeal from the FISC to the Court of Review was made in 2002, 24 years after the founding of the FISC.

It is also rare for FISA warrant requests to be turned down by the court. Through the end of 2004, 18,761 warrants were granted, while just five were rejected (many sources say four). Fewer than 200 requests had to be modified before being accepted, almost all of them in 2003 and 2004. The four known rejected requests were all from 2003, and all four were partially granted after being resubmitted for reconsideration by the government. Of the requests that had to be modified, few if any were before the year 2000. In subsequent years, according to journalist Joshua Micah Marshall, the breakdown was as follows:[3]

Year Modified requests
2000 1 request modified
2001 2 requests modified
2002 2 requests modified (both modifications later reversed)
2003 79 requests modified (out of 1724 granted)
2004 94 requests modified (out of 1758)
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta···ce_Court

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:24:32 EDT

manfmmd : "6" rejections out of 5645 applications? That's .1%, you've got to be kidding.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:20:47 EDT

SUMware : From SFGate
August 6, 2007:

quote:
For the first time in nearly four decades, a senior intelligence official — not a secretive federal court — will have a decisive voice in whether Americans' communications can be monitored when they talk to foreigners overseas.

The bill provides new powers to the National Security Agency to monitor communications that enter the United States and involve foreigners who are the subjects of a national security investigation.

They would give National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales joint authority to approve the monitoring of such calls and e-mails, rather than the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

That means an intelligence official is now empowered to sort through the legalistic, secretive world of FISA, rather than a judge or the nation's highest law enforcement officer.

On Monday, White House spokeswoman Tony Fratto dismissed as "highly misleading" any suggestion that the changes broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on Americans' communications without court approval.

However, the law's wording — underscored by conversations with administration officials — shows the rules governing when and how Americans' calls and e-mails will be monitored have changed significantly.

Communications that can get caught up in intelligence collection require a spectrum of approvals, depending on the circumstances. Generally, such calls, e-mails, text messages and other electronic exchanges fall into three categories:

- Purely foreign overseas communications. The NSA can monitor these calls and e-mails without any signoff from a judge or a senior government official.

- Domestic conversations between two Americans. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure requires that the government get approval from a court before eavesdropping on these exchanges.

- Communications between an American and a foreigner, a more complex, gray area. If the American is the target of the investigation, then a court must approve the surveillance, the White House says. However, if the foreigner is the target, no court approval is necessary under the new law. Instead, Gonzales and McConnell will decide together whether to go ahead with the work.

It's this area — when an American is talking to a foreign suspect — where the Bush administration has acquired powers it didn't have before.

Under government regulations, agencies are supposed to minimize the collection, retention, and dissemination of any information about a U.S. citizen. Often that means names are blacked out, unless the identity is crucial to understanding the conversation.

Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies, which advocates for civil liberties, said the new law will potentially allow the government to intercept millions of Americans' calls and e-mails without warrants — as long as the NSA and other authorities have a foreign suspect in their sights.

"This power that they have obtained is a dramatic expansion," she said.

The Bush administration also fixed an odd quirk of the surveillance law that it said had emerged with the rapid technological growth of the past two decades: The government had to get legal approval to listen in on foreign suspects who are located overseas but whose conversations cross into the extensive U.S. communications network, as millions of international calls and e-mails do each day.

While the law is in effect, that legal approval will no longer be required, officials acknowledged.

The power may last longer than some people expect, Graves noted, thanks to a little-noticed provision of the bill. While the law expires in February unless Congress acts to extend it, any surveillance orders that are in place when it sunsets can last up to a full year, she said.

Without a repeal, lawmakers "weren't just giving them the power for six months. They were giving it to them for the rest of the administration," Graves said.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 11:11:27 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

Yes, it will be "clarified and reviewed" by the Attorney General, who is a liar.

If he lied under oath he would have been slammed by now. Gee...that hasn't happened. Perhaps he is *not* the liar you think he is?

Yeah, that's in progress. Meanwhile, the director of the FBI says he's lying.

»www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19975387/

Not so. It is subject to review by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Reps *AND* the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

Your saying that each of the President's requests for surveillance will be sent to Congressional committees? Cite a source, please.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:56:27 EDT

TechieZero :

said by AmeritecTech :

Yes, it will be "clarified and reviewed" by the Attorney General, who is a liar.

If he lied under oath he would have been slammed by now. Gee...that hasn't happened. Perhaps he is *not* the liar you think he is?

said by AmeritecTech :

Previously it was reviewed by a FISA judge, but apparently that wasn't rubber-stamp enough, so now the Executive has the sole authority to decide what "up" means.

Not so. It is subject to review by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Reps *AND* the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.

Additionally the Chief Justice gets a copy to review and the Director of National Intelligence get consulted.

This actually gets more people involved in all three branches of government.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:41:41 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by TechieZero :

said by FiOS Dan :

I just read the entire proposal and it does no such thing. In fact, there are several references to "non-U.S. person" and "located outside the United States".

I get the same thing. I am also getting the impression that the administration is trying to work out any ambiguity before any issues occur --- which is a wise thing to do so it doesn't get out of hand.

I don't get this "sky is falling" stuff we are seeing in this thread. These people need to STFU & GBTW.

If anything the criteria for a non-US person should be clarified or at least reviewed and not assumed, if people are truly paranoid.

Yes, it will be "clarified and reviewed" by the Attorney General, who is a liar. Previously it was reviewed by a FISA judge, but apparently that wasn't rubber-stamp enough, so now the Executive has the sole authority to decide what "up" means.

A FISA warrant was never rejected before Bush. The FISA Court has now rejected 6 out of his 5,645+ applications.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 10:39:17 EDT

TechieZero :

said by FiOS Dan :

I just read the entire proposal and it does no such thing. In fact, there are several references to "non-U.S. person" and "located outside the United States".

Re: Bush signs bill

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:27:21 EDT

AmeritecTech : They usually post the Senate votes right away, but I still don't see this one there. We've got a list of the people that voted for it in the thread in the sky colored room.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: Bush signs bill

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:15:17 EDT

whizkid3 : Senate vote? Anyone know where there is a list of who voted for it?

It seems to me, that they are trying to hide.

msg deleted

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:19:29 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:15:55 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:06:25 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: Bush signs bill

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:21:17 EDT

AmeritecTech : "When Congress returns in September the Intelligence committees and leaders in both parties will need to complete work on the comprehensive reforms requested by Director McConnell, including the important issue of providing meaningful liability protection to those who are alleged to have assisted our Nation following the attacks of September 11, 2001"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If they're only alleged to have helped, why do they need liability protection? They broke the law. They should be liable to the full extent of the current law.

I don't ever EVER EVER want to hear a Bush supporter say again that they're a big believer in the rule of law, because that's become such a farce.

Bush signs bill

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 23:16:15 EDT

GOLFnSUN : Bush signed the Protect America Act of 2007.
Here are the details of the Act:
»www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases···6-5.html

And Bush lays out for Congress what he wants in the permanent legislation:
»rawstory.com/news/2007/After_wir···806.html
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:36:00 EDT

hpguru :

said by AmeritecTech :

How do we know that they'll treat their responsibilities with regard to this authorization with any more dignity?

Hey if you can't trust god, who can you trust? Comeon now! It's easy! :) Just walk in lockstep with me! :)
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Zeitgeist

GOD

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:47:39 EDT

AmeritecTech :

said by GOLFnSUN :

said by whizkid3 :

This bill is not about that. It is about making legal, the wholesale interception of communications on american soil. Every router, every fiber link, every telephone switch. Then collecting it all, includings all of the communications between Americans,

Did you even read the law? It is NOT to listen in on American to American communication. It is to listen in to foreigner to foreigner communication going thru American switchgear. And that was SPECIFICALLY stated in the bill. But way to go in distorting the truth and trying to hype a non-issue.

You said previously that this is to cast a wide net. How do you expect them to have computers record a bunch of conversations without discrimination and not have Americans caught up in that? Specifically what you said was "The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers". How do you expect them to ensure that Americans are not being monitored when millions of calls are being automatically recorded?

Furthermore, it states that FISA warrant must only be requested when it is reasonably believed that an American is involved. This "reasonable" determination is to be made by the Attorney General, a man found to be very clever and deceptive with his "reasonable" explanations regarding the attorney scandal. Initially he had no part in the firings. Then he might have had some sort of part, but he didn't remember any such things. Then he admitted meetings had taken place on this. Then the whole administration went on lock-down and claimed Executive Privilege, even claiming it with regard to documents they had previously released to the Congress! Members of the administration would not admit having written e-mails that had their names on them, and which had been released to the Congress.

How do we know that they'll treat their responsibilities with regard to this authorization with any more dignity?
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:26:34 EDT

GOLFnSUN :

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 05:33:54 EDT

whizkid3 :

said by FiOS Dan :

So I was thinking maybe we should monitor communications between people within the U.S. and those in the Middle East. What do you think, sound like a plan?

I agree. But we already do. In fact we have for decades. Overseas communications are carried by either satellite communications or undersea cable. The US Govt has been tapped into every single form of overseas communications for a long time. Since geosynchronous satellite communications are beamed down to approximately 1/3 of the earth, it is relatively simple to set up a listening station anywhere in this 1/3 of the earth swath, and intercept these communications. We are doing it, just like most of the governments in the world. Where we don't have the land to set up a listening station, Canada, UK, Australia and New Zealand take care of that for us. (Our bases in Germany, and our embassies around the world, are used as well.) Every time an underseas fiber cable is laid, US Navy divers go down and tap into one of the sea-floor repeaters, stringing a fiber back to one of our collection points. This system is only part of Echelon.

The point is, we are already listening in on all of the communications that go between the USA and foreign nations. Every bit.

This bill is not about that. It is about making legal, the wholesale interception of communications on american soil. Every router, every fiber link, every telephone switch. Then collecting it all, includings all of the communications between Americans, and listening in (via computer) and recording all of it. Without a warrant. It is a clear violation of the US constitution, and of natural law. It is about creating an Orwellian police state; where you are guilty until proved innocent.

I urge you to read this; it may just change your mind:
The Eternal Value of Privacy, by Bruce Schneier.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 16:02:21 EDT

fatness : You didn't answer my question. I asked why you and others are obscuring the truth. The government doesn't need a warrant to tap. They can get one after the fact from the FISA court.

Why the deception?

said by GOLFnSUN :

The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).

--
Sure, that'll work..

msg deleted

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:26:43 EDT

anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:23:35 EDT

delenn13 : This all sounds like a "repeat" to me of the 50's and 60's with new tech. Anyone remember Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover?

How many people's livelihoods or careers were ruined because of finger pointing of others so they could go scot free? Gonna spy on your neighbour? Turn in your parent?

***Grabs*** a copy of Arthur Miller's "Crucible" and starts reading. History DOES repeat itself.
--
"Dismissed. That's a Starfleet expression for 'Get out.'"
Capt. Kathryn Janeway
We CAN Cure Alzheimer's and Cancer. JOIN US HERE

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:19:21 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by fatness :

People supporting this "spy on anyone anytime with no restraint" are obscuring the huge authority the government already has to wiretap, and get warrants after the fact.

I wonder why that is?

To catch the 5th column agents in this country to destroy it. »www.britannica.com/eb/article-90···h-column
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 15:05:33 EDT
fatness :
said by AmeritecTech :

Sure, sounds good. Start the wiretapping, and then submit a request to FISA letting them know who you're tapping.

People are really struggling to obscure this issue in this thread, aren't they?

The government doesn't need a warrant before tapping someone, they can tap whoever they want. All they have to do is apply for the warrant after the fact, in front of a court known to be very sympathetic to their wishes. Yet the government doesn't want to do this. It wants to tap who it wants, when it wants, with no answering to a court, law, constitution, or anything at any time. A blank check to spy.

People supporting this "spy on anyone anytime with no restraint" are obscuring the huge authority the government already has to wiretap, and get warrants after the fact.

I wonder why that is?
--
Sure, that'll work..

msg deleted

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:08:49 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 14:04:31 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

msg deleted

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:55:00 EDT
anon : deleted by a moderator

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:47:45 EDT
hpguru :
said by Kil DRM :

I was only pointing out that, as with a good portion of the rest of Bush's doctorine, the truth is hiding under a huge blanket.
Dubya's security blanket? :D
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Zeitgeist

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:43:56 EDT
SUMware : 1998 Fatwa:
quote:
The 1998 Fatwa was signed by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and others.
It lists three grievances:
1. U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula.
2. U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people.
3. U.S. support of Israel.
These three grievances are the motives for al-Qaeda's attacks.

Click above link for more analysis and details.

-

From Wikipedia - September 11, 2001 attacks - Motive:
said by Wikipedia :
The September 11 attacks were consistent with the overall mission statement of al-Qaeda, as set out in a 1998 fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Abu-Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, Shaykh Mir Hamzah, and Fazlur Rahman.[93] The fatwa lists main three "crimes and sins" committed by the Americans: U.S. military occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, U.S. aggression against the Iraqi people, and U.S. support of Israel. The fatwa also specifically condemns the U.S. for "plundering" the resources of the region, oppressing the people by supporting abusive regimes in the region, and dictating policy to legitimate leaders. It also opposes the presence of U.S. military bases and installations in the region, especially on Muslim holy land, which are used to "threaten" Muslim countries, while fomenting disunity and strife. By a similar token, it decries the continued refusal to address the "occupation of Palestine".

The Persian Gulf War, the ensuing sanctions against Iraq and the bombing of Iraq by the United States were cited in 1998 as further proof of these allegations. The fatwa uses Islamic texts to exhort violent action against American military and citizenry until the alleged grievances are reversed, stating "ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries."

-

Full text of the second fatwa originally published on February 23, 1998, to declare a holy war, or jihad, against the West and Israel. Read it here.

It is signed by Osama bin Laden, head of al Qaeda; Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of Jihad Group in Egypt, and several other Islamic terrorist groups.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:22:26 EDT
anon :
said by hpguru :

It worked for the christians. It works for us too. What better way to spread ~~global capitalism~~ democracy than through death and intimidation. Let's ROLL!! :)

When expressed accurately as you have just done, it is not hard for the winning side to agree with. I was only pointing out that, as with a good portion of the rest of Bush's doctorine, the truth is hiding under a huge blanket. Thanks for the clarification.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:55 EDT
hpguru :
said by GOLFnSUN :

Yeah right! Go back to sleep or better yet read up on the muslim fundamentalists desire to spread their religion around the world thru death and intimidation.

It worked for the christians. It works for us too. What better way to spread ~~global capitalism~~ democracy than through death and intimidation. Let's ROLL!! :)
--
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus
Zeitgeist

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:46 EDT
Thug21 : if one percent of one billion are dangerous, thats a buttload of people. :p

We really gotta watch out for those.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:16:04 EDT
GILXA1226 :
said by Kil DRM :

said by GOLFnSUN :

..read up on the muslim fundamentalists desire to spread their religion around the world thru death and intimidation.

That is some bad coolaid. Just ask the million muslims that live here in the USA in perfect peace with the rest of us. Why not try treating the ones overseas with respect instead of oppression and thievery ? You would suddenly discover what nice little "humans" they actually are, and how easily they would agree to live in peace with the world.

As with most all religions, the fundamentalists do not make up the whole religion, they are just a small part. They also tend to be the most extreme part.
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O!

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:15:20 EDT
Thug21 : It's great, their oil rich leaders oppress their own people and then have 'em blame us for it and want to kill us. Not bad at all. It's quite creative. It's also quite sad.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:13:58 EDT
anon :
said by GOLFnSUN :

..read up on the muslim fundamentalists desire to spread their religion around the world thru death and intimidation.

That is some bad coolaid. Just ask the million muslims that live here in the USA in perfect peace with the rest of us. Why not try treating the ones overseas with respect instead of oppression and thievery ? You would suddenly discover what nice little "humans" they actually are, and how easily they would agree to live in peace with the world.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:10:38 EDT
AmeritecTech :
said by GOLFnSUN :

said by Kil DRM :

They do not give a god damn about our freedoms, or how we choose to live. They hate us because we have our boot on their throat, because we support others who have had boots on their throats for years, and because we have our oil spickets stuck in their ass, draining the life blood from their civilization. That is why they hate us. That is why they attacked us.

Yeah right! Go back to sleep or better yet read up on the muslim fundamentalists desire to spread their religion around the world thru death and intimidation.

Should I read bin Laden's fatwa against the United States? Maybe that might give me some insight into why they want to kill us.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:09:17 EDT
AmeritecTech :
said by FiOS Dan :

So I was thinking maybe we should monitor communications between people within the U.S. and those in the Middle East. What do you think, sound like a plan?

Sure, sounds good. Start the wiretapping, and then submit a request to FISA letting them know who you're tapping.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:08:48 EDT
Thug21 : Maybe we should have blamed ourself in ww2 as well. If we had, I wonder how the world would have turned out.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:07:53 EDT
FiOS Dan :
said by Kil DRM :

said by AmeritecTech :

They hate us for our freedoms, so let's get rid of our freedoms.
They do not give a god damn about our freedoms, or how we choose to live. They hate us because we have our boot on their throat, because we support others who have had boots on their throats for years, and because we have our oil spickets stuck in their ass, draining the life blood from their civilization. That is why they hate us. That is why they attacked us.
Not one thing in those statements is true. Bin Laden and his followers come from well-to-do Saudi families that don't have anyone's boot on their throats, and the only ones draining the oil life blood is the royal Saudi family itself. Wake up, my friend, this is a clash of civilizations and has nothing to do with political or economic motives.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:06:38 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by Kil DRM :

They do not give a god damn about our freedoms, or how we choose to live. They hate us because we have our boot on their throat, because we support others who have had boots on their throats for years, and because we have our oil spickets stuck in their ass, draining the life blood from their civilization. That is why they hate us. That is why they attacked us.

Yeah right! Go back to sleep or better yet read up on the muslim fundamentalists desire to spread their religion around the world thru death and intimidation.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:06:06 EDT
AmeritecTech :
said by Kil DRM :

said by AmeritecTech :

They hate us for our freedoms, so let's get rid of our freedoms.
They do not give a god damn about our freedoms, or how we choose to live. They hate us because we have our boot on their throat, because we support others who have had boots on their throats for years, and because we have our oil spickets stuck in their ass, draining the life blood from their civilization. That is why they hate us. That is why they attacked us.

Indeed.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:04:14 EDT
Thug21 : We do, our politically correct leaders and media don't. We let more and more of these occasionally not so "peaceful" people in the country, yet we keep getting less and less rights to privacy. It's like a war on ourself.

We need to me much more careful not to let extremists into our nation in the first place. If they are aready here, it's cutting it way to close, despite any amount of "listening in"

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:02:38 EDT
FiOS Dan :
said by Thug21 :

Instead of clearly identifying who the enemy is (who put that hole there!) we are told that "anyone could be one."
I think we have a pretty good idea of who is the enemy. Perhaps you should check out this book...

PERFECT SOLDIERS
The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It
By Terry McDermott. HarperCollins.

...which is reviewed in the Washington Post at »www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···315.html. Here's an excerpt:

quote:
All but one were from Saudi Arabia, most "were from families headed by tradesmen and civil servants, well-off, but not wealthy," mostly "unexceptionable men," none of whom "stood out for their religious or political activism." As McDermott writes, "that young men from good backgrounds would leave homes and families without fanfare or discouragement was evidence of the broad support within Saudi Arabia for jihad." Contrary to rumor, McDermott says they knew they would die and welcomed martyrdom: "The men were trained in hand-to-hand combat in the Al Qaeda camps [in Afghanistan], taught the physical skills they would need for the sole task given them -- to physically overpower flight crews. The pilots were the leaders. The new men would be the muscle."

So I was thinking maybe we should monitor communications between people within the U.S. and those in the Middle East. What do you think, sound like a plan?
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 13:01:26 EDT
anon :
said by AmeritecTech :

They hate us for our freedoms, so let's get rid of our freedoms.
They do not give a god damn about our freedoms, or how we choose to live. They hate us because we have our boot on their throat, because we support others who have had boots on their throats for years, and because we have our oil spickets stuck in their ass, draining the life blood from their civilization. That is why they hate us. That is why they attacked us.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:36:25 EDT
AmeritecTech :
said by GercekSeytan :

Easy. If you want to listen to foreigner to foreigner calls routed through the US, you apply to the FISA for blanket authority to listen calls yet to be placed that will be routed through the US.

I sure that folks didn't mean to imply that a warrant to listen to such a call should be obtained prior to the call being placed based on the evidence that eventually a call will be placed and routed concerning Op X. Why? Because if they did... Well, you get the idea.
No, I certainly did not mean that they should request a warrant before intercepting a call. Current FISA law says that you can first intercept the call with no authorization needed. After you intercept the calls, you contact FISA to let them know who you're tapping and in most cases they authorize it to continue. It never requires you to get authorization BEFORE a tap takes place, so you trying to imply that FISA requires that is pretty low.

Just being facetious. The argument is that calls should not be listened to unless there is a reason to believe that listening to a specific call will provide specific information between two already known individuals who will place a call in the future of which the time and date is also already known. Without that information, then the FISA would presumably have to grant some sort of blanket authorization which is a no-no.
Damned dirty lies. The taps can take place before the FISA request is even submitted.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:15:00 EDT
Thug21 : Instead of clearly identifying who the enemy is (who put that hole there!) we are told that "anyone could be one." That is a false and incorrect sense of fear that makes for a 1984 like society in which everyone needs to be watched.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 12:07:30 EDT
AmeritecTech : They hate us for our freedoms, so let's get rid of our freedoms. Let's do to ourselves what they are attempting to do to us.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:27:07 EDT
FiOS Dan :
said by fatness :

We have been lulled into a false sense of fear...
Been down to lower Manhattan lately to see that big hole in the ground?
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:16:15 EDT
fatness :
said by FiOS Dan :

We have been lulled into a false sense of security by the relative inactivity of the terrorists here in the U.S. but that could change overnight.

We have been lulled into a false sense of fear in order to gain support for the over-reaching desire of the exective branch to distrust, compile information on, and track our citizens.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:14:18 EDT
fatness : It's obvious to everyone that this is a national issue that transcends narrow political interests. Turning it into reasons why Whore Team A is better/worse than Whore Team B trivializes the issue. And that's what you've done so far.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:05:27 EDT
FiOS Dan :
said by fatness :

This is a privacy issue for Americans...
That's only partially correct. It really is a tradeoff issue, namely where do we want to set the balance between privacy and security. I don't like the idea of electronic surveillance but what I dislike even more is looking to the southwest horizon and seeing a mushroom cloud over the port of Los Angeles. We have been lulled into a false sense of security by the relative inactivity of the terrorists here in the U.S. but that could change overnight.
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 11:00:05 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by fatness :

said by GOLFnSUN :

The link to who voted how:
»clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

41 Democrats voted for the bill.

If it's honesty you're after, 181 Republicans voted for the bill according to your link.

But honesty is not your goal. This is a privacy issue for Americans, and you want to derail it into a partisan political issue.

It was obvious to everyone(well almost everyone) that the Republicans voted for it since they introduced it. The point of mentioning the 41 Democrats voting for it was to show that the bill was needed and even 41 Bush hating Democrats realize the bill was needed.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 10:33:00 EDT
fatness :
said by GOLFnSUN :

The link to who voted how:
»clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

41 Democrats voted for the bill.

If it's honesty you're after, 181 Republicans voted for the bill according to your link.

But honesty is not your goal. This is a privacy issue for Americans, and you want to derail it into a partisan political issue.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:55:24 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by whizkid3 :

Anyone have a link to the Senate vote?

I looked. They haven't posted it yet on the Senate web site. It is Senate Vote 309 in the current legislative session.
This will be the link when they finally post it:
»www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r···te=00309

The only vote info is from news reports.
»www.mercurynews.com/politics/ci_6543563
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:51:48 EDT
whizkid3 : Anyone have a link to the Senate vote?

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:38:40 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by spy1 :

Gotta wonder how accurate (truthful) the "roll call" vote tally's were - especially given the fact that in the Senate, it barely made the required number of votes to pass.
The vote in the Senate was 60 to 28 for passage. 60 votes were needed ONLY because some obstructionist Dems threatened a filibuster unless a 2/3rd majority approved it. But 60 Senators did vote yes, including many Democrats.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:36:18 EDT
whizkid3 : Well we all know that one can take the title of any Bush Administration bill, and by changing it to the opposite will describe more closely what the bill is for:

The "Protect America Act"

becomes:

The "Screw America Act"

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 09:09:35 EDT
spy1 : Amazing how many "computer glitches" they had yesterday, isn't it?

»politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20···-tangle/

"August 3, 2007
House computer glitch adds to political tangle
WASHINGTON (CNN) – The House of Representatives slammed into its second dead-stop in a day, after 24 hours of wild political maneuvering was topped by a computer failure in the chamber’s voting system.

“It’s obvious we have a technical problem,” said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland. A chamber full of impatient and skeptical members replied with catcalls and groans.

The problem appeared after Rep. Heather Wilson, R-New Mexico, moved to adjourn the House as a way to block a Democratic proposal on the nation’s surveillance law. But members quickly realized electronic monitors were not working. Members in the chamber couldn’t tell if their votes had been counted and representatives in their offices could not gauge how much time was left to cast their votes.

“We’re in a very awkward situation here,” said Rep. David Dreier, R-California, who is the top Republican on the Rules Committee. “The House may have just adjourned for all we know.”

After some 15 minutes of headscratching, the House recessed to allow engineers to fix the problem. Democrats promised a revote on adjournment.

The House reconvened after the computer glitch and revoted, after 4 p.m. on Friday, on Wilson’s motion to adjourn. The House took up the revised intelligence bill and will work next on a $250 million appropriation bill to help recovery from the Minneapolis bridge collapse.

All of this came less than a day after a controversial House vote led Republicans to stomp off the floor. Republicans claimed voting boards showed them winning a motion 215-213 but Rep. Michael McNulty, D-New York, announced the vote had failed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi later said McNulty banged his gavel down early, after a few votes had been entered but not yet processed. She and other Democratic leaders insist the final tally was 212-216."

============================================

Gotta wonder how accurate (truthful) the "roll call" vote tally's were - especially given the fact that in the Senate, it barely made the required number of votes to pass.

But I digress. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:39:46 EDT
GercekSeytan :
said by GOLFnSUN :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by GOLFnSUN :

The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).
False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place.

WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers. How do you expect them to get FISA approval(even after the fact) for all those calls. THINK!!!

Easy. If you want to listen to foreigner to foreigner calls routed through the US, you apply to the FISA for blanket authority to listen calls yet to be placed that will be routed through the US.

I sure that folks didn't mean to imply that a warrant to listen to such a call should be obtained prior to the call being placed based on the evidence that eventually a call will be placed and routed concerning Op X. Why? Because if they did... Well, you get the idea.

Just being facetious. The argument is that calls should not be listened to unless there is a reason to believe that listening to a specific call will provide specific information between two already known individuals who will place a call in the future of which the time and date is also already known. Without that information, then the FISA would presumably have to grant some sort of blanket authorization which is a no-no. Well, maybe it isn't a no-no but rather what should be done since anything else... ;)
--
Yes, it is I, the resident crackpot and curmudgeon.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sun, 05 Aug 2007 06:13:10 EDT
GOLFnSUN : The link to who voted how:
»clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll836.xml

41 Democrats voted for the bill.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:27:55 EDT
fatness : Or beyond 6 months the lack of authorization will be ignored.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:19:25 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by spy1 :

They're voting on it on C_SPAN right now, people. You missed the 90 minutes of debate, I guess.

That's a shame - it beat the hell out of "reality" tv. Pete

The bill is passing. They already have enough votes to pass it even if every remaining vote is against it.

Edit: The bill just passed. But the authorization is only for 6 months. A permanent authorization will have to still be debated and passed to extend beyond 6 months.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 22:09:16 EDT
spy1 : They're voting on it on C_SPAN right now, people. You missed the 90 minutes of debate, I guess.

That's a shame - it beat the hell out of "reality" tv. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:59:04 EDT
AmeritecTech :
said by GOLFnSUN :

said by AmeritecTech :

said by GOLFnSUN :

The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).
False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place.

WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers. How do you expect them to get FISA approval(even after the fact) for all those calls. THINK!!!

You're sitting here lying about the circumstances. They can monitor as much as they need to, as long as they notify the FISA court. The fact that you acknowledge that this is a widespread program monitoring all sorts of calls acknowledges that Americans will get caught up in this spying. Revealing that you're not as stupid as you were acting really makes this particular comment of yours pretty insidious.

If they don't, the NSA can't spy on foreign conversations traversing the US.

--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:47:00 EDT
fatness :
said by GOLFnSUN :

WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers.
How comforting.
--
Sure, that'll work..

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:39:40 EDT
GOLFnSUN :
said by AmeritecTech :

said by GOLFnSUN :

The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).
False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place.

WRONG!!! The NSA listens in on millions of calls using computers. How do you expect them to get FISA approval(even after the fact) for all those calls. THINK!!!
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:35:15 EDT
AmeritecTech :
said by GOLFnSUN :

The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).
False. As always, notice can be made to the FISA Court after the tap takes place.

The administration got the Senate to quickly pass a law overriding that decision.
They passed a bill, which can become a law if it is passed by the House and signed by the President.

The House has to pass it too before they go on vacation until Sept. If they don't, the NSA can't spy on foreign conversations traversing the US.
Yes they can. They just need to send notice to the FISA Court and get the appropriate warrants in the permitted time after the surveillance takes place. The FISA Court is notoriously loose in granting these warrants.

Furthermore, the administration is asking the Congress to put their faith in Alberto Gonzales and the Director of National Intelligence at a time when Congress is very suspicious of Alberto Gonzales for his apparently deceptive and seemingly false testimony on the attorney scandal.
--
"Independent thinkers tend to ALWAYS have someone Not agreeing with them. It's The non-thinkers that ALWAYS come in legions."
-John Callari

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 21:03:44 EDT
GOLFnSUN : The FISA court ordered the US not to wiretap foreign conversations(foreigners on both ends) going thru US telecom switches w/o FISA approval. A really stupid decision because it would prevent the NSA from listening in on a large percentage of foreign conversations - which is their main mandate(spy on foreigners).

The administration got the Senate to quickly pass a law overriding that decision. The House has to pass it too before they go on vacation until Sept. If they don't, the NSA can't spy on foreign conversations traversing the US.

Even the Dems(except that idiot Pelosi) understand that the law must be passed.

»news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070804/pl_···Ej0E1vAI

The House is expected to take up the bill after Midnight.

P.S.>The bill only lasts 6 months until a permanent bill can be extensively debated.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:51:27 EDT
Thug21 : Since we are told that anyone could be a terrorist (I bet even a Swedish granny from MN! :D) what is it to stop all of us from being watched?

It's odd, this country has such open borders yet we have these kinds of bills in the name of "safety"

Something is terribly wrong and both parties are to blame.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 19:47:23 EDT
spy1 : La Luna and FiOS Dan - You're both living in a constant, never-ending state of denial.

»www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr···sey.html :

"The Chairman's New Legislation Would Not Modernize FISA -- It Would Turn Back the Clock to an Era of Warrantless Domestic Surveillance

Since last December, the President, the Attorney General, and other senior Administration officials have stated that the President's program of warrantless wiretapping is narrowly focused on international calls of suspected terrorists, that the program is used in circumstances where immediate monitoring is necessary for some short period of time, that domestic calls are not covered, and that in every case there is reasonable ground (or "probable cause") to believe that the target is associated with al Qaeda. The Administration has repeatedly assured lawmakers and the public that it is not engaged in a program of "domestic surveillance."

Chairman Specter has negotiated with the Administration a bill that would turn back the clock, not only by repealing FISA's exclusivity provision but also by authorizing a domestic program far broader -- and far more intrusive on the privacy of American citizens -- than the one the President and Attorney General have described.

Section 4 -- The Chairman's Bill Would Not Guarantee Judicial Review of Future Surveillance Programs Affecting Americans

The President has promised that he will submit his warrantless surveillance program for FISA court review if the Chairman's bill is enacted. With the highest respect for the Chairman, this is a small if not meaningless concession.

First, it is not clear that any legislation is necessary to get the President's program reviewed, since the program is already the subject of 30 pending cases. In the lead case, the district court last week turned aside a government effort to dismiss the case and is headed towards consideration of the merits.

Second, the Chairman's bill does not bind this President to submit for judicial review future programs nor does it require future Presidents to submit their programs for court review -- programs that may be substantially different from this President's program.

Third, the definitions used in the Chairman's bill might fail to give the FISA court jurisdiction to review the President's program:

# The President has said that his program only allows short term monitoring, but the Chairman's bill applies only to programs of long term monitoring.
# The Attorney General has said that in every case, the President's program targets a specific suspected member or affiliate of al Qaeda, but the Chairman's bill applies only when it is not possible to specify who is being targeted.

Even assuming that the Chairman's bill would allow the FISA court to review the President's program, in other key ways the bill undermines judicial review by forcing transfer to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) of any case initiated by a citizen challenging a communications intelligence activity of the government. In these cases, the government would have the benefit not only of all its normal procedural grounds for seeking dismissal of a case but also of the largely ex parte and in camera processes of the FISCR, making it virtually impossible for parties challenging the government program to overcome the evidentiary burdens they would face.

Finally, the Chairman's bill imposes no consequences on the Administration should the Court refuse to approve the President's program. Unlike FISA, which states that surveillance begun without court approval must cease if the surveillance is later found to be unjustified, the Chairman's bill does not say that the government must cease programmatic activity that the court refuses to approve.

The Price Is Too High -- Turning the Clock Back to an Era of Unchecked Presidential Power and Warrantless Domestic Surveillance

What did it take to get the President to agree to submit his program to judicial review? It took a radical rewrite of FISA: the authorization of a broad new category of domestic surveillance, under "programmatic" or "general search" warrants; the repeal of FISA's exclusivity provision, making the entire statute, including the Chairman's amendments, merely optional; the repeal FISA's wartime exception, granting the President a blank check in domestic surveillance; and, in Section 9, major new exceptions to the warrant requirement for communications to which Americans are a party.

Sections 5-6 --General Warrants

Sections 5 and 6 of the Chairman's bill would authorize (but not require) the Administration to apply for, and the FISA court to grant, "general warrants," which are prohibited by two key provisions of the Fourth Amendment: particularity and probable cause.

With a general warrant, the Chairman's bill would authorize a program of domestic surveillance far broader than President Bush's program. The Attorney General has said that the President's program targets only communications with particular suspected members or affiliates of al Qaeda, only on the basis of probable cause, and only if one leg of the call is with a party overseas. The latest version of the Chairman's bill would authorize seizing the contents of purely domestic calls of American citizens without probable cause, without specific suspicion, and where the call has nothing to do with al Qaeda and not even anything to do with terrorism.

The substitute is especially broad because it allows interception intended to collect the communications not only of suspected terrorists but also a person who "is reasonably believed to have communication with or be associated with" a terror group or suspected terrorist. This means that a journalist who interviews a suspected terrorist, and doesn't even know that the person is considered a terrorist, could be subject to surveillance under this bill. Also, there is no limit on "associated with." Is one "associated with" a suspected terrorist because one goes to the same mosque? Is one "associated with" a suspected terrorist because one has roots in the same village or neighborhood? These connections may be worth checking out, but they are not adequate basis for content interception, which has always been considered one of the most intrusive forms of government invasion of privacy.

Also, the substitute does not use the Constitutional concept of probable cause. It actually does not specify the standard the court must use in determining whether the government has made the requisite showings. Instead, the substitute states that the court must find that the program is "reasonably designed" to intercept the communications of suspected terrorists or persons "reasonably believed [by whom it doesn't say] to have communication with or be associated with" suspected terrorists.

Invoking the FISA court's approval is purely optional under the substitute. Unlike the original version of the Chairman's bill, the substitute does not require the Administration to submit the President's warrantless surveillance program or any future program for judicial review.

The Chairman's bill, unlike FISA, requires either that a "significant purpose" of the program be the collection of foreign intelligence or that its purpose be to "protect against international terrorism," which means that the program can be used when its sole purpose is the collection of criminal evidence

While initial court approval of a program would be for up to 90 days, the court could renew the program for any length of time it deems reasonable.

Section 8 -- The Repeal of FISA's Exclusivity Provision Is Significant

Section 9 of the Chairman's bill would repeal the exclusivity provisions of FISA and allow the President to choose, at his discretion, between using FISA and pursuing some other undefined and constitutionally questionable method to carry out secret surveillance of Americans. This provision would turn back the clock 30 years ago, inviting a return to the era of COINTELPRO and the intelligence-related abuses that created confusion and drove down morale inside the intelligence agencies.

Repeal of exclusivity is not meaningless, for the whole purpose of the exclusivity clause is to constrain any "inherent power" the President has to carry out electronic surveillance in the absence of Congressional action. Indeed, in 1978, this very Committee stated in its Report on FISA that, "even if the President has 'inherent' constitutional power to authorize warrantless surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, Congress has the power to regulate the exercise of this authority by legislating a reasonable warrant procedure governing foreign intelligence surveillance."

In its recent opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court majority noted, "Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers." Justice Kennedy, in his concurrence, explained why it is both constitutional and desirable for the Congress and the President to work together to devise a consensus set of rules for the exercise of national security powers and why the President is bound by those rules enacted by Congress:

This is not a case, then, where the Executive can assert some unilateral authority to fill a void left by congressional inaction. It is a case where Congress, in the proper exercise of its powers as an independent branch of government, and as part of a long tradition of legislative involvement in matters of military justice, has considered the subject of military tribunals and set limits on the President's authority. Where a statute provides the conditions for the exercise of governmental power, its requirements are the result of a deliberative and reflective process engaging both of the political branches. Respect for laws derived from the customary operation of the Executive and Legislative Branches gives some assurance of stability in time of crisis. The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the moment. . . .

There is no doubt about it: repeal of exclusivity would restore to their full, albeit undefined scope, the President's inherent powers to conduct surveillance, turning back the clock to the era of uncertainty and abuse.

Section 9 -- Total Information Awareness on Steroids?

To cinch the deal with the White House, the Chairman has added to his bill a new Section 9, which would vastly expand the scope of warrantless surveillance that never has to be submitted to a court and create a vast database of phone calls and other information reminiscent of the Total Information Awareness program, which the Administration could data mine at will, outside any judicial or congressional oversight.

Probably 30% of the meaning of FISA is buried in its definitions, especially its definition of "electronic surveillance" and "minimization procedures." Sugar-coated as "conforming amendments," the changes made by Section 9 to these two definitions, and the changes to Section 102 of FISA, would authorize large-scale warrantless surveillance of American citizens and the indefinite retention of citizens' communications for future datamining.

The "cut and bite" amendments of Section 9 are very hard to parse, but so far, we have identified the following remarkable provisions:

# The bill makes major changes to FISA's definition of electronic surveillance. Under FISA, if the collection of information fits within the definition of "electronic surveillance," it requires a court order or must fall under one of FISA's exceptions. If the collection of information is outside the definition of electronic surveillance, then it is not covered by the Act, and can be carried on without a warrant. Therefore, narrowing the definition of electronic surveillance places more activity outside the oversight of the Act. Section 9 makes major changes to the definition of electronic surveillance, permitting the NSA's vacuum cleaners to be turned on any international calls involving US citizens.

# In what may be the most far-reaching provision, Section 9 amends section 102 of FISA (50 USC 1802) to allow the "Attorney General" to authorize warrantless surveillance if it is "solely directed at the acquisition of the communications of a foreign power or agent of a foreign power." Under this amendment, so long as the surveillance is "directed at" a foreign power or non-US person suspected of being an agent of a foreign power, the government can intercept the purely domestic calls of US citizens without court order.

# Under the bill, if he chooses, the Attorney General can designate anyone -- his secretary, the janitor, an official of the department of Defense, a local police officer, as "Attorney General", thereby authorized to approve warrantless surveillance under section 102, to issue certifications to communications companies and others, and to carry out all the other duties assigned to the Attorney General under the Act.

# The bill amends the definition of a non-US person agent of a foreign power to include someone who "possesses or is expected to transmit or receiving foreign intelligence while in the" US."

You are both disgustingly complacent and either incredibly naive or stooges for totalitarian government as the status-quo in the United States.

Have a great evening. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:51:21 EDT
FiOS Dan :
said by spy1 :

Contrary to the Administration's characterizations, its "FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about updating the law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign communications. Instead, it could radically expand the government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant.
Big time FUD. I just read the entire proposal and it does no such thing. In fact, there are several references to "non-U.S. person" and "located outside the United States". For example (underlining mine):

SEC. 405. CLARIFICATION ON THE DEFINITION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801) is hereby amended by adding a new section 112 as follows:
"Section 112. Clarifications on the Definition of Electronic Surveillance. (1) Whenever a member of the Intelligence Community, as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a), as amended, intentionally acquires the communications of a non-U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States and the primary purpose of such acquisition to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be located in the United States, such activities shall be considered "electronic surveillance" as defined in section 101(f) (1)."
--
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 11:05:39 EDT
La Luna :
said by GILXA1226 :

Wasn't one of the compromises made with this bill that it dies in 6 months? That it was basically a stop gap so Congress could take their summer vacation? Or when I read that somewhere was the article mistaken?

I don't know what's wrong with the *guberment*, wanting to bring our security methods up to date and out of the 1970's. Why would we possible want to listen into terrorist conversations in real time or track them on their websites? This must be just another sneaky, underhanded way to listen to what grandma is saying on the phone. Oh, wait....maybe it's because we want to keep up with the methods the enemy is using? :uhh:

Yes, six months is correct. That's the trade off so Congress would stop whining and actually do something productive.
--
~~"As long as America is an infidel enemy, terrorizing it is a duty." Sayed Imam Abdul-Aziz el-Sheriff~~

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 06:22:20 EDT
GILXA1226 : Wasn't one of the compromises made with this bill that it dies in 6 months? That it was basically a stop gap so Congress could take their summer vacation? Or when I read that somewhere was the article mistaken?
--
We don't give a d@mn for the whole state of Michigan... we're from OHIO! O!H! ... I!O!

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 04:01:43 EDT
OZO : With this kind of attitude what Osama can't do to us - we'll do it to yourself. It's a matter of the time :(
--
Keep it simple, it'll become complex by itself...

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Sat, 04 Aug 2007 03:29:17 EDT
hpguru : We should be happy because now terrorists cannot kill us. Take that Osama!! :)

Re: Dark day for Americans...

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 23:42:32 EDT
SUMware :
said by ross :

The House voted to pass the FISA Modernization bill with little alteration from the White House bill submitted.

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_···eillance

...and, apparently, nobody gives a shit.
From the linked article:
quote:
By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted. It requires:

_Initial approval by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The administration relented to Democrats leery of Gonzales by adding McConnell to the oversight.

_FISA Court review within 120 days. The final Democratic plan had called for court review to begin immediately and conclude within a month of the surveillance starting

_The law to expire in six months to give Congress time to craft a more comprehensive plan. The White House initially wanted the bill to be permanent.

Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.

"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy — not the executive branch."

Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.

"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control — it's mind-boggling."

It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days of rejecting White House offers.
And how long ago was Orwell's book published?
And how many of us supposedly read it?

Dark day for Americans...

Fri, 03 Aug 2007 22:09:14 EDT
ross : The Senate voted to pass the FISA Modernization bill with little alteration from the White House bill submitted.

»news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070804/ap_···eillance

...and, apparently, nobody gives a shit.

edit: it was the Senate, not the House. The House gets its arm twisted off today.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:34:03 EDT
ross :
said by spy1 :

* Action Alert: Call Congress Now - NSA Spying Bill Headed
for Vote This Week!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that Congress may take
action this week on a bill that could rubberstamp the NSA's
spying program. The Bush Administration is trying to sell
its latest proposal as a serious compromise, but don't be
fooled -- it represents an unprecedented power grab that
endangers the checks and balances that define our
democracy. Please call your representatives now before it's
too late:
»action.eff.org/fisa

Contrary to the Administration's characterizations, its
"FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about updating the
law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign
communications. Instead, it could radically expand the
government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant.

On its own terms, this bill is awful, and it's highly
irresponsible for Congress to even consider it before
uncovering the truth about the still-shadowy spying
program. In recent weeks, Congress has made strides towards
more vigorous oversight and authorized subpoenas for key
information, but the proposed bill would short-circuit such
scrutiny.

Tell your representatives to stand strong against the
Administration and stop the abuse of surveillance powers:
»action.eff.org/fisa

"Bush Urges Congress to Update Terrorism Surveillance
Program," (Bloomberg, July 28):
»www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···refer=us

To learn about EFF's case against AT&T for its role in the
spying program:
»www.eff.org/legal/cases/att

For this post and related links:
»www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005382.php

Thanks for the heads-up! Called Feinstein's office to urge her to vote down any expansion or extension of the F.I.S.A. court authority, or the CYA provisions of this proposed legislation. I'm sure it fell on deaf ears, but I feel better.

Sorry your post wasn't turned into a front page item as it should have been.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:05:59 EDT
spy1 : This is their own explanation of Section 408:

"Sec. 408. Liability Defense.
Telecommunications providers who are alleged to have assisted the government with intelligence activities after September 11th have faced numerous lawsuits as a result of their alleged activities in support of the government’s efforts to prevent another terrorist attack. Companies that cooperate with the Government in the war on terror deserve our appreciation and protection – not litigation. This provision would protect providers from liability based upon allegations that they assisted the government in connection with alleged classified communications intelligence activities intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. Section 408 also provides for the removal of any such actions from state to federal court."

This totally defeats ALL previous, current and FUTURE lawsuits against AT&T and similar telcos who have been handing over your phone calls and Internet activities to the government illegally - INSTANTLY.

Hope you're down wid dat. Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:41:11 EDT
spy1 : (The following are qoutes from the UN-classified version of the "modernization" act - there is also a CLASSIFIED version, which of course, we'll never get to see or know the details of...) -
»www.usdoj.gov/nsd/pdf/ODNIintell···3-07.pdf

(First brief mention of "cover my ass")

‘‘(h) LIABILITY.—No cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section."

(MAIN ***RETROACTIVE*** "Cover my ass"):

SEC. 408. LIABILITY DEFENSE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other law, and in addition to the immunities, privileges, and defenses provided by any other source of law, no action shall lie or be maintained in any court, and no penalty, sanction, or other form of remedy or relief shall be imposed by any court or any other body, against any person for the alleged provision to an element of the intelligence community of any information (including records or other information pertaining to a customer), facilities, or any other form of assistance, during the period of time beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date that is the effective date of this Act, in connection with any alleged classified communications intelligence activity that the Attorney General or a designee of the Attorney General certifies, in a manner consistent with the protection of State secrets, is, was, would be, or would have been intended to protect the United States from a terrorist attack. This section shall apply to all actions, claims, or proceedings pending on or after the effective date of this Act.

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:32:09 EDT
spy1 : »www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/31/···dex.html

"Spy chief: Anti-terrorist programs MORE EXTENSIVE THAN ACKNOWLEDGED

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration's anti-terrorist surveillance efforts are more extensive than top officials have acknowledged, going beyond the controversial no-warrant eavesdropping program, the U.S. intelligence chief said Tuesday."

....

"In a letter defending the embattled attorney general, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell states that eavesdropping is JUST ONE of the programs President Bush authorized after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.

"This is the only aspect of the NSA activities that can be discussed publicly because it is the only aspect of those various activities whose existence has been fully acknowledged," McConnell wrote."

============================================

What's it gonna take, people, before you finally realize that the government wants to - quite literally - stick a microphone and a videocam up your ass and RECORD YOUR WHOLE LIFE so that you can wind up being a "file" in some super-secret government agency?

FIGHT IT! They're behind on "1984" - but they're doing their level-best to catch up and SURPASS that! Pete

Re: FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:56:41 EDT
spy1 : »www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291704,00.html

"Democrats Optimistic on Terror Surveillance Compromise

WASHINGTON — Democratic congressional leaders said Wednesday they want to expand the government's surveillance authority over suspected terrorists and get it done before going on recess at week's end. But they remain in a stalemate with President Bush over spending, with no signs of progress.

The administration is pushing to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to allow surveillance without a warrant of terror suspects who are overseas. The proposal, offered late last week by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, is designed to fix what the White House says is a glaring problem: the missing of significant foreign intelligence that could protect the country against terrorist attacks.

"To the extent that more flexibility is needed, as Director McConnell has indicated, we are prepared to make those accommodations under the law," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after congressional leaders met with Bush at the White House Wednesday. "We hope to do that this week."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he, too, thought the matter would be worked out. But he would not predict timing, as Pelosi did.

"In the Senate, I don't promise any legislation," Reid said. He said the hang-up is "what the involvement of the attorney general will be."

Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate have openly questioned the truthfulness of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, whom they also accuse of helping Bush exploit executive power at the expense of civil liberties and possibly beyond the law on an array of matters.

The Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he saw bipartisan willingness to get the legislation done before the Congress goes into recess.

The White House responded with measured optimism.

"I think they understand and appreciate the importance," Bush spokesman Tony Snow said of Democratic leaders. "We will see."

The administration believes the FISA court under existing law must approve certain spying because many conversations and contacts taking place overseas are routed through U.S.-based communication carriers, satellites or Internet providers.

Its latest proposal is narrower than what the administration sought in April: a slew of changes to the 1978 FISA law.

That law created a court which meets in secret to review applications from the FBI, the NSA and other agencies to investigate suspected spies, terrorists or other national security threats. Shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without requiring a warrant beforehand from the FISA court — on calls between people in the U.S. and others overseas when terrorism is suspected.

After the program became public and was challenged in court, Bush earlier this year put it under FISA court supervision."

=========================================

People - this FISA "modernization" act is a sham that absolutely MUST be stopped. It is simply a massive increase in the governments' ability to ILLEGALLY spy on legitmate, legal citizens and will give the government retroactive cover and blessing for all the spying already done.

PLEASE CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORS (BOTH OF THEM!) - TODAY!

»action.aclu.org/site/R?i=wLTy2l1···uswh0cAg..

Pete

FISA 'modernization" bill - head's up!

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:39:02 EDT
spy1 : * Action Alert: Call Congress Now - NSA Spying Bill Headed
for Vote This Week!

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested that Congress may take
action this week on a bill that could rubberstamp the NSA's
spying program. The Bush Administration is trying to sell
its latest proposal as a serious compromise, but don't be
fooled -- it represents an unprecedented power grab that
endangers the checks and balances that define our
democracy. Please call your representatives now before it's
too late:
»action.eff.org/fisa

Contrary to the Administration's characterizations, its
"FISA Modernization" bill is not simply about updating the
law and allowing surveillance of foreign-to-foreign
communications. Instead, it could radically expand the
government's ability to spy on Americans without a warrant.

On its own terms, this bill is awful, and it's highly
irresponsible for Congress to even consider it before
uncovering the truth about the still-shadowy spying
program. In recent weeks, Congress has made strides towards
more vigorous oversight and authorized subpoenas for key
information, but the proposed bill would short-circuit such
scrutiny.

Tell your representatives to stand strong against the
Administration and stop the abuse of surveillance powers:
»action.eff.org/fisa

"Bush Urges Congress to Update Terrorism Surveillance
Program," (Bloomberg, July 28):
»www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···refer=us

To learn about EFF's case against AT&T for its role in the
spying program:
»www.eff.org/legal/cases/att

For this post and related links:
»www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005382.php